Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822372
label
Hispanic Convening - Education and HEAP [Hispanic Education Action Plan]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822372
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Hispanic Convening - Education and HEAP [Hispanic Education Action Plan]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822372
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-011-001-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7731f92e8f7d5a7e
ocrText
- advocacy at
First Lady Hilary Clinton's White House Convocation on Hispanic
Children and Youth
August 2, 1999
Washington, DC
Hispanic Educational Attainment
Distinguished First Lady
here we
Honored Guests
anetoday
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this national dialogue today on Hispanic
youth.
In responding to First Lady Clinton's request, I will present to you a picture of Hispanic
educational attainment. I would like you to put yourself in that picture.
This year, 1999, a little more than 700,000 Hispanic children are being born. See yourself
as one of those children. Make yourself that child, that Hispanic American child.
By this date in the year 2015, you are turning 16 years old. An adolescent, a teenager,
filled with all the hopes and dreams that a teenager wants. Imagine you are still in school,
likely between the 9th and 11th grades.
By 2015, you are one of about 10.5 million Hispanic American children who are your age
or younger, and you know there are many more to come. Your peer cohort and the cohorts
below you are accounting for about half of all the Hispanic American growth in the U.S.
since 1995. In that 20 year period, the Hispanic American population has grown about 20
million - ten million between 1995 and 2005 and another 10 million between 2005 and
2015.
If current patterns and trends of educational attainment for Hispanic youth do not change or
change very little, by 2015 you are facing the following challenges:
Challenges
Many of you (as Dr. Cordero-Guzman reminds us), are poor. In fact, almost half of you are
growing up with poor families in poor neighborhoods. You are wondering how
possible is it that you will ever escape poverty? You get tired, angry and frustrated that
you always have to fight the odds.
Remarks prepared by Dr. Carlos Rodríguez
The American Institutes for Research
202+944-5343
[email protected]
Because you are poor, you go to resource poor schools. Your schools, even though it is
2015, don't have what other schools have. You have few technological resources at
home or in school, and fewer teachers who actually know how to teach you to use
them. You have never had enough textbooks to go around. In fact, you do not have
enough credentialed teachers to go around. You have had a few teachers who you
know really care about you and your future, but not all.
Poor or not, more than half of you has grown up knowing and speaking Spanish. It is
part of your cultural experience with your family and joins you with the majority of
the population of the Americas. Yet, most of you have learned that your teachers and
your schools do not expect much of you academically, and do not expect you to attain
much educationally. You also have learned that if you are bilingual and speak
Spanish, you are not expected to succeed academically, if at all. You know that this is
what happened to your parents.
You are beginning to experience that one in every four of your friends are dropping out of
school or getting ready to. You know that many of these are getting in trouble with the
criminal justice system and some are finding low-end jobs in food services, health care,
hospitality and maintenance work. Many of your friends who are girls and dropping
out are pregnant. You know you have a one in five chance of getting AIDS whether
you are a boy or a girl, but not enough people talk to you about it. You realize that
there is about a 1 in 6 chance that you will finish high school or get a GED by the time
you are twenty-five. You fight a constant battle to stay engaged with your own
learning.
You know that you have stayed in school so far, your grades are good, but you will not be
able to go to the four-year college because you do not have the right credits, especially
in mathematics and science courses. Even if you do have the credits, many of you will
have counselors tell you to go to community college first. You are wondering if
college can really be a hope for you.
Come back to 1999.
Of all Hispanics over the age of 18 in the U.S. (about 18 million), I would like to
emphasize these five statistics on educational attainment:
20 percent (3.6 million) of us have less than 7 years of elementary schooling,
Only 27 percent (4.8 million) have graduated from high school,
Only 6 percent (1.06 million) have earned a Bachelor's degree, and
Only about 1 percent or less of us has earned master's, professional or doctoral degrees.
On average, among all the children under 18 and still enrolled in the K-12 system, we
continue to lag about two years or more behind mainstream white students in reading,
Remarks prepared by Dr. Carlos Rodríguez
The American Institutes for Research
202+944-5343
[email protected]
mathematics, and science - due not to innate, intrinsic factors, but rather extrinsic,
contextual and political factors.
Let me remind you, these rates are current trends. For Hispanic American youth, each of
these rates are and will remain less than the attainment rates for Americans of White,
African, and Asian origin unless concerted national, state and local efforts reverse deeply
rooted historical trends. This trends are occurring even as the Hispanic population
becomes the majority minority population within 10 years, and within 50 years, perhaps
the largest of any of the four major American ethnic or racial groups.
While certain academic gains can be measured with some groups of Hispanic students,
there remains an enormous gap between Hispanic students and other students on specific
measures of educational attainment. Over the last few decades, has there been progress?
Yes, but it insufficient when considered in relationship to our proportionate growth and
presence in K-12 schools, especially.
Unequal educational outcomes weaken our national fabric by under-utilizing all of its
human and intellectual capital. Educational attainment is strongly related to economic and
democratic prosperity. Due to the unabated and increasing high rates of poverty,
unparalleled and rapid demographic expansion, linked to an educational enterprise that
compromises and under-serves its fastest growing client, nothing short of excellence in
equity and outcomes for Hispanic American youth can be acceptable to any of us.
While we know there are many challenges to Hispanic educational attainment, I would like
you to take three primary challenges with you from this convocation:
One, the "against all odds" mentality that poor Hispanic children live with every day
of their lives is robbing them of the interest and motivation necessary for
educational success.
Two, the challenge of building and maintaining engagement with learning is central
to educational growth. Engagement that results in Hispanic students wanting to
learn more, engagement that results in Hispanic students enjoying learning
enough to not want to stop. Engagement that results in schools and teachers
knowing how to build on the unique gifts of linguistic and cultural diversity.
Three, accepting the challenge that post-secondary attainment of Hispanics is
absolutely essential to ensure the emergence of Hispanic leadership in civic and
political life, in business and health, in education, and in all aspects of our
American culture for the 21st century.
Opportunities for Policy and Practice
There are specific opportunities for policy and practice that address the three challenges I
Remarks prepared by Dr. Carlos Rodríguez
The American Institutes for Research
202+944-5343
[email protected]
have posed to you.
1. It is way past the time to acknowledge that bilingualism is not a threat, but an asset to this
nation. The natural, national resource of a Spanish speaking bilingual population
should be capitalized on for the expansion of democracy and markets throughout the
hemispheres, as well as for promoting educational success. Known models of
successful bilingual education development programs need wide dissemination and
support. It is shortsighted to think we are preparing American children for living,
working, competing and enjoying the new century without facility in at least one
language in addition to English.
1. Hispanic students get the message early on that their academic success is not an expected
norm but rather, an exception. Hispanic students also are generally tracked into non-
college preparatory course sequences. Today, Hispanic students are receiving, on
average, more vocational course credits than academic credits, and are less likely to
take algebra, geometry and science courses -- the minimum requirements for college
acceptance. (Only 6 states require Algebra 1 for high school graduation and none
require Geometry.)
1. Several educational reform efforts based on systemic and partnership approaches are
demonstrating success with Hispanic and other minority students. These need support,
expansion, and dissemination.
1. Since the majority of Hispanic students who complete high school or its equivalent become
engaged with higher education only at the community college level, community
colleges are challenged to:
offer job training and re-training,
develop literacy among critical masses of U.S. and immigrant Hispanics,
build Hispanic capacity in technology, and
ensure successful transitions to four-year institutions.
1. Graduating unprecedented numbers of Hispanic students from colleges and universities
must become a local and national priority. How to do so is well established in the wide
range of research on student persistence and retention, but funding, policy and practice
remain at the margins of state and institutional priorities. We know how to keep
students in college. Healthy democracies and markets depend on educational
prosperity. The social and individual rates of return of a higher education translate to
high rates of community and public service, as well as benefiting economic progress.
Hispanics are a major player in the current and future democratic and economic
prosperity of this nation.
6. Our greatest opportunity is to solidify and operationalize the political and cultural will to
Remarks prepared by Dr. Carlos Rodríguez
The American Institutes for Research
202+944-5343
[email protected]
dramatically improve Hispanic educational attainment, in all educational sectors,
simultaneously.
Remarks prepared by Dr. Carlos Rodríguez
The American Institutes for Research
202+944-5343
[email protected]
Suggestions for the First Lady's Comments:
1. We must recognize that we are already paying the price for under-investing in the
education of our Hispanic and other minority young people.
1. A national discourse on Hispanic educational attainment must be re-ignited. It must be
characterized by a constant and articulate voice expressing the consensus of our highest
and most influential political, business, and educational leaders.
1. To aggressively invest cultural, political and financial resources in the educational success
of Hispanics without delay is the right idea at the right time for the right reasons.
1. Generations of Hispanics have been lost due to the cultural and political inertia to move
beyond the status quo of expecting and accepting low and mediocre rates of
educational attainment among Hispanic youth. We cannot afford to loose any more,
not one child.
Live births to Hispanic women are averaging increasingly greater than about 700,000 per
year since the early 1990s.
This growth does not include the numbers added by undocumented immigrants. Based on
projected birthrates of the US Census Bureau Projections that exclude undocumented
immigrants, between 1995 and 2005 the American Hispanic population increases by just
under 10 million, and between 2005 and 2015 it increases again by just over 10 million.
Taken from the 1997 educational attainment statistics calculated by the National Center for
Educational Statistics.
259,000 or 1.4 percent have a Masters degree, 73,000 or .40 percent hold a professional
degree, and 54,000 or .29 percent have earned a doctoral degree. There are entire fields in
which Hispanics have never obtained a doctoral degree.
Remarks prepared by Dr. Carlos Rodríguez
The American Institutes for Research
202+944-5343
[email protected]
WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR HISPANIC AMERICANS
Recognizing the importance of increasing the level of educational attainment for Hispanic Americans,
President Clinton established the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans in 1994 through Executive Order 12900. The White House Initiative is guided by a Commission
appointed by President Clinton in 1994 comprised of national educational leaders from all segments of the
educational pipeline. Over the last five years, the White House Initiative has had many activities and
accomplishments that reflect the Administration's strong commitment to improving the educational
opportunities of the Latino community.
In 1995, a federal inventory of federal programs and activities addressing the educational needs of Latinos
was coordinated. Public hearings were held throughout the nation and Puerto Rico to both reach out to the
Latino community and assess the condition of Hispanics in education.
In 1996, the Commission submitted to the President their report, Our Nation on the Fault Line: Hispanic
American Education. This comprehensive report lays out issues in Latino educational attainment from
pre-K through graduate and professional education. Equally important, the report includes an action plan
for federal, state and local levels. In response to the recommendations within this report, Vice-President
Gore announced the development of the Administration's Hispanic Education Action Plan in February
1998. The Plan is the result of months of consultation with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, education
and Latino organizations, the National Economic Council, the Department of Education, and the White
House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. The initial plan provides over $520
million in new educational investments for programs that can make a difference in the quality of education
for hundreds of thousands of bright, capable, Latino students. The Plan is intended to help Latino
youngsters master the basics of reading and math; help them learn English, stay in school, and prepare for
college. Ultimately, the Plan is intended to help Latinos succeed in college -- so they can graduate and seize
all the promise of their future. To follow-up on this commitment, the Clinton Administration has now
requested an additional $480 million for fiscal year 2000.
Beyond this work, the White House Initiative has been committed to continuing its outreach to the Latino
community to more directly engage the Latino community in the pursuit of a quality education. In addition
to participating and presenting in conferences, and seminars throughout the nation, the White House
Initiative has created a pilot national conference series entitled Excelencia en Educación: The Role of
Parents in the Education of Their Children. This conference seeks to convene parents, schools,
community-based organizations, federal agencies and national organizations with the same purpose:
educational excellence for Latino students. The conference series began in San Antonio, Texas and has
been hosted at Los Angeles, California, and New York City, New York. By the fall of 1999, the
conference will also be hosted at Chicago, Illinois, and Miami, Florida.
The White House Initiative has also focussed its efforts on educating policymakers about the condition of
Latinos in education through a series of policy seminars addressing a variety of educational issues, such as
Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and the Benefits of a Multilingual Workforce (both held in 1998) and
a four-part series on educational assessment and standards (held in 1999).
The federal government plays a vital role in leading the example for the nation to follow in education. For
that reason, the White House Initiative was charged with working with each federal agency to assess and
improve the services and programs they provide that can improve the educational opportunities of Latinos
throughout the nation. The White House Initiative established an Inter-Departmental Council on
Educational Improvement for Hispanic Americans in 1998. Each federal agency is represented on this
Council and works with the White House Initiative to document and augment the services and programs
that serve Latinos in education and in federal employment.
As the White House Initiative continues its work into the year 2000, we will continue to expand our efforts
to work with policymakers, federal agencies, community-based organizations, and the Latino community
throughout the nation to ensure Latinos have access to educational opportunities and a quality education.
400 Maryland Ave., SW, FOB-6, Room 5E110, Washington, DC 20202-3601
WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR HISPANIC AMERICANS
It is essential to understand that each step in the education system is a building block. Research shows that children
succeed when schools recognize and support parents as the child's primary teacher; when parents are welcomed and
involved in all aspects of school life These conditions routinely exist in middle-class, white schools Such routine
conditions often do not exist in low-income and Latino schools.
Our Nation on the Fault Line: Hispanic American Education
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
The Creation of Excelencia en Educación
Excelencia en Educación: The Role of Parents in the Education of Their Children, is a series of
conferences sponsored by the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans.
The decision to focus on the role of parents was based on the conviction that the heart of the Latino
community is the family. Latino parents know that a quality education provides their children with the
skills to achieve the best this country has to offer. America needs the talents of all its citizens to face the
challenges of the 21st century. As the fastest growing community in the country, Latinos still have lower
educational attainment rates than other groups--a cause for great national concern.
First, a little more background: The White House Initiative supports a Commission appointed by
President Clinton in 1994 comprised of national educational leaders from all segments of the educational
pipeline. In 1996, the Commission submitted to the President their report, Our Nation on the Fault
Line: Hispanic American Education. This comprehensive report lays out issues in Latino educational
attainment from pre-K through graduate and professional education. Equally important, the report
includes an action plan for federal, state and local levels.
The Clinton Administration used the report as they developed their Hispanic Education Action Plan
announced by Vice-President Gore in February 1998. The President's plan provides over $520 million in
new educational investments for programs that can make a difference in the quality of education for
hundreds of thousands of bright, capable, students. Responding to the Administration's
achievement, the White House Initiative developed a strategy to more directly engage the Latino
community in the pursuit of a quality education. Thus, the stage was set for the Excelencia conference
series.
The academic emphasis of the conference is mathematics, reading and college readiness. The focus is on
powerful strategies for parents to more fully engage in supporting their children's education. The
conference covers how schools, teachers, civic leaders, community-based organizations, business and
federal agencies can reach out to parents and more fully engage them in their children's education. By
sharing "promising practices" and educational information, conference participants should have even
better ideas for brightening the future of young Hispanics and prepared to serve as catalysts for enhancing
parental involvement throughout the nation.
The first Excelencia en Educación was launched in October 1998 with AVANCE in San Antonio, Texas.
For the inaugural conference, the White House Initiative brought together five federal agencies--
Education, Health and Human Services, Labor, Interior, and the Small Business Administration-as well
as over four hundred parents, educators, Latino advocacy organizations and leaders from the private
sector. At each conference, members of the Clinton/Gore Administration and members of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus have spoken. Small Business Administrator Aida Alvarez and
Representative Ruben Hinojosa and Representative Ciro Rodriguez participated. Univision, the largest
Spanish-speaking television network, also plays a significant role in the conference series. In San
Antonio, Univision president Henry Cisneros announced their plan to develop a multi-year education
campaign.
In Los Angeles, in March 1999, the White House Initiative restaged the Excelencia en Educación
conference in collaboration with the following five organizations: the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund MALDEF), the Annenberg project in Los Angeles (LAMMP), University of
California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and PUENTE
Learning Center. These organizations committed to build on the conference with community activities
focused on Latino parent engagement. Over 800 participants, primarily parents of students enrolled in
schools in East Los Angeles, heard from speakers including California Governor Gray Davis, Univision
President Henry Cisneros, current chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) Lucille Roybal-
Allard, and the former chair of the CHC Xavier Becerra.
On June 4-5, 1999, the conference was restaged in New York City at CUNY-City College. Partnering
with the White House Initiative were the Hispanic Federation, Community Association of Progressive
Dominicans (ACDP), United Way of New York City, New York Board of Education, CUNY-City
College, and ASPIRA of New Jersey. Secretary of Education Richard Riley opened the conference and
Congress member Robert Menendez sent a message on behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Janet Murgia, Associate Director for Legislative Affairs spoke to the participants about the
Administration's activities and commitment and both Vice President Gore and First Lady Hillary Clinton
provided messages on behalf of the Administration. Univision continued its support for the conference
by having two of its personalities, Rafael Pineda of their local station, and Giselle Blondet of Despierta
America, participate in the program. Our other corporate allies, State Farm and AT&T, were also in
attendance and mentioned their commitment to addressing the strengths and needs of the Latino
community.
The White House Initiative is already working with community leaders in Chicago and Miami to stage
similar conferences in the Fall of 1999. These conferences are part of the larger national effort to support
Latino parents as they pursue excelencia en educación for their children. For more information, please
call the White House Initiative at 202-401-1411.
REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE
LAEF 50TH ANNIVERSARY DINNER
Saturday, January 23, 1999
I am delighted to be here tonight to help celebrate 50 glorious years of the Latin
American Educational Foundation.
Tonight, as we see the faces of these bright young Latino men and women, we also see
faces of our common future. These are the young men and women who will be driving the
economy, making the decisions, and leading America through the 21st Century. The next Sol
Trujillo or Cindy Valasquez or Frederico Pena or Maria Echaveste may be sitting in this
audience tonight. We don't know for sure who it will be -- but we do know that the
contributions they make, the jobs they hold, and the lives they lead will depend in large part on
the education they can receive today.
That has always been the great insight -- not only of the Latin American Educational
Foundation -- but of the entire Latino community. That's why, 50 years ago, when people like
Bernie Valdez went door to door asking friends and neighbors to give a dime, or a dollar, or five
dollars to help kids they would never meet and families they would never know -- they gave,
because they knew that education was the foundation of the American Dream.
But they also knew that when you help a child go to school, you are giving them much
more than a scholarship -- you are giving them the confidence of knowing that you believe in
their hopes and you believe their future. In the end, making our children believe that their
dreams can come true is the greatest gift that this foundation gives.
As a parent, I know that many of you look at your own families and join me in saying
that: en mi familia, la educacion es los mas importante. But you also understand better than
anyone that: y en la familia Americana, educacion tiene que ser lo mas importante. That is a
belief that President Clinton and I passionately share. I want to speak for a few moments tonight
about what we are doing to open the doors of opportunity -- so that every single American child
is able to share in the promise of the American Dream.
As the President said in his State of the Union Address four nights ago: the state of our
union is strong. We have the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history, with nearly
18 million new jobs -- more than 428,000 in Colorado alone. Wages are rising at twice the rate
of inflation -- including the largest two-year increase in Hispanic income ever. We have the
highest homeownership rate in history, the lowest welfare rolls in 30 years, the lowest Hispanic
and African-American poverty on record, the lowest unemployment rate since 1957 -- and for the
second year in a row, the Denver Broncos are going to the Super Bowl!
Well, maybe we can't take credit for everything
Incidentally, there is one man at the heart of all the progress we see in America today --
nuestro amigo y campeon -- President Bill Clinton. His leadership has been good for our nation.
I am also proud to say that under the Clinton-Gore Administration, we have named more
Latino Americans to Cabinet seats, judgeships, and high posts than any time in history. I believe
we are one of the most successful administrations in history, not in spite of our diversity -- but
because of it.
That diversity is reflected more and more in our society. The fabric of America is
changing and growing stronger every week. The contributions of Hispanic Americans -- who
have enriched and ennobled the American family for more than 200 years -- are growing stronger
every day. We now have more Latino business owners, elected officials, corporate leaders,
CEO's, and homeowners than at any time in our nation's history.
Education has been the key to that success. And over the past six years, with tax credits
and more affordable student loans, with more work-study grants and more Pell grants, with
education IRA's and the new HOPE Scholarship tax cut that more than five million Americans
will receive this year -- we have finally opened the doors of college to all Americans.
We still have a long way to go. We cannot be satisfied as a nation with a Hispanic
drop-out rate that still hovers near 20 percent. As Henry Cisneros reminded us when he spoke to
this dinner last year, Latinos have as much of a stake in education as anyone else. Nearly half of
all Latinos in America today are under the age of 24 -- and 40 percent are under the age of
twenty. As Secretary Cisneros said, it would be a tragedy, at the very moment that more and
more Latinos are becoming leaders, if this nation lost its historic commitment to public
education.
And that's especially true now.
That's why last year, right here in Denver, I called on Congress to pass our proposal to
help communities build and modernize schools -- and to start hiring 100,000 new teachers to
reduce class size to 18 in the early grades. We fought for and won a down payment on our plan
to begin hiring the new teachers -- but Congress failed to enact our plan to help rebuild our
schools.
As the President said four days ago: now is the time for Congress to finish the job.
As part of the balanced budget we are submitted this year, we are renewing our proposal
to rebuild and modernize more than 5,000 public schools -- and we are not going to rest until it
passes.
That's just the beginning. The President has proposed a bold agenda to raise standards in
our children's schools. In his State of the Union Address, he challenged our schools to end
social promotion -- and give our students the extra help our children need to succeed, because no
child should pass from grade to grade without mastering the material they need to know. But we
must lift up our children, not punish them. That's why we have proposed a $400 million increase
to help more than a million children get quality after-school and summer school programs. We
are investing in linking every classroom and librarys to the Internet -- and making sure that
teachers are trained in the latest technology. We have proposed a new initiative to recruit
thousands of talented young people and others to teach in our highest-need schools.
We are also targeting new efforts to make sure that Hispanic students who are most in
need have the tools they need to succeed. Four years ago, President Clinton and I brought
together a group of Latino leaders to study new ways to help young Hispanic men and women
stay and succeed in school. One of the most influential voices was the White House Commission
on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, and we proud to be joined by three members
of that Commission here tonight -- Guillermo Linares, Herlinda Arhchuleta, and Linda
Alverado. We took the ideas that came out of those meetings and turned them into real proposals
to help improve the graduation rate. I was especially proud that three months ago, we passed an
initiative that I announced last February -- to create the first-ever national action plan to help
Hispanic American students stay in school and succeed in school. This unprecedented $500
million commitment will help Latino youngsters master the basics of reading and math; it will
help them learn English, stay in school, and prepare for college. And ultimately, it will help them
succeed in college.
Today, I am proud to announce that we are taking the next steps. As part of our balanced
budget, we are proposing an additional $480 million to help Hispanic Americans thrive in our
schools. These new funds will help even more students stay in school, prepare for college, and
graduate with the skills to succeed. And we are going to closely monitor these investments to
make sure they help the students who need it most.
In a way, our Hispanic Education Initiative celebrates the same values this organization
has promoted for more than 50 years. In this room, as in the Latino community, words like
familia, communidad, educacion, patria, y Dios are not just palabras -- they are values and
virtues that guide everyday life. Tonight, you are proving what we have always known: that
when Americans come together in common cause -- when Latino leaders, business owners, and
community leaders join hands and come together -- we can accomplish great things.
I believe that God's hand has touched the United States of America -- not by accident, but
on purpose. He has given us not just a chance, but a mission, to prove to men and women
throughout this world that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths and
creeds, can not only work and live together, but can enrich and ennoble both themselves and our
common purpose.
We don't need more division in America. We don't need more attempts to roll back
affirmative action. We don't need to exploit bilingual education for political gain or propose
phony ballot initiatives. We don't need more scapegoats. What we need is more love and
understanding and cooperation. We need to work together on solutions, to give our children the
education and the future they deserve.
Fifty years ago, most Latinos were told that they could do one of two things -- work in
the fields or work in the factories. Today, thanks in part to the work of the Latin American
Educational Foundation, and the commitment of all of you, the only limits Latino children face
are the limits of their own imaginations.
In the weeks and months ahead, let us do all we can to ignite those young imaginations,
to believe in their dreams, and to help turn their goals into a reality. In the words of Cesar
Chavez:
Juntos hemos trbajado en el pasado. [Together, we have worked in the past.]
Juntos hemos logrado mucho. [Together, we have accomplished much.]
Juntos iremos mano en mano al proximo siglo. [Together, we will walk hand in hand into
the next century.]
Thank you, LAEF, for 50 years of leadership. God Bless you -- and God Bless our
United States of America.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Saturday, January 23, 1999
(202) 456-7035
VICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES ADMINISTRATION WILL SEEK
EXPANSION OF HISPANIC EDUCATION ACTION PLAN
Washington, DC -- Vice President Gore announced today a proposed expansion of the
Administration's Hispanic Education Action Plan, calling for at least an additional $480 million to
improve educational programs and institutions serving high concentrations of Hispanic students
and pledged that he and the President would announce additional components of the plan in the
coming weeks.
"There is nothing more important to America's future than investing in the education of all
of our people," Vice President Gore said. "Our initiative will help ensure that Hispanic students
get the education they need and deserve to thrive in the 21st century."
Hispanic Americans are the nation's fastest growing minority group; today about 14
percent of the school-age population is Latino; by 2020 the proportion will grow to about 22
percent. Hispanic students are among the nation's most educationally disadvantaged, with a
persistently high dropout rates and low college attendance rates.
To address this important challenge, the Clinton Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget
includes at least an additional $480 million for an action plan based on systemic change and high
standards for programs and institutions serving large numbers of Hispanic students. The action
plan includes the following strategies, as well as additional steps in the FY2000 budget to be
announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore in the near future:
*
$320 Million to Strengthen Basic Reading & Math Skills, Raise Academic Standards.
All students, including those with limited English skills, must master the basic skills of
reading and math and be held to high academic standards, and schools should be held
accountable for helping students meet these standards. The Clinton Administration will
propose increasing funding for Title I -- the largest federal elementary and secondary
program -- by $320 million to meet these critical needs for all disadvantaged students,
including $200 million to help states identify and improve the performance of
low-performing schools. The majority of Hispanic students, as well as students with
limited English proficiency, attend schools served by the Title I program, and thirty-two
percent of students served are Latino. Moreover, in its proposal to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year, the Administration will propose
holding schools participating in this program accountable for helping students with limited
English proficiency learn English and master their academic subjects.
*
$35 Million to Train More Teachers and Improve Instruction to Help Students Learn
English and Master Their Basic Academic Subjects.
This $35 million increase in federal programs for children with limited English skills,
coupled with last year's investment in the Hispanic Education plan, will help train more
than 20,000 teachers over five years and improve instruction in order to help students
learn English while making progress toward high academic standards. These
investments (a $25 million increase for teacher training and a $10 million increase for
improved instructional services) will help address the growing shortage of teachers
prepared to teach students with limited English skills -- 75% of whom are Latino.
$80 million to Prepare Disadvantaged Youth for Success in College.
The Administration's budget will include a $30 million increase in federal TRIO
programs, including Upward Bound, to fund outreach, counseling, and educational
support to help disadvantaged students prepare for academic success in college. The
budget will also include more than a 50% increase -- an additional $14.25 million -- to
strengthen colleges with large Latino populations, and another $35 million for a new
initiative to help disadvantaged students stay in college and earn diplomas.
*
$44 Million to Improve Education Programs for Migrant Youth and Adults:
Migrant families--the majority of whom are Hispanic--face particularly difficult
challenges to gaining a quality education and training. President Clinton and Vice
President Gore are seeking a $25 million increase in the migrant Education Program, a
67% increase -- $6 million -- for the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), a $3
million 75% increase for the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), and $10
million for a new Migrant Farmworker Youth program.
*
New Investments to Help Adults Learn English and Become Literate.
The Administration's budget will include expanded efforts to help adults learn
English and become literate, including a new tax credit to encourage employers
to provide English-as-a-Second Language, literacy, and basic education
programs for their employees. Under this proposal, businesses could get a 10%
income tax credit for these kinds of programs with a maximum credit of up to
$525 per participating employee. Many adult Americans lacking literacy skills
are Latino adults and others with limited English proficiency who face long
waiting lists in many cities for English-as-a-Second Language courses. This new
tax credit, costing $139 million over five years, will help deploy the resources of
businesses to make sure those in greatest need don't get left behind. President
Clinton and Vice President Gore will announce additional steps to meet this
challenge in the near future.
The initial Hispanic Education plan was announced last year by Vice President Gore as a
direct response to findings from the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence
for Hispanic Americans. A nearly $500 million action plan was passed a few months ago as part
of the FY1999 budget, and the Administration will monitor implementation of this plan and
undertake special outreach efforts to ensure that Hispanic youths and families benefit from these
programs.
ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES
The Vice President also said that the Administration will continue and expand work to
improve education for Hispanic students, including through the following strategies:
Improving education for students and adults with limited proficiency in English, including
Hispanics, through additional research and new strategies for other federal education programs.
*
The Education Department will invest in research on how to improve learning for Hispanics
and other language minority students. This research will build a substantial knowledge base
for planning effective instruction for students and adults whose native language is Spanish.
Despite considerable learning about reading and skill development for English-speakers,
there are few comprehensive studies or instructional models focused on students, including
Hispanic students, with limited English proficiency.
*
When implementing the recently enacted Reading Excellence Act, the Education Department
will draw on recommendations from the National Academy of Science on teaching and
learning for children with limited proficiency in English.
*
The Administration intends to target part of an increase for the Head Start program
to increase participation by underrepresented groups in areas with recent influxes of
immigrants and limited English proficient children, including seasonal farmworkers.
In 1996, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, similar
percentages of white and black 3 and 4-year-olds were enrolled in center-based
programs, including Head Start programs, while their Hispanic peers were less likely
to be enrolled.
*
In planning for and preparing the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) the Clinton Administration will place a focus on the needs of students with
limited English proficiency. This will include a focus on high standards, assessment,
performance, and institutional accountability for achievement for all children, including those
with limited proficiency in English. The Administration will propose holding schools
participating in Title I of ESEA accountable for helping students with limited English
proficiency learn English and master their academic subjects.
Providing quality information to students and their parents:
*
The Department of Education has formed a partnership with Univision, the country's
largest Spanish-language television network, to address the educational needs of Hispanic
students. In August 1998, Univision aired an America Goes Back To School special
focusing on parental involvement and broadcasting the Department's 1-800 number.
Beginning in early 1999, the Department of Education and Univision will launch a public
service announcement campaign to increase the awareness of parental involvement in
education.
The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans will
convene conferences in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami in 1999 to support
Latino parents in their efforts to ensure their children get a good education and to discuss
how schools, teachers, community-based organizations and others can reach out to parents
and more fully engage them in their children's education. Partners in the Los Angeles
conference, to be held March 5-6, include the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan
Project (LAAMP), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF), People United to Enrich the Neighborhood through Education (PUENTE)
Learning Center, and the UCLA Office of Academic Development.
The Education Department will expand its efforts to provide quality information in Spanish
and to Latino students and their families. In the fall of 1998, the Department distributed
over 45,000 Read Write Now kits--in Spanish--to provide tips for volunteers working
with students with limited proficiency in English and has improved its efforts to provide
information via toll-free telephone lines and publications accessible to Spanish speakers.
The Department of Education will build on this Hispanic Outreach Plan and take additional
steps to improve the educational achievement of Hispanic students through additional
outreach, information, and efforts to promote family involvement and community
partnerships in communities with high concentrations of Latino students.
Ensuring Access to College:
In November 1998, the Department of Education hosted a satellite town meeting, "Going
to College: Financial Aid Night" simulcast in Spanish. This town meeting focused on the
priority issue of access to college and what Hispanic students and parents can do to start
thinking early about college. The Department of Education will continue similar efforts
throughout the year.
Under the newly authorized GEAR UP--Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs--the Department of Education will promote partnerships between
schools and institutions of higher education to provide middle school students with support
including mentoring, tutoring, counseling, and preparation for rigorous course taking as
gateways to success in college. Special outreach efforts will help ensure that communities
with high concentrations of Latino and disadvantaged students learn about opportunities to
form partnerships under this new program.
*
The Department of Education is working with several states to support distance learning
opportunities for the teaching of English as a second-language for adults.
The White House and federal agencies will monitor implementation of this plan over the
next several months develop new strategies to ensure that Latino and other disadvantaged
students benefit from Administration efforts to improve education for all students.
###
NATIONAL NEWS
S
FRIDAY, JULY 9. 1999
Hispanic Fund Wins
$50 Million Grant
Award Supports College Scholarships
By VALERIE STRAUSS
communities;
Washington Post Staff Writer
A community college pre-
gram, which will encourage in
The national Hispanic Schol-
dividuals to continue their edu-
arship Fund announced yester-
cation by transferring to a
day that it has received a $50
four-year institution.
million grant from Lilly Endow-
The Indianapolis-based Lilly
ment Inc., one of the nation's
Endowment is a private philan-
largest private foundations, to
thropic foundation created in
promote college education
1937 by three Lilly family mem
among the nation's fastest-
bers through gifts of stock in
growing population segment.
their pharmaceutical business,
The grant, which will provide
Eli Lilly & Co.
funding for both aspiring and
Endowment President N.
current Hispanic college stu-
Clay Robbins said the founday
dents in all 50 states and Puerto
tion decided to help the Hispan
Rico, is the largest amount ever
ic Scholarship Fund because it
pledged to a Hispanic organiza-
was "impressed by research
tion for education in the United
showing that low educational at
States.
"In the next century, Hispan-
The fund seeks to
ics will continue to grow in num-
ber, influence and responsibility,
and this grant recognizes the
double the
importance of education in
American
building a foundation to make
America stronger," Sara Marti-
percentage of
Red Cross
nez Tucker, fund president and
BY RON EDMONDS-ASSOCIATED PRESS
chief executive officer, said in a
Hispanics who
statement.
First doctor to head relief agency, Bernadine Healy addresses workers here.
The fund is the nation's old-
est provider of college schol-
earn degrees.
But much of the criticism Healy
age 54, only five months after un-
arships to Hispanic Americans
has received can be attributed to
going surgery for a brain tumor.
and has awarded more than
tainment is a key barrier to the
egotistical men who prefer women
Topol said the tumor is rare but
36,000 scholarships totaling
prosperity of Hispanic Amer-
to be quiet and reserved, said Eric
very treatable. Red Cross officials
about $38 million since it was
icans."
Topol, chairman of the department
said that Healy, a mother of two
founded in 1975. Three years
Hispanics now account for 11
of cardiology at the Cleveland
daughters, has a "clean bill of
ago it began a campaign to dou-
percent, or some 32 million, of
Clinic Foundation, where Healy
health."
ble-from 9 percent to 18 per-
the U.S. population, and it is es
chaired the Research Institute be-
A spokesman declined to dis-
cent-the percentage of Hispan-
timated by demographers that
fore her appointment to NIH.
cuss her salary at this time, saying
ics earning college degrees by
40 percent of the nation's new
"Women in medicine have had a
that "the compensation package
2006. Ninety-seven percent of
population in the next two years
tough fight," Topol said. "She had
has been agreed on, but not final-
students who receive fund schol-
will be Hispanic.
many pivotal leadership roles even
ized." Her predecessor, Dole, was
arships earn college degrees.
Martinez Tucker, the first
in the 1970s and 1980s, when it
paid a salary of $200,000.
The grant will enable the fund
Hispanic female to enter AT&T
was unprecedented."
Unlike Dole, who spent much of
to significantly increase the
Corp.'s executive management,
Healy was the first female direc-
her tenure on the road giving paid
number of Hispanics starting
joined the scholarship fund an
tor of the NIH and the first named
speeches, Healy said she did not
college, Martinez Tucker said.
1997, determined to raise its na-
a science adviser to the White
anticipate making paid appearanc-
The money will be used for vari-
tional profile. She was largely re-
House. She fought for years to
es.
ous programs, including:
sponsible for securing the Lilly
have more women included in
Healy also said that while she
.A college retention fund,
grant and is trying to reach out
medical studies, a battle she took
will continue to express her strong
which will provide 2,000 aca-
to other foundations and busi-
up with ferocity on arrival at NIH.
political views around the dinner
demic scholarships per year
nesses.
Healy, Topol said, is a "dynamo,
table, she won't talk about them in
over a five-year period to cur-
"We will continue to seek ad-
rich with ideas, remarkably cre-
public anymore. Her new job, she
rent four-year college students;
ditional support from other re-
ative, an extraordinary leader. She
said in an interview after her
MA separate scholarship fund
sponsible corporations, founda-
can process information and artic-
speech to Red Cross employees
earmarked for graduating high
tions and private citizens to
ulate ideas as well as anyone in the
here, requires "neutrality and im-
school seniors, which will re-
sustain the vision and mission
public eye today."
partiality."
quire individual school districts
that Lilly Endowment has made
Her tenacity is perhaps best il-
to raise matching funds in their
possible," she d.
lustrated by the fact that she is tak-
Staff writer Rick Weiss
tn
this
report.
WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR HISPANIC AMERICANS
The White House Initiative office has received numerous requests for more information
about the Clinton Administration's Hispanic Education Action Plan (Plan). For fiscal
year 1999, the Administration requested an increase of over $600 million and Congress
appropriated $520 million for selected programs that can address the educational needs of
many Hispanic students. The Plan is intended to help Latino youngsters master the
basics of reading and math; help them learn English, stay in school, and prepare for
college. Ultimately, the Plan is intended to help Latinos succeed in college -- so they can
graduate and seize all the promise of their future.
The Plan is the result of months of consultation with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
education and Latino organizations, the National Economic Council, the Department of
Education, and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans. It is a response both to the final report of the Hispanic Dropout Project, No
More Excuses, and to the earlier recommendations of the President's Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans from their report Our
Nation on the Fault Line: Hispanic American Education.
It is important to note that the funding for the Plan is for existing programs, not new
educational initiatives necessarily targeted to Hispanic Americans. Specific information
about each of these programs is available at the Department of Education web site
[http://www.ed.gov]. The following table provides more detail of the funding increase
for each program requested by the Administration and the final congressional
appropriation for FY1999.
Hispanic Education Action Plan - FY1999
(Increase in funding by program)
President's
Actual
Program
Request
Appropriation
Title I
$ 391,768
$
300,788
Bilingual Education
33,000
26,000
Adult Education
33,449
24,449
Comprehensive School Reform
55,000
25,000
TRIO
53,333
70,333
Hispanic Serving Institutions
16,000
16,000
Migrant Education
49,216
49,216
High School Equivalency Program (HEP)
2,366
1,366
College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
2,919
1,919
Migrant Youth Job Training (DoL)
5,000
5,000
Total:
$
642,051
$
520,071
Attached is additional information on each of the programs, including a chart of the
President's Advisory Commission recommendations, the Administration's announcement
of the Plan, and basic program summaries, appropriations, and contact information.
400 Maryland Ave., SW. FOB-6, Room 5E110. Washington, DC 20202-3601
President's Response and FY99 Appropriation to the
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
"Our Nation on the Fault Line": Hispanic American Education
Programs
President's Advisory Commission
President's proposed FY
Actual FY 1999
Recommendations
1999 budget
budget appropriation
Comprehensive School
- Improve quality of instruction & condition
$30 million increase (20%) in
$30 million increase (25%)
Reform*
of schools that Latinos attend
existing program to reform
in the existing program;
- Address Hispanic high school drop out rates;
schools with high dropout rates
can be used to reform
- Enhance capacity to teach bilingual &
schools with high dropout
multicultural students
rates
Bilingual Education*
- Equip educators to effectively teach
$33 million increase (17%) to
$26 million increase (9%)
bilingual & multicultural students
train more teachers over the
for existing programs and
- Promote multilingualism for all Americans
next 5 years
expand teacher training
TRIO Programs*
- Facilitate collaborations between higher
$53 million increase (10%) for
$70 million increase (13%)
education and community to provide
all programs combined
for all programs combined
apprenticeships, mentoring and summer
training opportunities
Hispanic-Serving
- Commit special initiatives and resources to
$16 million increase (133%)
$16 million increase
Institutions (HSIs)*
HSIs
(133%)
Migrant Education
- Increase resources to better meet needs
$50 million increase (16%)
$50 million increase (16%)
Program*
High School
- Increase resources to better meet needs
$2.4 million increase (31%)
$1.4 million increase
Equivalency Program
(18%)
(Migrant HEP)*
College Assistance
- Increase resources to better meet needs
$2.9 million increase (138%)
$1.9 million increase
Migrant Program
(92%)
(CAMP)*
Migrant Youth Job
- Facilitate collaborations between higher
$5 million, new investment
$5 million, new
Training Demonstration
education and community to provide
investment
[Dept. of Labor]*
apprenticeships, mentoring and summer
training opportunities
Adult Education/ESL*
- Establish programs to train young and other
$33 million increase (9%); $20
$24.4 million increase
adults for a technology driven workplace
million of it for model ESL
overall (7%)
High Hopes for College/
- Facilitate collaborations between higher
$140 million (new program)
$120 million (new
Gear Up
education and community to provide
$15 million - Info. Campaign
program)
apprenticeships, mentoring and summer
(new program)
training opportunities
Title I*
- Increase resources to better meet need
$392 million increase (5.3%)
$300.8 million increase
(5.3%)
Head Start
- Improve participation of Latino preschoolers
$305 million increase (7%)
$305 million increase (7%)
[HHS]
and parents in early childhood programs
Goals 2000
- Increase resources to better meet need
$10 million increase (2%)
$0 million increase (0%)
Teacher Recruitment
- Develop national campaign to recruit more
$65 million
$75 million (new program)
and Training
educators who effectively teach bilingual
($350 million over 5 years)
& multicultural students
- Improve the quality of instruction
President's Response and FY99 Appropriation to the
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
"Our Nation on the Fault Line": Hispanic American Education
Programs
President's Advisory Commission
President's proposed FY
Actual FY 1999
Recommendations
1999 budget
budget appropriation
Education Opportunity
- Improve the quality of instruction
$200 million
$0 (initiative not included)
Zones
- Improve knowledge, skills, and cross
($1.5 billion over 5 years)
cultural competencies of teachers and
administrators
- Improve the condition of schools
After-School and 21st
- Provide access to quality learning
$200 million
$160 million increase
Century Learning
environments for Hispanic students
($1 billion over 5 years)
Center
Modern School
- Improve condition of schools
$19.4 billion in zero-interest
$0 (initiative not included)
Buildings
bonds over 2 years
*Hispanic Education Action Plan
Hispanic Education Action Plan - FY1999
(Increase in funding by program)
President's
Actual
Program
Request
Appropriation
Title I
$
391,768
$
300,788
Bilingual Education
33,000
26,000
Adult Education
33,449
24,449
Comprehensive School Reform
55,000
25,000
TRIO
53,333
70,333
Hispanic Serving Institutions
16,000
16,000
Migrant Education
49,216
49,216
High School Equivalency Program (HEP)
2,366
1,366
College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
2,919
1,919
Migrant Youth Job Training (DoL)
5,000
5,000
Total:
$ 642,051
$
520,071
Hispanic Education Action Plan
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release
February 2, 1998
"America's future prosperity depends on our ability to provide
a sound education to all of our children. The President's
Hispanic education initiative will offer Latino students a
better chance to develop their full academic potential so they
can contribute the full force of their talent to the success
of America in the Twenty-First Century."
-- Vice President Gore, February 2, 1998
EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATIONS
HISPANIC EDUCATION ACTION PLAN
Vice President Gore today (2/2) announced the Administration's $600 million
Hispanic education action plan. In his State of the Union address, President
Clinton reinforced his commitment to excellence in education for all Americans.
America cannot prosper as a nation unless educational opportunity is made
available to all of our children. Today, about 14 percent of the school-age
population is Latino; by 2020, the proportion will grow to about 22 percent.
Hispanic students are among the nation's most educationally disadvantaged. To
address this educational disparity, the Clinton Administration's FY99 Budget
includes more than $600 million dollars for a comprehensive action plan based on
high standards and research-based school reform:
I. $393 Million to Strengthen Basic Reading and Math Skills: Students,
including those with limited English skills, must be held to challenging academic
standards, with a firm foundation in reading and math. President Clinton proposes
to increase funding for Title I -- the largest elementary and secondary program --
1
by 5.3 percent -- a $393 million increase -- to meet these critical needs for all
disadvantaged students. Thirty-two percent of those served are Latino.
II. $66 Million to Train 20,000 Teachers to Teach Students English, and Help
Adults Learn English: A 17 percent increase - $33 million - in the Federal
program for children with limited English skills would help train 20,000 teachers
over five years to more effectively teach English in the context of high academic
standards. A $33 million increase in adult education will provide more parents
and other adults with English training, including the first year of a five-year, $100
million effort to promote model approaches to adult English-as-a-Second
Language (ESL) programs.
III. $30 Million to Transform Schools with High Dropout Rates: The President
is calling for a 25% expansion of a new effort to reform failing schools,
specifically targeting schools with high-dropout rates. This increase will allow
low-achieving schools to receive expert advice to adopt research-based models to
improve teaching and learning.
IV. $69 Million to Prepare Disadvantaged Youth for Success in College: The
federal TRIO programs fund outreach and support programs to help disadvantaged
students prepare for and successfully complete college through counseling and
academic assistance. One of the programs -- Upward Bound, which helps high
school students with academic preparation for college -- has been found to be
especially helpful to Hispanic youth. The President has proposed a $40 million
(20 percent) increase in funding for Upward Bound. All other TRIO programs
will receive a total increase of $13 million. In addition, the Federal program to
strengthen colleges with large Latino populations is slated for a $16 million - 133
percent - increase.
V. $60 Million to Improve Education Programs for Migrant Youth and
Adults: Migrant families face particularly difficult obstacles to gaining the
education and training they would need to improve their standard of living.
President Clinton seeks significant increases in the Migrant Education Program
(16 percent increase of $50 million), High School Equivalency Program (HEP: 31
percent increase of $2.4 million), College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP:
138 percent increase of $2.9 million) and Migrant Youth Job Training
Demonstration (a new $5 million).
###
OTHER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS
TO IMPROVE EDUCATION FOR HISPANIC AMERICANS
The Hispanic Education Action Plan is the result of months of consultation
with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, education and Latino organizations, and
the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. It
is a response both to the final report of the Hispanic Dropout Project, No More
Excuses, and to the earlier recommendations of the President's Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, Our Nation on
the Fault Line.
As a result of these and other efforts, the Administration has not only invested
in programs that address the education needs of Hispanic Americans, but has also
taking a number of other actions to improve Federal programs. Below is a sample
of some of the current or planned actions.
Getting Information to Parents and Students.
- The Education Department is improving its toll-free line to make it easier
for Spanish-speaking callers to get the information they need, and to expand
the capacity to handle large influxes of calls that could result from public
service announcements.
- Univision, the country's largest Spanish language television network, is
partnering with the Department in several cities with large Hispanic
populations to develop TV spots and other programming with education
themes.
- About 200,000 Spanish-language copies of the Education Department
document, Getting Ready for College Early, were distributed by La Opinion
- the largest Spanish newspaper in the U.S. La Opinion will also make the
document available on computer disk to other newspapers, as well as on its
web site.
Helping all Children to Read Independently by the End of the Third Grade. The
America Reads Challenge includes several efforts directly targeted to Hispanic
and limited-English students and their families.
-- The Read*Write*Now! Campaign which combats "summer reading
drop-off" through the use of reading partners for children, the active use of
libraries, and new vocabulary - has developed Spanish language tutoring
kits that will be distributed to Hispanic communities.
-- With the Education Department, Scholastic, Inc. created and disseminated
50,000 posters conveying the message "Reading is Power/Leer es Poder" to
commemorate Hispanic Heritage Month for 1997. The poster includes
reading activities in English and Spanish that teachers and parents can
reproduce for use in the classroom and at home.
-- The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation's
largest constituency-based organization of Hispanics, has committed to
work with the Department to prepare its 110,000 members to tutor Hispanic
students through the America Reads Challenge.
Encouraging Parental Involvement in Early Childhood. For America's working
families, the President has proposed that $22 billion be devoted over five years to
improve child care -- the largest investment in the nation's history. This will
double the number of children covered by child care subsidies, help working
families pay for child care through tax credits, and improve the safety and quality
of child care. To enable more young children to improve their readiness for
school, 1998 funding for Head Start was increased by $374 million for a total of
$4.4 billion. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will
implement an outreach plan to ensure that programs are reaching the Hispanic
community and that Head Start efforts are linking effectively with kindergarten
and first grade. As a part of that effort, HHS will identify and disseminate a "best
practices" guide for serving limited-English children.
Promoting Successful Models for Dropout Prevention. School and community
leaders need "one-stop shopping" for ideas and information on best practices for
keeping kids in school. The Education Department will provide thorough dropout
prevention resources through its various research centers. In addition, as part of
the Comprehensive School Reform program, the Department will identify model
approaches that show promise in reducing high dropout rates, and that address the
needs of limited-English proficient children, and will encourage states to use
FY98 funding to implement those models where needed.
Increasing Technology in the Classroom. To ensure that all schools take
advantage of the funding available through the $2 billion Technology Literacy
Challenge Fund and the E-rate discounts of up to 90 percent to connect to the
Internet, the Education Department will target technical assistance workshops to
communities with large populations of Hispanic students.
Providing Second Chances and Job Training Opportunities. $250 million has
been appropriated for FY99, targeted to the highest poverty areas in the country,
to help out-of-school youth (age 16-24) become employable. Currently six cities
are funded. In New York City, 67 percent of those served are Hispanic; in
Houston, 65 percent; in Los Angeles, 50 percent.
Collecting Data and Supporting Research. The Department of Education and
the National Center for Educational Statistics will seek to acquire more
information to increase awareness of education issues involving Hispanics and
limited-English students. For example, to ensure that limited-English students
fully benefit from tests they are given, the Department plans to invest
approximately $5 million in 1998 research that addresses the most urgent
questions relevant to assessment of limited-English students.
Forming an Interdepartmental Council for Hispanic Education Improvement.
The Administration's initiative on education excellence for Hispanic Americans
will launch a new interdepartmental council for Hispanic educational improvement
this spring. Senior level representatives from all Departments will participate in
the council and in working groups on early childhood, K through 12,
undergraduate and graduate education and community and federal employment to
pursue aggressive programs to improve educational opportunities for the
nation's Latino community.
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FY 1999 BALANCED BUDGET
EDUCATION: PREPARING OUR CHILDREN FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
MAINTAINING THE COMMITMENT TO MAKING EDUCATION OUR
NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. Building on the historic balanced budget agreement
in 1997 which secured the largest education investment in 30 years and the largest
investment in higher education since the G.I. Bill in 1945, the President's FY 1999
budget supports initiatives that will dramatically strengthen elementary and
secondary education. These proposals will help ensure that all students start out
in a small class with a good teacher, in a safe, modern school. They will also
5
help ensure that students, especially in high poverty urban and rural areas, attend
schools where high standards are taken seriously and kids are given the help they
need to succeed. The President's proposals will dramatically expand access to
safe havens for after-school learning, and ensure that low-income students receive
the support and encouragement to finish school and continue onto college.
Small Classes with Qualified Teachers to Improve Reading in Grades 1-3.
President Clinton is proposing a $12.4 billion initiative over 7 years ($7.3 billion
over 5 years) to help local schools provide small classes with qualified teachers in
the early grades. This will help ensure that every child receives personal
attention, learns to read independently and gets a solid foundation for further
learning. The new initiative will reduce class size in grades 1-3 to a nationwide
average of 18, providing funds to help local school districts hire an additional
100,000 well-prepared teachers. The initiative will also provide funds to states
and local school districts to test new teachers, develop more rigorous teacher
testing and certification requirements, and train teachers in effective reading
instruction practices. Schools districts will be accountable for demonstrating gains
in reading achievement. These steps will help ensure that first through third
grade students are receiving high-quality reading instruction in smaller classes
from competent teachers.
Modern School Buildings to Improve Student Learning. In order for students
to learn and to compete in the global economy, schools must be well-equipped
and they must be able to accommodate smaller class sizes. To address these and
other critical needs, President Clinton is proposing Federal tax credits to pay
interest on nearly $22 billion in bonds to build and renovate public schools. This
is more than double the assistance proposed last year, which covered half the
interest on an estimated $20 billion in bonds. The tax credits will cost the
Treasury $5 billion over 5 years, and more than $10 billion over ten years. Of the
$22 billion in bond authority, nearly $20 billion is for a new School
Modernization Bonds. Half of this bond authority will be allocated to the 100
school districts with the largest number of low-income children, and the other half
will be allocated to the States. In addition, the President is proposing a more than
$2.4 billion expansion of the Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, school-business
partnerships that will include funding for school construction and renovation.
Education Opportunity Zones: Helping Students in Poor Communities Reach
High Standards. This initiative will strengthen public schools and help students
master the basics where the need is the greatest: in high poverty urban and rural
6
communities where low expectations, too many poorly prepared teachers, and
overwhelmed school systems create significant barriers to high achievement. The
Education Department will select approximately 50 high poverty urban and rural
school districts that agree to: (1) use high standards and tests of student
achievement to identify and provide help to students, teachers and schools who
need it; (2) prevent students from falling behind by ensuring quality teaching,
challenging curricula, and extended learning time; and (3) end social promotion
and turn around failing schools. Added investments in these communities will
accelerate their progress and provide successful models of system-wide,
standards-based reform for the nation. The President's initiative will invest $200
million in FY99, and $1.5 billion over 5 years, to raise achievement and share
lessons learned with school districts around the country.
Expanding Access to Safe After-School Care. To help create safe, positive
learning environments for American school-age children who lack adult
supervision during a typical week, the President has proposed to increase the 21st
Century Learning Center Program by $800 million over five years. The program
will support school-community partnerships that expand or establish programs
providing after-school care for up to half a million children a year.
Early Intervention to Promote College Attendance. President Clinton will soon
announce a long-term effort to bring college opportunity to children in
high-poverty areas by providing their families with early information about
financial aid and the best courses to take to be well-prepared for college, as well
as support services to help the children stay on track through high school
graduation and into college.
##
Title I, Part A (formerly Chapter 1) Program-Improving Basic Programs Operated
by Local Education Agencies, Education for the Disadvantaged
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Disadvantaged
Administering Office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
CFDA #84.010
AgenciesWho May Apply(Categories): State Education Agencies
Who May Apply(Specify): The secretary of the interior may also apply; local education agencies and Indian
tribal schools are subgrantees of state education agencies and the secretary of the interior.
Type of Assistance(Categories): Formula Grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, Title I, Part A, as amended,
20 U.S.C. 6301-6514
Program Regulations: 34 CFR Part 200
Program Description: This program provides formula grants through state education agencies (SEAs) to
local education agencies (LEAs) to improve teaching and learning in order to enable low-achieving children
to meet challenging state content and student performance standards.
Federal funds are currently allocated through two formulas, with most of the funds distributed as Basic
Grants. Concentration grants provide additional funds to counties and LEAs where the number of poor
children exceeds 6,500 or 15 percent of the total school-age population. Federal allocations are based
primarily on the number of children from low income families and state per-pupil expenditures for
education.
LEAs target funds to schools with the highest percentages of children from low-income families. Unless a
participating school is operating a schoolwide program, the school must target Title I services to children
who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet state academic standards. Beginning in 1996, schools
enrolling at least 50 percent of students from poor families are eligible to use Title I funds for schoolwide
programs that serve all children in the school. (Prior to 1996, higher poverty thresholds applied.)
Types of Projects: More than 50,000 public schools across the country use Title I funds to provide additional
academic support and learning opportunities to help low-achieving children master challenging curriculum
and meet state standards in core academic subjects. For example, funds support extra instruction in reading
and mathematics, science, and computers, and special preschool, after-school, and summer programs to
extend and reinforce the regular school curriculum.
Education Level: K-12, Preschool
Subject Index: Compensatory Education, Educationally Disadvantaged, High Risk Students Language Arts.
Low Income, Mathematics, Poverty, Reading
Appropriations:
Fiscal Year 1997: $7,295,232,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $7,375,232,000
Awards Information:
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 53
Average Award: $140,000,000
Range of Awards: $16,000,000 - $830,000,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information
Name: Mary Jean Letendre
Internet Address: Mary [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OESE, Compensatory Education Programs
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3W230. FOB6
Washington DC 20202-6132
Fax: (202) 260-7764 Telephone: (202) 260-0826
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program
Basic Information
Topical Heading: School Reform
Administering Office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
CFDA #84.332A
Who May Apply (Categories): State Education Agencies
Current Competitions: SEA applications for federal formula awards starting in 1998
Type of Assistance (Categories): Formula Grants
Type of Assistance (Specify): Formula grants under Title I, section, and under the Fund for the
Improvement of Education (FIE)
Program Details
Legislative Citation: P.L. 105-78;
Program Description: This program, first funded in 1998, provides formula grants to state education
agencies (SEAs) for competitive grant awards to local education agencies and participating schools. Schools
receive annual awards of not less than $50,000 to adopt or develop comprehensive school reforms based on
reliable research and effective practices. SEAs are encouraged to give competitive preference to LEAs that
target funds on schools that have low levels of student achievement and high dropout rates.
Types of Projects: All participating schools must use program funds to adopt or develop research-based
comprehensive school reform approaches that: (1) employ innovative strategies and proven methods for
student learning, teaching, and school management; (2) have a comprehensive design for effective school
functioning, including instruction, assessment, classroom management, and professional development that
aligns the school's curriculum, technology, and professional development into a schoolwide reform plan
designed to enable all students to meet challenging state content and performance standards and addresses
needs identified through a school needs assessment; (3) provide high-quality and continuous teacher and
staff professional development and training; (4) have measurable goals for student performance and
benchmarks for meeting those goals; (5) are supported by school faculty, administrators, and staff; (6)
provide for the meaningful involvement of parents and the local community in planning and implementing
school improvement activities; (7) utilize high-quality external support and assistance from a comprehensive
school reform entity (which may be a university) with experience or expertise in schoolwide reform and
improvement; (8) include a plan for the evaluation of the implementation of school reforms and the student
results achieved; (9) identify how other resources (federal/state/local/private) available to the school will be
utilized to coordinate services to support and sustain the school reform.
Education Level: K-12
Subject Index: Comprehensive Programs, Research
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $0
Fiscal Year 1998: $145,000,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $145,000,000
Awards Information
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 52
Average Award: $2,788,462
Range of Awards: $318,175 - $16,293,800
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information
Name: William Kincaid
Internet Address: William Kincaid(wed
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OESE. Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 2W106, FOB6
Washington, DC 20202-6254
Fax: (202) 260-4023 Telephone: (202) 205-4292
Adult Education-Basic Grants to States
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Adult Education
Administering Office: Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)
CFDA #84.002
Who May Apply(Categories): State Education Agencies
Who May Apply(Specify): The following recipients are eligible to apply to state
education agencies for funds: local education agencies; community-based organizations of
demonstrated effectiveness; volunteer literacy organizations; institutions of higher
education; public or private nonprofit agencies; libraries; public housing authorities;
nonprofit institutions that have the ability to provide literacy services to adults and
families; and consortia of the agencies, organizations, institutions, libraries, or authorities
previously described.
Current Competitions: Awards are made automatically to state education agencies on a
formula basis.
Type of Assistance(Categories): Formula Grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998, Section 211(b).
Program Regulations: None at this time.
Program Description: This program provides grants to states to fund local programs of
adult education and literacy services, including workplace literacy services, family
literacy services, and English literacy programs.
Education Level: Adult, Out of School Youth
Subject Index: Adult Education, Adult Learning, Adult Literacy, Out of School Youth,
State Federal Aid
Appropriations:
Fiscal Year 1997: $340,339,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $345,339,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $365,000,000
Awards Information:
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information:
Name: Dr. Carroll F. Towey
Internet Address: [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OVAE, Division of Adult Education and Literacy
330 C Street, SW
Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 4428
Washington, DC 20202-7240
Fax: (202) 205-8973
Telephone: (202) 205-9872
Adult Education-National Leadership Activities
Adult Education National Program--Evaluation and Technical Assistance
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Adult Education
Administering Office: Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)
CFDA #84.191
Who May Apply(Specify): Public or private nonprofit agencies, organizations, or
institutions are eligible for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts. Business concerns
are eligible for contracts.
Current Competitions: Competitions are held when a national evaluation study is funded.
This is done on an as-needed basis.
Type of Assistance(Categories): Contracts
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998, Section 243.
Program Regulations: None at this time.
Program Description: This program supports national evaluations of the impact of federal
money allocated to the states for adult education and literacy programs. It also supports
technical assistance to the states regarding adult education and literacy programs.
Types of Projects: Projects include: professional development, national evaluations and
surveys, curriculum development, distance learning, data analysis, professional
papers/seminars/colloquia, and technical assistance.
Education Level: Adult, Out of School Youth
Subject Index: Adult Education, Adult Learning, Adult Literacy, Technical Assistance
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $4,998,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $4,998,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $6,000,000
Awards Information
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information
Name: Mary Lovell
Internet Address: [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OVAE, Division of Adult Education and Literacy
330 C Street, SW
Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 4413
Washington, DC 20202-7240
Fax: (202) 205-9258
Telephone: (202) 205-9685
Bilingual Education Training for All Teachers
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Bilingual/ESL
Administering Office: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA)
CFDA #84.195B
Who May Apply(Categories): Institutions of Higher Education, Local Education
Agencies, Nonprofit Organizations, Other Organizations and/or Agencies, State Education
Agencies
Who May Apply(Specify): Institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and
other organizations that have a consortia agreement with a local or state education agency.
Current Competitions: February 23, 1999
Type of Assistance(Categories): Discretionary/Competitive Grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A,
Subpart 3, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 7473
Program Regulations: None
Program Description: The program provides discretionary grants for professional
development of bilingual education teachers and other education personnel for the purpose
of improving education services to limited English proficient students.
Types of Projects: Professional Development
Education Level: Postsecondary
Subject Index: Bilingual Education, English (Second Language), Language Proficiency,
Limited English Speaking, Professional Development, Teacher Education
Appropriations:
Fiscal Year 1997: $0
Fiscal Year 1998: $0
Fiscal Year 1999: $3,500,000
Awards Information
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 18
Average Award: $200,000
Range of Awards: $100,000 - $250,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information
Name: Cynthia Ryan
Internet Address: [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OBEMLA
330 C St. SW, Room 5082
Washington, D.C. 20202-6510
Fax: 202-205-6168
Telephone: 202-205-8842
Bilingual Education Teachers and Personnel Grant
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Bilingual/ESL
Administering Office: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA)
CFDA #84.195A
Who May Apply(Categories): Local Education Agencies, State Education Agencies
Who May Apply(Specify): Other organizations include institutions of higher education
that have consortia arrangements with local or state education agencies. The state
education agency and local education agencies for in-service professional development
programs that have consortia arrangements are also eligible.
Current Competitions: Closes February 23, 1999
Type of Assistance(Categories): Discretionary/Competitive Grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A,
Subpart 3, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 7473
Program Regulations: None
Program Description: The program provides discretionary grants to institutions of higher
education that have entered into consortia arrangements with local or State educational
agencies for professional development of bilingual education teachers and other education
personnel for the purpose of improving education services to limited English proficient
(LEP) students.
Education Level: Postsecondary
Subject Index: Bilingual Education, English (Second Language), Language Proficiency,
Limited English Speaking, Professional Development, Teacher Education
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $4,682,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $12,500,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $23,000,000
Awards Information
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 50
Average Award: $200,000
Range of Awards: $150,000 - $250,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information
Name: Mahal May
Internet Address: [email protected]
Mailing Address: U.S. Department of Education
OBEMLA
330 C Street, SW, Room 5082
Washington, DC 20202-6510
Fax: (202) 205-8737
Telephone: (202) 205-8842
Bilingual Education Comprehensive School Grants
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Bilingual/ESL
Administering Office: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA)
CFDA #84.290U
Who May Apply(Categories): Local Education Agencies
Who May Apply(Specify): Local education agencies alone or in collaboration with an
institution of higher education, community-based organizations, or state education agency.
Current Competitions: February 26, 1999
Type of Assistance (Categories): Discretionary/Competitive Grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A,
Subpart 1, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 7424
Program Regulations: None
Program Description: The program provides discretionary grants for schoolwide bilingual
education or English-as-a-second-language programs and other special alternative
instructional programs to schools with concentrations of limited English proficient
students. Programs should reform, restructure, and upgrade all relevant programs and
operations that serve all (or virtually all) limited English proficient (LEP) students in a
particular school. Grants may be used for family education, parent outreach, curriculum
development, instructional materials, improved assessment procedures, education
software, tutoring and counseling, and professional development that improves services to
LEP students, or for compensation of personnel trained to serve LEP students.
Education Level: K-12
Subject Index: Bilingual Education, English (Second Language), Language Proficiency,
Limited English Speaking
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $69,512,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $84,500,920
Fiscal Year 1999: $91,000,000
Awards Information
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 24
Average Award: $250,000
Range of Awards: $150,000 - $350,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information
Name: Harry Logel
Internet Address: harry [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OBEMLA
330 C Street, SW, Room 5082
Washington, DC 20202-6510
Fax: (202) 205-8680
Telephone: (202) 205-5530
Migrant Education--High School Equivalency Program (HEP)
Basic Information:
Topical Heading: Migrant Education
Administering Office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
CFDA #84.141
Who May Apply (Categories): Nonprofit Organizations
Who May Apply (Specify): Institutions of higher education or a public or nonprofit
private agency in cooperation with an institution of higher education
Current Competitions: None.
Type of Assistance (Specify): Competitive five-year project grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, as
amended, 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(b)
Program Regulations: EDGAR
Program Description: Helps migratory and seasonal farmworkers (or children of such
workers), 16 years of age or older and not currently enrolled in school, to obtain the
equivalent of a high school diploma and subsequently to gain employment or begin
postsecondary education or training. Competitive, five-year grants for HEP projects are
made to institutions of higher education or other nonprofit private agencies that cooperate
with such institutions.
Types of Projects: HEP participants receive developmental instruction and counseling
services intended to prepare them (1) to complete the requirements for high school
graduation or the general education development (GED) certificate (2) to pass a
standardized test of high school equivalency and (3) to participate in subsequent
postsecondary education or career activities. HEP major services include counseling,
placement services, health care, financial aid stipends, housing for residential students,
and cultural and academic programs. HEP serves about 3,600 students annually.
Subject Index: Academic Subjects, Adult Education, Daily Living Skills, Health, Migrants
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $7,441,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $7,634,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $9,000,000
Awards Information
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 25
Average Award: $375,000
Range of Awards: $150,000 - $495,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information:
Name: Mary Suazo
Mailing Address:
Internet Address: Mary [email protected]
U.S. Department of Education
OESE, Office of Migrant Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3E227, FOB6
Washington DC 20202-6134
Fax: (202)205-0089 Telephone: (202)260-1396
Migrant Education-Basic State Formula Grant Program
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Migrant Education
Administering Office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
CFDA #84.011
Who May Apply (Categories): State Education Agencies
Who May Apply (Specify): cont., the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Type of Assistance (Categories): Formula Grants
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part C, as
amended, 20 U.S.C. 6391-6399
Program Regulations: 34 CFR 200
Program Description: Funds help ensure migratory children have the opportunity to meet
the same challenging state content and performance standards all children are expected to
meet. Priority is given to migratory children who are failing or at risk of failing to meet
state content and performance standards and whose education has been interrupted by a
"qualifying" move during the past three years. Federal funds are allocated by formula to
SEAs, based on each state's per-pupil expenditure for education and counts of migratory
children, ages 3-21, residing within the state. The Secretary can set aside up to $6 million
for contracts/grants to improve intra- and inter-state migrant coordination activities.
Types of Projects: States identify eligible children and provide education and support
services, including: academic instruction, remedial and compensatory instruction,
bilingual and multicultural instruction, vocational instruction, career education services,
special guidance, counseling and testing services, health services, and preschool services.
Education Level: Pre-K, K-Adult
Subject Index: Health, Migrant Education, Migrant Workers, Migrants, Mobility
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $305,473,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $305,473,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $354,689,000
Awards Information
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 51
Average Award: $5,900,000
Range of Awards: $62,000 - $89,000,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information:
Name: Sam Harris
Internet Address: Sam [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OESE, Office of Migrant Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Room 3E341. FOB6
Washington DC 20202-6134
Fax: (202) 205-0089
Telephone: (202) 260-1334
Migrant Education-College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Disadvantaged
Administering Office: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
CFDA: #84.149A
Who May Apply(Categories): Nonprofit Organizations
Who May Apply(Specify): Institutions of higher education or a nonprofit private agency
in cooperation with an institution of higher education may apply.
Current Competitions: None
Type of Assistance(Specify): Competitive five-year project grants
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 1997: $2,028,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $2,081,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $4,000,000
Awards Information:
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 12
Average Award: $325,000
Range of Awards: $150,000 - $450,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Program Details
Legislative Citation: Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, as
amended, 20 U.S.C. 1070d-2(c)
Program Regulations: EDGAR
Program Description: CAMP assists students who are migratory or seasonal farmworkers
(or children of such workers) enrolled in the first undergraduate year at an institution of
higher education to complete their study for that year. Competitive five-year grants for
CAMP projects are made to institutions of higher education or to other nonprofit private
agencies that cooperate with such institutions.
Types of Projects: CAMP services include: counseling, tutoring, skills workshops,
financial aid stipends, and housing assistance to eligible students in their first year of
college and limited follow-up services to participants after their first year. CAMP serves
approximately 360 participants annually.
Education Level: Undergraduate
Subject Index: Colleges, Migrants
Contact Information:
Name: Mary Suazo
Internet Address: Mary [email protected]
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
OESE, Office of Migrant Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Room 3E227, FOB6
Washington DC 20202-6134
Fax: (202)205-0089
Telephone: (202)260-1396
Hispanic Serving Institutions Program
Basic Information
Topical Heading: Higher and Continuing Education
Administering Office: Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)
CFDA: #84.031S
Who May Apply (Categories): Institutions of higher education must be designated eligible
for the Title V Strengthening Hispanic Serving Institutions Program.
Current Competitions: Competitions are held every two years. The next competition will
be FY 2000.
Type of Assistance(Categories): Five-year development grants awarded competitively
Program Details:
Legislative Citation: Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III, Part A, Section 316, as
amended.
Program Regulations: 34 CFR Part 607
Program Description: This program helps eligible institutions of higher education increase
their self-sufficiency by providing funds to improve and strengthen their academic quality,
management, and fiscal capabilities.
Types of Projects: Funds may be used for faculty development; administrative
management, development, and improvement of academic programs; and for joint use of
facilities and student services.
Education Level: Postsecondary
Subject Index: Higher Education, Staff Development
Appropriations:
Fiscal Year 1997: $10,800,000
Fiscal Year 1998: $12,000,000
Fiscal Year 1999: $28,000,000
Awards Information:
Number of New Awards Anticipated: 37
Average Award: $325,000
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Contact Information:
Name: Blanca Westgate
Internet Address: [email protected].
Mailing Address:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Higher Education Programs
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Portals Building, Room CY-80
Washington, DC 20202-5335
Fax: (202) 401-7532
Telephone: (202) 708-9926
Federal TRIO Programs
The Federal TRIO Programs are educational opportunity programs designed to motivate and support
students from disadvantaged backgrounds. TRIO includes five distinct outreach programs targeted to serve
and assist students to progress through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate
programs. TRIO also includes a training program for directors and staff of TRIO projects.
Over the years, the TRIO Programs have been expanded and improved to provide a wider range of services
and to reach more students who need assistance. The Higher Education Amendments of 1972 added the
fourth program to the TRIO group by authorizing the Educational Opportunity Centers. The 1976 Education
Amendments authorized the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs, initially known as the Training
Program for Special Programs Staff and Leadership Personnel. Amendments in 1986 added the sixth
program, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program. Additionally, in 1990, the
Department created the Upward Bound Math/Science program to address the need for specific instruction in
the fields of math and science. The Upward Bound Math/Science program is administered under the same
regulations as the regular Upward Bound program, but it must be applied for separately. The legislative
requirements for all six TRIO programs can be found in the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A,
Subpart 2. Persons requesting additional information can contact the TRIO Clearinghouse at
www.trioprograms.org.
Program Overviews
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTERS: The goal of EOC is to increase the number of adult
participants who enroll in postsecondary education institutions.
Types of projects: Academic advice -Personal counseling Career workshops Information on
postsecondary educational opportunities Information on student financial assistance Assistance in
completing applications for college admissions, testing and financial aid Coordination with nearby
postsecondary institutions Media activities designed to involve and acquaint the community with higher
education opportunities Tutoring Mentoring
Eligible applicants: Educational Opportunity Centers projects may be conducted by institutions of higher
education, public and private not-for-profit agencies, a combination of institutions, agencies. and
organizations and in exceptional cases, secondary schools. Only these entities may apply under this
program. If you have further questions about eligibility, please contact [email protected]
Eligible participants: Participants must reside in the target area served by an Educational Opportunity
Center. The students must be at least 19 years old and two-thirds of them must be potential first-generation
college students and low-income persons. If the services of a Talent Search program are not available in
the target area, persons under 19 may be served.
Application/Competition: Competitions for the funding of Educational Opportunity Centers are held every
fourth year. Applications for FY 1998 funding were submitted in September 1997. The next competition
under this program will be in summer or fall of 2001.
RONALD E. McNAIR POST BACCALAUREATE ACHIEVEMENT: The goal of McNair IS to increase
graduate degree attainment of students from segments of society that are underrepresented.
Type of Projects: Research opportunities for participants who have completed their sophomore year of
college -Mentoring Seminars and other scholarly activities designed to prepare students for doctoral
studies -Summer internships Tutoring Academic counseling Assistance in obtaining student financial
aid Assistance in securing admission and financial aid for enroliment in graduate programs
Eligible participants: Only institutions of higher education and combinations of institutions of higher
education are eligible to apply for McNair awards. If you have further questions about eligibility. please
contact [email protected].
Eligible participants: Students who qualify for McNair must be enrolled in a degree-granting program at
an eligible institution. In all projects. at least two-thirds of the participants must be low-income, potential
first-generation college students. The remaining participants may be from groups that are underrepresented
in graduate education.
Applying for a grant/next competition: Competitions are held every fourth year. The next closing date for
the receipt of competitive applications under this program will be October 2. 1998.
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES: The goal of Student Support Services (SSS) is to increase the college
retention and graduation rates of its participants and facilitate the process of transition from one level of
higher education to the next.
Types of projects: Instruction in basic study skills Tutorial services -Academic, financial, or personal
counseling Assistance in securing admission and financial aid for enrollment in four-year institutions
-Assistance in securing admission and financial aid for enrollment in graduate and professional programs
Information about career options Mentoring -Special services for students with limited English
proficiency
Eligible applicants: SSS projects may only be sponsored by institutions of higher education or
combinations of institutions of higher education. Institutions must assure that SSS participants will be
offered financial aid packages sufficient to meet their full financial needs. If you have further questions
about eligibility, please contact [email protected].
Eligible participants: To receive assistance, students must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a
program of postsecondary education at a grantee institution. Only potential first-generation college
students, low-income students, and students with disabilities evidencing academic need are eligible to
participate in SSS projects. Two-thirds of the participants in any SSS project must be either disabled or
potential first-generation college students from low-income families. One-third of the disabled participants
must also be low-income students.
Application/next competition: Student Support Services competitions are held every fourth year.
Applications for FY 1997 funding were submitted in October 1996. The next closing date for receipt of
applications under this program will be in the summer or fall of 2000.
TALENT SEARCH: The goal of Talent Search is to increase the number of youth from disadvantaged
backgrounds who complete high school and enroll in the postsecondary education institution of their choice.
Type of projects: Academic, financial, career, or personal counseling including advice on entry or re-entry
to secondary or postsecondary programs -Career exploration and aptitude assessment Tutorial services
Information on postsecondary education -Exposure to college campuses Information on student financial
assistance Assistance in completing college admissions and financial aid applications Assistance in
preparing for college entrance exams -Mentoring programs Special activities for sixth, seventh. and
eighth graders Workshops for the parents of participants
Eligible applicants: Talent Search projects may be sponsored by institutions of higher education, public or
private agencies or organizations, a combination of the above, and in exceptional cases, secondary schools.
If you have further questions about eligibility, please contact [email protected].
Eligible participants: Students must be between the ages of 11 and 27 and have completed the fifth grade.
In any given project, two-thirds of the participants must be students who are low-income and potential
first-generation college students.
Application/next competition: Competitions for Talent Search funding are held every fourth year.
Applications for FY 1998 funding were submitted in October 1997. The next closing date for receipt of
competitive applications under this program will be in the summer or fall of 2001.
TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS STAFF: The Training Program for Federal
TRIO Programs provides funding to enhance the skills and expertise of project directors and staff employed
in the Federal TRIO Programs.
Types of projects: The Training program provides training and information on the following topics:
Student retention and graduation strategies Reporting student retention and project performance
Counseling services -Legislative and regulatory requirements Assisting students in securing adequate
financial aid The design and operation of model TRIO projects New director training -Coordinating
activities
Eligible applicants: Only institutions of higher education as well as public and private not-for-profit
institutions or organizations may apply. If you have further questions about eligibility, please contact
[email protected].
Eligible participants: Individuals who are employed (or who are preparing for employment) in a TRIO
project are eligible to participate in training programs.
Application/next competition: Competitions for Training funding are held every second year. Applications
for FY 1998 funding were submitted in October 1997. The next closing date for receipt of competitive
applications under this program will be in winter of 2001.
UPWARD BOUND: The goal of Upward Bound is to increase the rates at which participants enroll in and
graduate from institutions of postsecondary education.
Types of projects: All Upward Bound projects MUST provide instruction in math, laboratory science,
composition, literature, and foreign language. Other services include:
Instruction in reading, writing, study skills, and other subjects necessary for success in education beyond
high school Academic, financial, or personal counseling Exposure to academic programs and cultural
events Tutorial services -Information on postsecondary education opportunities Assistance in completing
college entrance and financial aid applications -Assistance in preparing for college entrance exams
Eligible applicants: Only institutions of higher education, public or private not-for-profit agencies, a
combination of institutions, agencies, and organizations, and in exceptional cases, secondary schools may
apply. If you have further questions about eligibility, please contact [email protected].
Eligible participants: In order to qualify for the program, students: must have completed the 8th grade; are
between the ages of 13 and 19 (except veterans); and must have a need for academic support in order to
pursue a program of postsecondary education. All students must be either from low-income families or be
potential first-generation college students. The program requires that two-thirds of the participants in a
project must be both low-income and potential first-generation college students. The remaining one-third
must be either low-income or potential first-generation college students. Students are selected based on
recommendations from local educators, social workers, clergy, or other interested parties.
Application/next competition: Competitions are held every fourth year. The next closing date for the
receipt of competitive applications under this program will be October 30, 1998.
UPWARD BOUND MATH/SCIENCE: The goal of the program is to help students recognize and develop
their potential to excel in the fields of math and science and encourage them to pursue postsecondary
degrees in math and science.
Types of projects: Summer programs of intensive math and science training Year-round counseling and
advisement Exposure to university faculty who do research in math and science Computer training
Participant-conducted scientific research under the guidance of a faculty member or graduate student
serving as the participant's mentor.
Eligible applicants: Upward Bound Math/Science projects may only be sponsored by institutions of higher
education, public or private not-for-profit agencies or organizations, a combination of institutions,
agencies, or organizations, and, in exceptional cases, secondary schools. If you have further questions
about eligibility, please contact [email protected].
Eligible participants: Student applicants must be eligible to participate in the Upward Bound program and
must have completed the ninth grade. However, participants do not necessarily have to be participating in
a regular Upward Bound program. Two-thirds of all participants must be low-income, potential first-
generation college students. The remaining one-third must be low-income or potential first-generation
college students.
Application/next competition: Competitions are held every fourth year. The next closing date for the
receipt of competitive applications under this program will be October 2, 1998.
For additional information for each of the TRIO programs, contact the teams listed below.
Robert L. Belle, Director (202) 708-4804
College and University Preparation Team (202) 708-5545
Talent Search
Upward Bound
Upward Bound Math/Science
-Educational Opportunity Centers
College and University Support Team (202) 708-5546
TRIO Training Program
-Student Support Services
McNair Program
III.Pre-K Through 12
A. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
participation in high-quality, early childhood edu-
cation and care programs prepares children to learn
1.
OVERVIEW
when they enter kindergarten and first grade, and
has long-term positive effects on educational out-
I
n the fall of 1996, approximately 66.1
comes for socially and economically disadvantaged
million students were enrolled in edu-
youth.2
cation institutions from pre-primary to
the college level.¹ Latinos account for a large and
Despite the advantages of attending pre-pri-
growing proportion of that student population.
mary education programs, statistics indicate that
Between 1975 and 1994, the percentage of White
Latino children have consistently been less likely
students declined at all school levels, while that of
than their White and Black counterparts to be
a-
Black students grew from 14.5% to 16.0%, and that
rolled in such classes over the past two decades
of Hispanic students grew from 6.5% to 13.0%.
(see Figure 3.1 and 3.2).
Given that the Hispanic student population
Among three-year-olds, four out of ten Whites
(40.2%) and Blacks (41.1%) were enrolled in
is growing both in absolute numbers and as a per-
centage of the total student population, it is increas-
pre-primary programs, compared to two out
ingly critical that Hispanics obtain a high-quality
of ten Hispanics (21.2%) (see Figure 3.1).
education of adequate duration. However, while
Among four-year-olds, 60.8% of Whites,
the academic progress and achievement of Lati-
68.2% of Blacks, and 49.0% of Latinos were
nos has increased in absolute terms, there contin-
enrolled in pre-primary programs (see Figure
ues to be a wide gap between Hispanics and their
3.1).
White counterparts in several sig-
nificant areas.
Figure 3.1
2.
PRE-PRIMARY
Enrollment in Preprimary Programs, 1995
EDUCATION
88.6
5 year-olds
93.7
ENROLLMENT
93.4
60.8
a.
Pre-primary
Age 4 year-olds
68.2
49
and
402
Kindergarten
3 year-olds
41.1
21.2
Today, children are es-
0
20
40
60
80
100
pecially likely to be enrolled in
Percentage
some type of pre-primary educa-
tion program because their moth-
White
Black
Hispanic
ers are more likely than mothers
Source: The Condition of Education 1997, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
from previous generations to be
Department of Education, June 1997.
part of the workforce outside the
home. Research indicates that
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 13
Figure 3.2
Preschool Enrollment 3 - 4 Year Olds
1977 1993
50
At the kindergarten level the gap in en-
40
38.3
38
35.2
rollment rates closes, and the enrollment
31.7
31.1
298
28.2
27.9
Percent
30
25.8
24 4
rate for Hispanics surpasses that of
20
20
18.1
17.9
16.6
Whites. Among five-year-olds, 93.4%
14.6
10
of Latinos and 93.7% of Blacks were en-
rolled in kindergarten compared to
0
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
88.6% of Whites (see Figure 3.1).
Year
The differences in enrollment rates in
White
Black
Hispanic
pre-primary programs may be explained, in
part, by studies that indicate that Hispanics
Source: The Condition of Education 1995, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
prefer to leave their children in home-based
Department of Education, June 1995.
child-care settings, even when there are no
shortages in institutionalized child-care.³ Re-
search suggests that Hispanic parents tend
to look to their families, instead of child care
Figure 3.3
programs, to serve as caregivers for young
children.4 Additionally, in some cases, His-
Poverty Rates for Children
panic parents may not be able to afford the
1993
1996
tuition charged by the many programs that
are privately run. The gap closes at the kin-
All Others
70.7%
dergarten level because such programs are
75.4%
run by the public school system, as well as
by private institutions.
b. Head Start
Head Start participation rates
24.6%
Hispanic
present an example of how important and
29.3%
effective federal education programs
underserve the Latino population. Three-
Source: Poverty in the United States, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 1997
and four-year-olds are eligible to participate
in Head Start if the family income is at or
below the poverty level. With respect to
Hispanics, the data demonstrate that while Latino
erty. Yet examination of Head Start data, taking
children are overrepresented in families living in pov-
into account the participation rates of the Puerto
erty, they are underrepresented in Head Start pro-
Rico island population and Migrant Head Start par-
grams designed to remedy the detrimental effects
ticipants,5 indicate that Latino children were only
of poverty on educational achievement.
15% of children enrolled in Head Start programs.
In 1993, Census data indicated that Latino
By 1996, the proportion of all children in the
children constituted 24.6% of all children in pov-
U.S. mainland (not including Puerto Rico) living
Page 14
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects
July 1998
Figure 3.4
Head Start Participation Rates
40
at or below the poverty level who
36
36
are Hispanic increased from
33
32.3
24.6% to 29.3%. During the same
30
period, the proportion of all chil-
White
dren participating in Head Start
20
17.9
Black
who are Hispanic increased
15
Hispanic
slightly from 24% to 25.2%, sug-
gesting an underrepresentation of
10
Latino children in the program,
relative to their eligibility. How-
0
1993
1996
ever, if island Puerto Ricans and
Source: Head Start Statistical Fact Sheet, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, 1994; Head Start
migrant Hispanic children are ex-
Statistical Fact Sheet, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, 1997.
cluded from these data, the pro-
portion of all Latino children in
Head Start programs only grew
Figure 3.5
from 15% to 17.8% - resulting in
an even greater level of
Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment
underrepresentation (see Figures
1984 - 1994
3.3 and 3.4). This small increase
80
71.2
704
70.7
68
67.5
65.7
in the participation of Latino chil-
60
dren in Head Start programs is
especially insufficient measured
Percent
40
against the proportion of Latino
20
16.2
16.1
15.2
16
16.3
16.9
10.1
12
11.8
12.7
children who lived below the pov-
9.1
9.9
erty level; in 1996, two of every five
0
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
Hispanic children (40.3%) were
Year
poor - the highest rate of child
White
Black
Hispanic
poverty of all racial/ethnic groups
that year.
Source: Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rghts Compliance Reports, Office of
Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1984 1996.
3.
ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
were enrolled at the secondary level (grades nine
through twelve). Overall, the enrollment of students
In the fall of 1994, approximately 31.5 mil-
increased by 3.3% between 1984 and 1994. Figure
lion children were enrolled in elementary school
3.5 shows that the minority student population, as a
(grades one through eight) and about 14.6 million
percentage of the total population, is increasing,
*
Migrant students are not included in this calculation because they are typically served under the Migrant
Head Start program.
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 15
while that of White students is de-
Figure 3.6
creasing. In 1994, White students
accounted for slightly less than
SINGLE GRADE ENROLLMENT FOR PERSONS THREE TO 24 YEARS
two-thirds of the population, as
OLD 1994
compared with just under three-
Number
fourths in 1984. Figure 3.6 pro-
(thousands)
1-4
5-8
9-10
10-12
vides the numbers and percent-
All Races
15,999
15,513
7,572
7,044
ages for single grade enrollment in
Whites
12,576
12,209
5,900
5,530
1994.
Blacks
2,578
2,508
1,273
1,160
Hispanics
2,117
2,045
974
900
4.
PRIVATE SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
Percentage
All Races
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
A comparison of private and
Whites
78.6%
78.7%
77.9%
78.5%
public school enrollment rates for
Blacks
16.1%
16.2%
16.8%
16.5%
the last 30 years indicates that
Hispanics
13.2%
13.2%
12.9
12.8%
private school enrollment
dropped 29.8%, while public
Source: School Enrollment - Social and Economic Characteristics of Students:
school enrollment grew 8.8%.
October 1994, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. (1996)
However, more recent data indi-
cate that private school enroll-
ment rates have increased for
Figure 3.7
both the Black and Hispanic
PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
populations while decreasing for
FOR PERSONS THREE TO 24 YEARS OLD
Whites. For example, in 1991, for
persons three to 24 years old,
1991
1994
87.7% of Whites, 7.5% of Blacks,
White
87.7%
86.2%
and 5.8% of Hispanics were en-
Black
7.5%
10.3%
rolled in private schools. In 1994,
Hispanic
5.8%
7.7%
for the same age group, 86.2% of
Sources: School Enrollment, Social and Economic Characteristics of Students:
Whites, 10.3% of Blacks, and
October 1994 and October 1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (1996)
7.7% of Hispanics were enrolled
in private schools (see Figure 3.7).
population.⁶ A comparison between the private and
Additional data from the National Center for
public school enrollment rates that same year in-
Educational Statistics (NCES) highlight similar
dicates that White students accounted for a larger
findings. According to a 1993 survey of private
percent of the student population in private schools
schools (K-12), approximately 4.8 million students
than in public schools and that Blacks and Latinos
were enrolled in private schools and such students
accounted for a lower percent of the student popu-
accounted for about 11.0% of the total student
lation in private schools than in public schools (see
Page 16
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Figure 3.8
Private and Public Students by Race/Ethnicity, 1993
Figure 3.8). In 1993, Whites com-
100
prised 78% of the private schools'
80
78
population, compared to 67% of
67.3
the public school population;
60
Blacks constituted 9.1% of the stu-
Percent
40
dent population in private schools,
20
16.3
compared to 16.0% in public
11.9
9.1
$
schools; and Hispanics accounted
0
White
Black
Hispanic
for 8.0% percent of the private
Race/Ethnicity
school population, compared to
Public
Private
12.0% of the public school popu-
lation.
Source: Private School Universe Survey, 1993 94, National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, May 1996.
X
B. ENROLLMENT
BELOW MODAL
progress, higher percentages of Latinos than
GRADE
Whites are enrolled below their modal grade level.
Data for six-to-eight-year-olds demonstrate
1. INTRODUCTION
that below-modal grade enrollment rates have
"Modal grade" is defined as the year of school
dropped for all groups between 1988 and 1994
in which the largest proportion of a given age is
(despite a slight increase in 1990 for Whites
enrolled. Below, modal grade data measure the
and Blacks) (see Figure 3.9). In particular,
degree to which children are retained in grade over
while Hispanic six-to-eight year-olds were
their school careers. Information on grade reten-
more likely than Whites or Blacks to be below
tion is significant because it is the most important
grade in 1988, by 1994 they were less likely to
single predictor of a student's dropping out of
be retained in grade. In 1988, 23.2% of
school. For Hispanics, in particular, U.S. Census
Hispanic six-to-eight-year-olds were enrolled
data on school enrollment demonstrate that, at criti-
below modal grade compared to 21.0% of
cal points in their academic careers, Latinos are
Whites and 18.6% of Blacks. However, by
more likely to be retained in grade than Whites.
1994, the Hispanic rate decreased by 6.4 per-
centage points to 16.8%, while the rate for
2. BELOW-MODAL-GRADE
Whites decreased by 1.6 percentage points to
ENROLLMENT BY AGE AND RACE
19.4%, and the rate for Blacks decreased by
only 0.2 of a percentage point to 18.4%.
In general, data on modal grade enroll-
ment indicate that Hispanics are less likely than
Analysis of the data for other age groups indi-
their White and Black classmates to fall behind in
cates a reversal of the trend identified among
grade level while in the early stages of their school-
six-to-eight-year-olds. For Hispanic nine-to
ing. However, in the latter stages of their academic
11-year-olds, the modal grade enrollment rates
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 17
dropped between 1988 and 1994,
Figure 3.9
yet Latinos were more likely to be
Enrollment Below Modal Grade 6-8-Year-Olds
enrolled below grade level than
1988 1994
Whites but less likely than Blacks
30
(see Figure 3.10). In 1988, 37.0%
25
of Hispanic nine-to-11-year-olds
23.2
21.9
21.9
21
21.5
20.6
195
20
19.4
were enrolled below modal grade,
18.6
18.4
16.2
168
compared to 27.6% of Whites and
Percent
15
33.1% of Blacks. By 1994, the rate
10
for Hispanics aged nine to 11 years
5
old decreased by 8.6 percentage
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
points to 28.4%, yet this rate was
Year
still higher than the 25.8% rate for
White
Black
Hispanic
Whites. The rate for Blacks in-
creased 2.0 percentage points from
Source: School Enrollment Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October
1994, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, September, 1996.
33.1% to 35.1%.
Among 12-to-14-year-olds, Hispan-
ics were again more likely to be en-
rolled below modal grade than
Figure 3.10
Whites and less likely than Blacks,
Enrollment Below Modal Grade 9-11-Year-Olds
although the rate for Latinos de-
1988 1994
creased between 1988 and 1994. In
50
1988, Hispanics were twice as likely
as Whites to be enrolled below
40
37
34.8
35.1
33.1
33.1
grade level (see Figure 3.11). While
30
27.6
28.7
27.5
28.4
26.8
Percent
25.3
25.8
45.0% of Hispanics were retained
20
in grade, 27.2% of Whites and
37.6% of Blacks were enrolled be-
10
low grade level. The data from 1994
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
indicate that the rate for Hispanics
Year
decreased by over 12.7 percentage
White
Black
Hispanic
points since 1988; however, Hispan-
Source: School Enrollment Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October
ics still have higher retention rates
1994, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1996.
than Whites. In 1994, 32.3% of
Latinos, 30.1% of Whites, and
36.1% of Blacks of this age group
this case, however, Hispanics are more likely
were retained in grade.
than both their White and Black counterparts
The data for the population group of 15-to-
to be behind in modal grade. In 1988, 36.8%
17-year-olds demonstrate a similar trend. In
of Latinos, 23.9% of Whites, and 38.4% of
Page 18
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Blacks between 15 and 17
Figure 3.11
years old were enrolled below
Enrollment Below Modal Grade 12-14-Year-Olds
grade level. In 1994, the rates
1988 1994
were higher for both Latinos
60
and Whites, but again, His-
50
45
46.1
panics were more likely to be
40
37.6
37.7
38
361
retained in grade than any
34.3
other group (see Figure 3.12).
Percent
32.3
30
27.2
28.4
29.6
30.1
Two in five (39.9%) Latino
20
students aged 15-17 were en-
10
rolled below grade level. This
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
rate was 10.3 percentage
Year
points higher than that for
White
Black
Hispanic
Whites (29.6%), but only 2.2
percentage points above that
Source: School Enrollment Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October
1994, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1996.
for Blacks (37.7%).
C. ENROLLMENT IN
ACADEMIC
Figure 3.12
PROGRAMS
Enrollment Below Modal Grade 15-17-Year-Olds
1988 1994
Statistics on participation
50
rates in gifted and talented pro-
42.9
398
40.6
39.9
39.9
40
38.4
37.7
grams demonstrate that Latinos
368
continue to be underrepresented
29.6
30
27.3
28.1
in such programs even though
Percent
23.9
20
their overall enrollment rates have
increased (see Figure 3.13).
10
0
In 1984, Whites accounted for
1988
1990
1992
1994
71.2% of the overall student
Year
population but made up
White
Black
Hispanic
81.4% of the enrollment in
Source: School Enrollment Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October
1994, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1996.
the gifted and talented pro-
grams. Hispanics accounted
for 9.1% of the total student
population, but only 4.7% of students enrolled
in gifted and talented programs, and Blacks
lation but only 8.4% of the students in gifted
accounted for 16.2% of the total student popu-
and talented programs (compare Figure 3.13
with Figure 3.5).
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 19
Figure 3.13
Gifted and Talented Enrollment Rates, 1984 - 1994
By 1994, while the overall enroll-
100
ment of Hispanics in such pro-
81.4
806
806
grams had increased since 1984
79
80.2
80
77.3
and had decreased for Whites
during this time period, there was
Percentage
60
no corresponding change in the
40
enrollment rates in the gifted and
20
84
14
7.9
8
9
4.7
5.1
5.1
6
6.5
8.5
64
talented programs. While the en-
0
###
rollment rate for Whites de-
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
creased by 5.5 percentage points
Year
White
Black
Hispanic
to 65.7% between 1984 and 1994,
their enrollment rate in the gifted
Source: Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report, Office of Civil
Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1984 - 1994.
and talented programs remained
relatively constant at 80.2%. By
contrast, the Hispanic population
grew by 3.6 percentage points to
12.7%, yet only 6.4% were en-
Figure 3.14
rolled in the gifted and talented
Latino Students in Predominantly Minority Schools
programs. Similarly, while the
1980 1994
Black student population in-
100
creased slightly (15.2% to 16.9%)
80
734
74
between 1984 and 1994, they re-
71.5
681
mained under-represented in gifted
and talented programs, experienc-
Percentage
60
40
ing only a minor increase, from
8.4% in 1984 to 8.5% in 1994 (com-
20
pare Figure 3.13 with Figure 3.5).
0
1980 81
1986 87
1991 92
1994 95
D. ENROLLMENT IN
Year
SEGREGATED
Source: Gary Orfield, et al, Deepening Segregation in American Public Schools, Harvard
Project on School Desegregation, April 1997.
SCHOOLS
Between 1954, when Brown v.
Board of Education was decided, and the early
and that the nation is headed backwards toward
1980s, there was slow but significant progress to-
greater segregation."⁷ The move toward
ward desegregating the nation's public schools.
resegregation in the 1990s is, in part, the result of
However, recent reports from the Harvard Uni-
the Reagan and Bush Administrations' active op-
versity Project on School Desegregation provide
position to school desegregation policies. At the
"clear signs that [the] progress is coming undone
same time, various judicial appointments trans-
Page 20
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Figure 3.15
Latino Students in 90 - 100% Minority Schools
formed the federal courts such
1980 1994
that they were less receptive to
40
35
34
34.8
legal arguments supporting deseg-
322
30
28.8
regation. Consequently, court de-
25
cisions in the 1990s are permitting
a return to segregated neighbor-
Percentage
20
15
hood schools. Whatever the cause,
10
the Harvard Project demonstrates
5
that there is a national increase in
0
1980 81
1986 87
1991 92
1994 95
segregation, to the point that "ra-
Year
cial and ethnic segregation of Af-
rican American and Latino stu-
Source: Gary Orfield, et al, Deepening Segregation in American Public Schools, Harvard
Project on School Desegregation, April 1997.
dents has produced a deepening
isolation from middle-class stu-
dents and from successful
schools."8
The various measures of seg-
Figure 3.16
regation used by the Harvard
White Students in Schools Attended by Typical Latino Students
Project demonstrate that over time
1980 1994
40
Latinos have become more segre-
355
32.9
gated; these include:
31.2
306
30
The percentage of African
American and Latino students
Percentage
20
in schools with less than half
10
White enrollment
The number of students expe-
0
1980 81
1986 87
1991 92
1994 - 95
riencing intense isolation in
Year
schools having less than one-
tenth White students
Source: Gary Orfield, et al, Deepening Segregation in American Public Schools, Harvard
Project on School Desegregation, April 1997.
The percentage of White stu-
dents in a school attended by
the typical African American
or Latino student
"Latino segregation has become substantially more
Based on the three measures of segregation,
severe than African American segregation."¹⁰
Harvard Project Director Gary Orfield concludes
Figure 3.14 shows that between 1980 and
that while the segregation of Blacks has increased,
1995, Latino enrollment in predominantly minor-
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 21
ity schools increased from 68.1% to 74.0%. Fig-
attended such schools in New York, 17.3% in Cali-
ure 3.15 shows that in schools with less than one-
fornia, and 19.6% in Texas. In schools of extreme
tenth Whites (the measure of intense isolation), the
isolation (90-100% minority), New York was again
percentage of Latinos increased from 28.8% in
the leader, with 57.3% of Latinos attending such
1980 to 34.8% in 1995. Finally, Figure 3.16 illus-
schools. New Jersey followed with 43.4% and Texas
trates the decline in the percentage of White stu-
with 43.0% of Latinos enrolled in schools of in-
dents in schools attended by Latino students. In
tense isolation. In addition, 19.2% of Whites in
1980, the proportion of White students in schools
New York were in schools attended by Latino stu-
attended by Latino students was 35.5%. By 1994,
dents, compared to 24.8% of Whites in California,
the proportion decreased 4.9 percentage points to
and 25.0% of Whites in Texas.
30.6%.
An important finding of the Harvard Project
An analysis of the segregation data by state
is that:
indicates that New York leads the states in the seg-
[t]he relationship between segrega-
regation of Latinos, as it did in 1980 (see Figure
tion by race and segregation by poverty
3.17). In the measure of percentage of Latinos at-
in the public schools across the nation is
tending majority White schools, 13.8% of Latinos
exceptionally strong. The correlation
FIGURE 3.17
STATE RANKINGS IN THE SEGREGATION OF LATINO STUDENTS
1994-95
% of Latinos in
% of Latinos in 90-100%
% Whites in Schools of Latino
Majority White Schools
Minority Schools
Students
New York
13.8
New York
57.3
New York
19.2
California
17.3
New Jersey
43.4
California
24.8
Texas
19.6
Texas
43.0
Texas
25.0
New Mexico
21.6
California
38.7
New Jersey
29.3
Rhode Island
24.8
Illinois
34.9
Illinois
30.9
Illinois
26.5
Connecticut
32.4
New Mexico
31.0
New Jersey
27.3
Florida
27.6
Florida
34.5
Connecticut
31.9
Pennsylvania
25.8
Connecticut
35.0
Florida
33.2
New Mexico
20.0
Rhode Island
38.0
Arizona
34.0
Arizona
18.9
Arizona
38.2
Pennsylvania
38.3
Indiana
17.0
Pennsylvania
40.9
Massachusetts
39.4
Florida
14.3
Massachusetts
42.8
Source: Gary Orfield, et al, Deepening Segregation in American Public Schools, Harvard Project on School
Desegregation, Cambridge, MA (1997)
Page 22
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
FIGURE 3.18
HISPANIC STUDENT SUSPENSIONS FOR SELECTED STATES, 1990 & 1994
(NUMBER AND PERCENT OF ALL SUSPENSIONS)
1990
1994
State
Reported
Percent of
Projected
Percent of
Number
All State
Number
All State
Suspensions
Suspensions
*National
161,344
12.0
404,483
13.1
Arizona
3,660
26.0
16,027
35.4
California
71,339
37.0
149,542
39.9
Colorado
5,067
26.0
12,672
24.0
Florida
11,898
9.0
21,421
11.7
Illinois
5,237
12.0
16,196
11.5
Massachusetts
2,212
15.0
9,268
20.1
New Jersey
3,997
14.0
12,989
14.0
New Mexico
4,639
57.0
16,561
56.6
New York
2,640
9.0
17,769
14.7
Texas
31,461
42.0
66,548
40.8
Source: State By State Analysis of Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report, 1990 & 1994,
Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1990 & 1994)
National total of Hispanic suspensions and percentage of all suspensions.
1990 data are reported data, 1994 data are projected.
1990 data appear suspect.
between the percent of [B]lack and
To the contrary, one can find examples of high aca-
Latino enrollments and the percent of
demic achievement in the midst of segregation and
students receiving free lunch is an ex-
poverty; nevertheless there is a strong relationship
tremely high .72. This means that when
between segregation, poverty, and low academic
we talk about racially segregated schools,
achievement. Moreover, any education agenda
they are very likely to be segregated by
addressing the needs of Latino students must also
poverty as well. 11 (Emphasis added)
address the twin concerns of segregation and pov-
These findings have grave implications for the
erty.
educational outcomes of Latino students. Given
E. SUSPENSION RATES
the evidence that high-poverty schools tend to have
low rates of educational achievement, and that
Student suspension has traditionally been
Latino students are more likely to attend schools
looked at as an important indicator in identifying
segregated by race and poverty, then there is strong
students facing serious problems, and it is consid-
evidence that Latino students have difficult hurdles
ered a risk factor for dropping out of school. Stu-
to overcome in the quest for achieving quality edu-
dents suspended from school do not have the op-
cation. This is not to say that children in these cir-
portunity to participate in regular day-to-day class-
cumstances cannot obtain educational excellence.
room activities and, consequently, fall behind in
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 23
1990 and 1994, while the
Figure 3.25
percentages decreased
from 71% to 64.3%.
Percentage of Students Needing Bilingual Education Programs
by Race/Ethnicity 1994
G. ACHIEVEMENT
Hispanic
TEST SCORES
74.9%
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 1969, the National As-
sessment of Educational Progress
Asian/Pacific Islander
15.9%
(NAEP) has conducted periodic
White
testing of the nation's students in
5.9%
areas including reading, math-
Source: Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report, U.S.
ematics, science, writing, and com-
Department of Education, 1994
puters. (The NAEP testing results
are based on sampling techniques,
as opposed to other proposed tests'
basing results on the aggregation of individual re-
Blacks (189) was 29 points. By 1994, the gap
sults.) This long-term assessment provides "infor-
between test scores for Whites and Hispanics
mation about students' achievement over time."12
(186) grew to 32 points; and increased to 33
The data presented below illustrate the NAEP re-
points for Whites and Blacks (185) (see Fig-
sults by race and ethnicity.
ure 3.26).
2.
READING
In 1988, the difference in test scores between
13-year-old Whites (261) and Hispanics (240)
The national average in the NAEP reading
was 21 points; and between Whites and Blacks
scores for all age groups remained relatively un-
(243) was 18 points. By 1994, the gap in test
changed between 1988 and 1994. Overall, Whites
scores between Whites (265) and Hispanics
continued to perform above the national average,
(235) increased by 30 points; for Whites and
while Blacks and Hispanics consistently performed
Blacks (234) the gap was 31 points (see Figure
well below the national average.
3.27).
In addition, the gap between Whites' and
In 1988, the difference in test scores between
Hispanics' reading scores is growing, albeit at a slow
17-year-old Whites (295) and Hispanics (271)
pace:
was 24 points; and between Whites and Blacks
In 1988, for the population of nine-year-olds,
(274) was 21 points. In 1994 the gap between
the difference in scores between Whites (218)
Whites (296) and Hispanics (263) was 33
and Latinos (194) in the NAEP reading scores
points; and the gap between Whites and Blacks
was 24 points; the gap between Whites and
(266) was 30 points (see Figure 3.28).
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 29
The NAEP study also assesses levels of
Figure 3.26
reading performance. NAEP has identified five
Reading Scores for Nine-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity, 1988 - 1994
levels of reading performance:
250
Level 350: Ability to Learn from Special-
218
217
218
218
200
189
194
189
192
182
185
185
186
ized Reading Materials
Hundreds
150
Level 300: Ability to Understand Compli-
100
cated Information
50
Level 250: Ability to Interrelate Ideas and
0
Make Generalizations
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year
Level 200: Partially-Developed Skills and
White
Black
Understanding
Hispanic
Level 150: Ability to Perform Simple Dis-
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
crete Reading
Department of Education, November 1996.
Figure 3.29 shows the percentage of nine-,
13-, and 17-year-olds who have performed at or
above each of the reading performance levels
listed above. Generally, the test results demon-
strated an increase for all age categories and race/
Figure 3.27
ethnic groups. However, Whites were more likely
Reading Scores for 13-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity, 1988 - 1994
to score at or above the Reading Performance
Levels than either Blacks or Hispanics. Some
300
26)
262
266
265
highlights of the results are:
250
243
240
242
238
238
239
234
235
200
Among nine-year-olds who demonstrated
mastery at Level 200, NAEP reported an in-
Hundreds
150
100
crease between 1971 and 1994 for Whites
50
and Blacks, and between 1975 and 1994 for
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
Latinos. However, Whites and Hispanics
Year
experienced modest gains compared to
White
Black
Hispanic
Blacks. Between 1971 and 1974 the per-
centage of Whites who scored at or above
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Level 200 increased from 65% to 70%; and
Department of Education, November 1996.
from 22% to 38% for Blacks. The smallest
gain (2.0 percentage points) was for Latinos
between 1975 and 1994, from 35% to 37%.
Initial results for Whites and Blacks are from 1971, while the first assessment of Latinos was done in 1975.
Page 30
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Figure 3.28
Among nine-year-olds who
Reading Scores for 17-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity, 1988 - 1994
demonstrated mastery at level
350
295
297
297
296
250, all groups again experi-
300
274
271
267
275
271
261
266
263
enced an increase. There was
250
Hundreds
200
an increase between 1971 and
150
1994 for Whites and Blacks,
100
and between 1975 and 1994
50
for Latinos. However, despite
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
the noted increase in 1994,
Year
Whites were still over three
White
Black
Hispanic
times more likely than His-
panics to score at that level.
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
In 1994, while 20% of White
Department of Education, November 1996.
nine-year-olds scored at or
above the 250 Level, only 4%
of Blacks and 6% of Hispan-
ics demonstrated similar mastery.
pared to their Black and Hispanic counter-
Among 13-year-olds at the 250 Level, there was
parts. In 1971, 84% of Whites and 40% of
an increase in the percentage of White and
Blacks, and in 1975, 53% of Hispanics, per-
Black students who scored at or above that
formed at or above the Level 250. By 1994,
level between 1971 and 1994. Latinos also ex-
86% of Whites, 66% of Blacks, and 63% of
perienced an increase between 1975 and 1994.
Hispanics scored at Level 250.
But again, despite the gains for Hispanics in
In 1994, among 17-year-olds, 48% of Whites,
1994, Whites were twice as likely as Latinos to
22% of Blacks, and 20% of Hispanics scored
score at or above Level 250; in 1994, 68% of
at the 300 Level. The scores increased from
Whites scored at the 250 Level, compared to
1971, when 43% of Whites and 8% of Blacks,
36% of Blacks and 34% of Hispanics.
and from 1975, when 13% of Hispanics, scored
Whites and Blacks experienced an increase in
at Level 300.
the percentage of 13-year-old students who
scored at or above the 300 Level between 1971
3.
WRITING
and 1994. Latinos also experienced an increase
between 1975 and 1994. In 1994, Whites were
NAEP also conducted trend writing as-
four times more likely than Hispanics to score
sessments in 1994 that involved nationally repre-
at the 300 Level; while 17% of Whites tested
sentative samples of fourth, eighth, and 11th grad-
ers. Similar assessments have been done since
at that level, only 4% of Blacks and 4% of His-
1984. Between 1984 to 1994, NAEP found no real
panics scored at the 300 Level.
changes in writing scale scores across grades for all
Between 1971 and 1994, 17-year-old Whites
students as a whole. During this time, fourth-grad-
made only modest gains at the 250 Level com-
ers' scale scores increased by one point, eighth-
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 3'
Figure 3.29
TRENDS IN PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS
AT OR ABOVE READING PERFORMANCE LEVELS
BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 1971/1975 AND 1994
1971
1975
1994
LEVEL
AGE
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
LEVEL 350
9
O
O
O
O
o
O
13
O
0
O
I
o
O
17
8
o
I
9
2
2
LEVEL 300
9
I
o
O
I
O
O
13
II
I
2
17
4
4
17
43
8
13
48
22
20
LEVEL 250
9
18
2
3
20
4
6
13
64
21
32
68
36
34
17
84
40
53
86
66
63
LEVEL 200
9
65
22
35
70
38
37
13
96
74
81
95
8t
82
17
98
82
89
98
93
91
LEVEL 150
9
94
70
81
96
79
80
13
100
99
100
100
99
99
17
100
98
99
100
100
99
Source: NAEP 1994 Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
graders' scores decreased by one point, and 11th-
(173) was 41 points; the gap between Whites
graders' scores decreased by five points. Hispanic
and Latinos (189) was 25 points. In 1998 the
students experienced slight gains in average writ-
gap between Whites and Blacks was 42 points
ing scale scores during the 1984-1994 period. Al-
and between Whites and Hispanics was 25
though significant narrowing was seen at several
points (see Figure 3.30).
of the writing performance levels shown in Figure
At grade eight, there was a slight two-point in-
3.33, the gap between Whites and Hispanics in
crease between 1988 and 1994 in the average
writing proficiency remained relatively constant
writing scale score for Hispanics, from 250 to
overall during this period.
252. Despite this increase, in 1994 White
At grade four, the gap between the test scores
eighth-graders (272) still performed at higher
of White, Black, and Hispanic students re-
levels than Black students (245) by 27 points
mained constant between 1988 and 1994. In
(the highest in 10 years) and than Hispanic stu-
1994 the gap between Whites (214) and Blacks
dents (252) by 20 points. In 1988, Whites
Page 32
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
scored an average of 269
Figure 3.30
points, compared to 246 for
Writing Scores for Grade 4 by Race/Ethnicity
Blacks (a 23-point difference)
1988 1994
and 250 points for Hispanics
250
215
217
211
214
(a 19-point difference) (See
200
190
184
189
189
173
171
175
173
Figure 3.31).
Hundreds
150
At grade 11, the score for all
100
groups decreased between
50
1988 and 1994; however, the
gaps between groups re-
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
mained approximately the
Year
same. The scores for Whites,
White
Black
Hispanic
Blacks, and Hispanics de-
creased from 296 to 291; from
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, November 1996.
275 to 267; and from 274 to
271, respectively. In 1994, the
gap between Whites (291)
and Blacks (267) was 24
points; the gap between
Figure 3.31
Whites and Hispanics (271)
Writing Scores for Grade 8 by Race/Ethnicity
was 20 points. In 1988, the
1988 1994
350
gap between Whites and
300
279
Blacks was 21 points and be-
269
262
265
272
250
258
246
250
239
246
245
252
tween Whites and Hispanics
22 points (see Figure 3.32).
Hundreds
200
150
The trend writing assess-
100
ment ranges from 0 to 500 with the
50
following evaluations:
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year
Level 350 - Effective, coher-
White
Black
Hispanic
ent writing
Level 300 - Complete, suffi-
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, November 1996.
cient writing
Level 250 - Beginning fo-
cused, clear writing
Level 200 - Incomplete, vague writing
Figure 3.33 shows percentages of students
performing at or above the five assessment levels.
Level 150 - Brief, disjointed, unclear writing,
difficult to understand
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 33
Some progress is noted at Levels 250 and 300 for
from 1984 to 1994. In 1984, 79% of Whites,
grades eight and eleven:
48% of Blacks, and 47% of Hispanics tested at
At grade eight, the percentage of students test-
Level 250. By 1994, the rates for Whites and
ing at Level 250 decreased for Whites and
Blacks decreased to 75% and 43%, respec-
Blacks while it increased for Hispanics be-
tively. However, the percentage of Hispanics
tween 1984 and 1994. While the percentage
testing at this level increased by five percent-
of White students testing at Level 250 de-
age points to 52% (see Figure 3.33).
creased from 79% to 75% and the percentage
At grade 11, the percentage of White students
for Black students decreased from 48% to 43%,
testing at Level 300 decreased from 46% in
the percentage of Hispanics testing at this level
1984 to 39% in 1994. The percentage of His-
increased five percentage points, from 47% to
panics testing at this assessment level increased
52% (see Figure 3.33).
from 8% in 1984 to 20% in 1994. The per-
The percentage of all eighth-grade students
centage for Blacks remained constant at 16%
testing at or above Level 300 increased be-
during the same period (see Figure 3.33).
tween 1984 and 1994. The percentage of
4.
MATHEMATICS
Whites testing at this level increased from 16%
to 21%, compared to increases for Blacks from
Since the establishment of standards in school
3% to 5% and for Hispanics from 4% to 9%
mathematics in 1989, attention has been given to
(see Figure 3.33). The gaps between White and
this discipline and its role in school curricula. This
Black students increased during this same pe-
attention has resulted in the reworking of school
riod from 13 to 16 points at
the 300 Level; 31 to 32 points
at the 250 Level; and three
Figure 3.32
to eight points at the 200
Writing Scores for Grade 11 by Race/Ethnicity
1988 1994
Level. Between Whites and
350
Hispanics, gaps remained
296
293
294
300
291
275
274
277
268
274
263
267
271
relatively constant, except at
250
the 250 Level, where the dif-
200
ference between groups nar-
150
rowed from 32 points in 1984
100
to 23 points in 1994 (see Fig-
50
ure 3.33).
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
The percentages of White
White
Black
Hispanic
and Black students in the 11th
grade testing at or above
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Level 250 decreased, but in-
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
creased for Hispanic stu-
dents in the 10-year period
Page 34
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
curricula and teaching programs, an increased fo-
sponse questions.¹³ They also contained extended
cus on faculty development in mathematics, and
sets of background questions describing the con-
advances in assessing student progress in the sub-
text of students' mathematics learning experiences,
ject. The testing conducted by NAEP, which in-
both in and out of school.
volved sampling students from across the country,
The results from the NAEP long-term trend
provides a national picture of mathematics perfor-
assessments in mathematics provide a wide range
mance by Black, White, and Hispanic students at
of information about how students' performance
the ages of nine, 13, and 17. These long-term trend
has changed over time:
assessments employed a set of questions that fo-
cused heavily on students' performance and asso-
The average mathematics scale score of nine-
ciated achievement levels related to the use of
year-olds, beginning with the 1986 assessment,
manipulatives and performance on constructed-re-
shows a pattern of enhanced performance.
Figure 3.33
TRENDS IN PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS
AT OR ABOVE FIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE LEVELS
BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 1984 AND - 1994
1984
1994
LEVEL
GRADE
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
LEVEL 350
4
O
O
O
o
O
o
8
O
O
O
I
o
o
II
3
O
O
3
O
I
LEVEL 300
4
I
O
I
2
o
0
8
16
3
4
21
5
9
II
46
16
8
39
16
20
LEVEL 250
4
13
3
5
15
2
4
8
79
48
47
75
43
52
II
95
76
62
89
71
74
LEVEL 200
4
62
29
37
67
22
38
8
99
95
93
98
90
92
II
100
99
97
100
98
97
LEVEL 150
4
96
81
84
96
75
86
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
II
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: NAEP 1994 Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
NCLR . Latino Education: Status and Prospects . July 1998
Page 35
Figure 3.34
Mathematics Scores for Nine Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity
However, Whites continued to
1986 1994
outperform their Black and His-
300
panic counterparts, and while the
250
235
235
237
227
205
208
214
208
212
212
210
202
gap in scores between Whites
200
and Blacks remained constant,
Hundreds
150
the gap in scores between Whites
100
and Hispanics grew. In 1994 the
50
score for Whites was 237, com-
0
pared to 212 for Blacks and 210
1986
1990
1992
1994
Year
for Hispanics. The 1994 results
White
Black
Hispanic
show an increase for all groups
since 1986, with Whites scoring
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
227 points, compared to 202
Department of Education, November 1996.
points for Blacks and 205 for His-
panics (see Figure 3.34).
The mathematics scores for 13-
year-olds show a modest increase
Figure 3.35
for Whites, compared to just dis-
cernible increases for both Blacks
Mathematics Scores for 13-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity
1986 1994
and Hispanics. Additionally, the
350
gap in scores also grew slowly be-
300
274
276
279
281
249
254
255
250
259
249
252
256
tween 1986 and 1994. In 1994,
250
the gap of average scores be-
Hundreds
200
tween White (281) and Black
150
(252) 13-year-olds was 29 points,
100
50
compared to a gap of 25 points
0
between Whites and Hispanics
1986
1990
1992
1994
(256) of the same age. In 1986,
Year
the gap between Whites (274)
White
Black
Hispanic
and Blacks (249) was 25 points;
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
and between Whites and Hispan-
Department of Education, November 1996.
ics (254), the gap was 20 points (see
Figure 3.35).
The mathematics scale scores for
White students have consistently out-per-
17-year-olds is notable not only for the im-
formed their Black and Hispanic classmates,
provements in scores of all groups, but also for
the average score gap in 1994 between Whites
a slow decrease in the gap between Whites and
(312) and Blacks (286) was 26 points, com-
their Black and Hispanic counterparts. While
pared to the gap in 1986, which was 29 points.
Page 36
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Figure 3.36
Mathematics Scores for 17-Year-Olds by Race/Ethnicity
The difference in test scores
1986 1994
in 1994 between Whites and
350
308
310
312
312
300
283
289
279
284
286
292
286
291
Hispanics (291) was 21 points,
250
compared to a gap of 25 points
Hundreds
200
in 1986, when Whites scored
150
308 points while Hispanics
100
scored 283 (see Figure 3.36).
50
Figure 3.37 details the per-
0
1986
1990
1992
1994
formance of groups and subgroups
Year
of students for the years 1978 and
White
Black
Hispanic
1994 at the following five perfor-
Source: NAEP Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
mance levels:
Department of Education, November 1996.
Level 350 - Multi-Step
Problem Solving and
Algebra
Hispanics. Over 16 years, the percentage of
Level 300 - Moderately Complex Proce-
Whites testing at Level 250 increased by 12
dures and Reasoning
percentage points to 35%; by contrast, Hispan-
Level 250 - Basic Operations and Beginning
ics experienced a gain of only one percentage
Problem Solving
point to 10% during the same period (see Fig-
ure 3.37).
Level 200 - Beginning Skills and
Understandings
At Level 200, a greater percentage of Hispanic
nine-year-olds performed at or above this level
Level 150 - Simple Arithmetic Facts
in 1994 than in 1978, but the gap between the
Overall, a higher percentage of Whites than
percentage of Whites and Hispanics perform-
Hispanics and Blacks tested at or above each of
ing at this level remained constant. In 1978,
the five assessment levels. Despite the great strides
there was a 22-percentage-point difference be-
Hispanics have made between 1978 and 1994,
tween Whites (76%) and Hispanics (54%)
White students have tested at the higher NAEP
reaching Level 200. By 1994, the percentage
assessment levels over this 16-year period:
gap increased to 23 percentage points; 87% of
White nine-year-olds scored at Level 200,
Among nine-year-olds testing at Level 250,
while 64% of Hispanics scored at this level (see
Whites outperformed both Blacks and Hispan-
Figure 3.37).
ics in 1978 and 1994. Additionally, the per-
centage of students performing at this level
Among 13-year-olds, 86% of White students
increased for all groups, but the difference in
tested at Level 250 in 1994, compared to 51%
progress between Whites and Hispanics is ex-
of Blacks and 59% of Hispanics. This propor-
treme. In 1978, 23% of Whites tested at this
tion increased for all groups since 1978, with
level, compared to 4% of Blacks and 9% of
73% of White 13-year-olds scoring at Level
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 37
Figure 3.37
TRENDS IN PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS
AT OR ABOVE FIVE MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE LEVELS
BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 1978 AND 1994
1978
1994
LEVEL
AGE
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
LEVEL 350
9
o
O
o
O
O
O
13
I
O
O
I
O
o
17
9
I
I
9
o
I
LEVEL 300
9
I
O
0
2
O
O
13
21
2
4
26
6
6
17
58
17
23
67
30
38
LEVEL 250
9
23
4
9
35
II
10
13
73
29
36
86
51
59
17
96
71
78
98
91
92
LEVEL 200
9
76
42
54
87
66
64
13
98
80
86
99
96
97
17
100
99
99
100
100
100
LEVEL 150
9
98
88
93
100
97
97
13
100
99
100
100
100
100
17
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source: NAEP 1994 Trends in Academic Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
250, compared to 29% of Blacks and 36% of
5. SCIENCE
Hispanics (see Figure 3.37).
To help policymakers and educators assess
In 1978, over one-half (58%) of White 17-year-
the outcomes of their quest for excellence in sci-
olds tested at or above Level 300, yet less than
ence learning, the NAEP long-term-trend science
two-fifths of comparable Blacks and Hispan-
assessment sampled students from across the coun-
ics combined (17% and 23%, respectively)
try at ages nine, 13, and 17. These trend science
reached this level that year. By 1994, slightly
assessments contain both a content and a cogni-
more than two-thirds (67%) of Whites tested
tive dimension. The content dimension assesses
at the 300 assessment level; by comparison, a
students' ability to conduct inquiries, solve prob-
similar proportion of both Blacks (30%) and
lems, and know science. NAEP also assesses stu-
Hispanics (38%) reached this level (see Fig-
dents' understanding of the nature of science within
ure 3.37).
the context of both content area knowledge and
cognition.
Page 38
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects . July 1998
Figure 3.44
Computer Use at Home, Grades 1-6 by Race/Ethnicity, 1984 - 1993
35
305
30
H. CURRICULUM
25
20.9
Percent
20
14.8
15
1.
CARNEGIE UNITS
10
87
7.1
EARNED BY HIGH
62
5.3
52
5
3.6
SCHOOL
0
1984
1989
1993
GRADUATES
Year
White
Black
Hispanic
Carnegie units are a standard
Source: The Condition of Education 1995, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
measure of high school credits
Department of Education, June 1995.
earned, defined in terms of class
time, and approximately equivalent
to one class meeting five times a
week for one class period through-
out the school year. Credits earned
are a measure of the quantity of
Figure 3.45
courses taken, and not the quality
of the learning that took place. As
Computer Use at Home, Grades 7-12 by Race/Ethnicity
1984 1993
of 1992, Hispanic graduates con-
50
tinue to earn fewer credits in his-
tory, science, and mathematics
40
37
than other groups. Hispanics
30
27.6
have, however, earned more cred-
Percent
20
171
its in computer science, foreign
9.7
10.2
11.1
10.2
languages, and English than other
10
5.4
39
groups (see Figure 3.46).
0
1984
1989
1993
While the gap in Carnegie
Year
units in mathematics earned
White
Black
Hispanic
between Hispanics and other
Source: The Condition of Education 1995, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, June 1995.
groups has narrowed signifi-
cantly since 1982, insufficient
progress has been made by
Hispanics in regard to science.
average of 4.26 Carnegie units in English, com-
In 1992, Hispanic students earned an average
pared to 4.20 for Blacks and 4.17 for Whites.
of 2.60 Carnegie units in science, as compared
to 2.93 for Whites and 2.74 for Blacks.
In 1992, Hispanics also earned more Carnegie
units in computer science and foreign language
Hispanic high school graduates continue to
classes than other groups. Hispanic students
earn more credits in English than in any other
earned an average of 0.41 Carnegie units in
subject. In 1992, Hispanic students earned an
computer science and 1.76 Carnegie units in
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 43
foreign languages, compared to 0.34 and 1.70
chemistry, honors chemistry, physics, honors phys-
in these respective subjects for Whites, and
ics, and geology than in 1987 (See Figure 3.47).
0.38 and 1.28 for Blacks.
In a number of subjects such as algebra I, al-
2.
MATH AND SCIENCE COURSE
gebra II, geometry, pre-calculus, biology, and
ENROLLMENT
chemistry, the gaps between Hispanics and
Whites have closed significantly. In 1987,
A greater percentage of Hispanic high
51.9% of Whites were enrolled in algebra II,
school graduates took upper-level math and science
compared to 32.4% of Blacks and 30.2% of
courses in 1994 than in 1987. With the exception
Hispanics. By 1994, while Whites experienced
of subjects such as algebra, trigonometry, as-
an increase in their enrollment in such sub-
tronomy, and engineering, Hispanic students took
jects of 9.7 percentage points to 61.6%, His-
more upper-level mathematics and science courses
panic enrollment increased by 20.8 percent-
in 1994 for subjects such as algebra II, geometry,
age points to 51.0%, and Black enrollment in-
pre-calculus, calculus, biology, honors biology,
creased by 11.3 percentage points to 43.7%.
Figure 3.46
NUMBER OF CREDITS EARNED BY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES IN
SELECTED MAJOR SUBJECT FIELDS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, SELECTED YEARS
1982
1987
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Black
Hispanic
English
3.84
4.06
3.88
4.01
4.09
3.97
History/Social Studies
3.19
3.09
3.02
3.29
3.32
3.20
Mathematics
2.59
2.53
2.26
3.03
2.96
2.87
Computer Science
0.09
0.08
0.04
0.33
0.23
0.21
Science
2.24
2.04
1.79
2.58
2.32
2.21
Foreign Languages
1.02
0.70
0.76
1.35
1.09
1.50
1990
1992
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Black
Hispanic
English
4.08
4.25
4.05
4.17
4.20
4.26
History/Social Studies
3.48
3.49
3.44
3.61
3.59
3.38
Mathematics
3.18
3.23
3.21
3.38
3.37
3.36
Computer Science
0.35
0.39
0.32
0.34
0.38
0.41
Science
2.80
2.67
2.49
2.93
2.74
2.60
Foreign Languages
1.59
1.23
1.97
1.70
1.28
1.76
Source: Digest of Education Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C. (1996)
Page 44
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Despite increases in upper-level course selec-
1.5% of Blacks, and 1.6% of Hispanics were
tion for Hispanics, Hispanic students overall
taking Advanced Placement (AP) biology. By
continue to be less likely than White students
1994 the rates increased for all groups to 4.6%
to take upper-level mathematics and science
of Whites, 2.7% of Blacks, and 3.3% of His-
courses. For example, in 1987, 2.8% of Whites,
panics.
FIGURE 3.47
PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES TAKING SELECTED MATHEMATICS
AND SCIENCE COURSES, BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 1987 & 1994
MATHEMATICS COURSES (Credits)
1987
1994
White
Black
Hispanic
Total
White
Black
Hispanic
Any Mathematics
99.3
99.5
99.4
99.6
99.6
99.3
99.2
Algebra I (1)
77.7
70.7
73.1
66.4
67.5
65.0
70.7
Algebra II (.5)
51.9
32.4
30.2
58.6
61.6
43.7
51.0
Geometry (1)
65.1
44.0
40.2
70.4
72.7
58.1
69.4
Trigonometry (.5)
20.9
10.9
9.9
17.2
18.6
13.6
9.8
Analysis or Pre-Calculus (.5)
13.5
5.1
7.4
17.3
18.2
9.8
13.9
Calculus (1)
5.9
2.3
3.6
9.2
9.6
3.8
6.0
SCIENCE COURSES (Credits)
1987
1994
White
Black
Hispanic
Total
White
Black
Hispanic
Any Science (1)
98.7
98.7
98.5
99.5
99.7
99.5
99.3
Biology (1)
89.2
86.2
85.4
93.5
94.4
91.3
94.0
AP/Honors Biology (1)
2.8
1.5
1.6
4.6
4.6
2.7
3.3
Chemistry (1)
47.7
29.8
29.4
56.0
58.5
43.8
46.5
AP/Honors
Chemistry (1)
3.5
1.2
2.3
3.9
4.3
2.1
2.5
Physics (i)
20.9
10.1
9.8
24.4
26.1
14.7
16.0
AP/Honors Physics (i)
1.7
0.4
0.8
2.4
2.5
1.4
1.8
Engineering (1)
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
Astronomy (.5)
0.9
0.3
0.8
1.7
2.0
0.6
0.4
Geology (.5)
14.4
18.8
11.8
23.0
23.8
23.3
15.3
Biology/Chemistry (2)
46.0
28.6
28.2
53.8
56.4
42.2
45.1
Bio/Chem/Physics (3)
17.9
8.8
8.2
21.3
22.7
13.0
13.4
Source: Digest of Education Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C. (1996)
(Note: No disaggregated statistics for subgroups are available for 1982-1992)
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 45
FIGURE 3.48
PERCENT OF SENIORS REPORTING ENROLLMENT IN GENERAL, ACADEMIC,
AND VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS, 1972, 1980 AND 1992
General
Academic
Vocational
1972
1980
1992
1972
1980
1992
1972
1980
1992
TOTAL
31.8
36.9
40.0
45.7
38.7
47.7
22.4
24.4
12.3
SEX
Male
33.1
38.0
40.9
48.3
39.0
46.6
18.6
23.0
12.5
Female
30.6
35.9
39.1
43.2
38.4
48.8
26.2
25.7
12.1
RACE/ETHNICITY
Black
34.2
35.2
40.2
32.7
33.0
42.8
33.1
31.7
17.0
White
30.6
37.1
38.7
48.6
39.8
49.9
20.8
23.1
11.4
Hispanic
42.4
41.6
50.6
27.4
26.9
35.4
30.1
31.5
14.1
Source: NCES - NELS:88 Trends Among High School Seniors, 1972-1992, National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1995)
Again, while the enrollment numbers of all
work experiences.14 The most popular form of
groups increased for physics, chemistry, trigo-
school organization used to meet these objectives,
nometry, and algebra II, Black and Hispanic
established early this century, has been the com-
students in 1994 continued to trail their White
prehensive high school. This type of program dif-
counterparts by 10 or more percentage points
ferentiates students into three main types of cur-
in their participation in such classes. In 1994,
riculum: college preparatory or academic, voca-
56.4% of Whites were enrolled in biology/
tional preparatory, and a hybrid of the two - the
chemistry compared to 42.2% of Blacks and
general studies program.
45.1% of Hispanics.
The main alternative to the comprehensive
3.
HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM
form is the specialized high school, which may of-
fer either a vocational or an academic program of
The type of program used to instruct high
study. Historically, most specialized public schools
school students varies from school to school. The
have been vocational high schools. In recent years,
variation in programs reflects different schooling
specialized academic "magnet schools" within ur-
system approaches to meeting two basic, yet par-
ban districts have become widespread. Private and
tially competing, objectives: providing a common
parochial high schools also usually specialize in a
education to all students and preparing students
college preparatory program. 15
for very different postsecondary educational and
Page 46
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
In 1992, a greater proportion
Figure 3.49
of Hispanic students (50.6%)
Event Dropout Rates, 1989 - 1995
was enrolled in general pro-
grams of study than either
14
12.4
Whites (38.7%) or Blacks
12
10
10
(40.2%) (see Figure 3.48).
7.9
8.2
7.8 7.8
Percent
8
7.3
6.7
66
64
6
5.8
A smaller proportion of
6
5
5
4.27
4.5
4
3.5
37
39
Latino students (35.4%) was
3.3
3.2
2
enrolled in academic (college
0
preparatory) programs of
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
study than their White
Year
(49.9%) or Black (42.8%)
White
Black
Hispanic
counterparts.
Source: The Condition of Education 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. June 1996; The Condition of Education 1997,
Overall, there has been a gen-
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, June 1997.
eral decrease in the percent-
age of students enrolled in vo-
cational programs of study for
all groups. However, Hispanic students are
I.
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT
enrolled in vocational programs of study at a
higher level (14.1%) than White students
1.
EVENT HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT
(11.4%), but at a lower level than Black stu-
RATE
dents (17.0%).
The event dropout rate measures the
Between 1972 and 1992, the proportion of His-
number of students in grades 10-12, aged 15-24,
panics in general and academic programs of
study has increased. In 1992, one-half (50.6%)
who were enrolled in school the previous October,
of Hispanic students were enrolled in general
but who were not enrolled and had not graduated
programs of study, compared to more than two
the following October.
in five (42.4%) in 1972. Similarly, more than
The event dropout rate for 1995 indicates that
one-third (35.4%) of Hispanic students were
Hispanics are more than twice as likely as
enrolled in academic programs of study, com-
Whites to drop out of school during the school
pared to more than one-fourth (27.4%) in
year. In 1995, the event dropout rate for His-
1972. In terms of vocational programs, the
panics was 12.4%, compared to 4.5% for
proportion of Hispanic enrollment decreased
Whites and 6.4% for Blacks (see Figure 3.49).
from 30.1% in 1972 to 14.1% in 1992.
There has been an upward trend in the Latino
dropout rate between 1989 and 1995. During
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 47
this time, the Hispanic event dropout
Figure 3.50
rate increased by 4.6 percentage points,
Status Dropout Rates, 1988 - 1995
although it did decline to a low of 6.7%
in 1993. During the same period, the
40
35.8
35.3
33
324
rate for Whites reached a low of 3.2% in
29 4
30
30
30
27.5
1991, but increased to 4.5% by 1995. The
data for Blacks demonstrate that the rate
Percent
20
14.5
13.9
13.2
13.6
13.7
136
126
decreased from 7.8% in 1989 to 6.4% in
12.1
9.6
9.4
9
10
8.9
7.7
7.9
7.7
8.6
1995. However, between 1992 and 1994,
the event dropout rate for Blacks in-
0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
creased, with a slight leveling off by 1995
Year
(see Figure 3.49).
White
Black
Hispanic
2.
STATUS DROPOUT RATES
Source: Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, National Center for Education Statistics,
The status dropout rate includes a
U.S. Department of Education, September 1996.
count of all young adults who are not in school
and have not graduated regardless of when
they last attended school. In general, the sta-
tus dropout rate will be higher than the event drop-
out rate because the figure is cumulative.
shown in Figure 3.50, in 1992, the Hispanic
dropout rate began to decline, and experienced
Recent reports on high school dropout rates
a low of 27.5% in 1993, but by 1994 it began
appropriately note that the proportion of African
to increase again.
Americans dropping out of school is higher than
that of Whites. A promising note, however, is that
Between 1988 and 1994, the status dropout
the gap between Whites and Blacks continues to
rate for Whites experienced a slow but defi-
close. This is not the case for Hispanics. Overall,
nite decrease; at the beginning of this period
there has been insufficient attention given to the
the White rate was 9.6%; and by 1994 the rate
increasing gap between White and Hispanic drop-
had declined to 7.7%.
out rates (see Figure 3.50).
3.
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION
In 1994, the Hispanic status dropout rate
RATES
(30.0%) was over four times higher than that
of Whites (7.7%) and over two times higher
High school completion rates combine the
than that of Blacks (12.6%).
number of individuals who have received a regular
high school diploma or a General Education De-
Between 1988 and 1994, the Latino status
velopment certificate. The completion rates have
dropout rate experienced an overall decrease
generally been higher for Whites. The gap in
of 5.8 percentage points, although within that
completion rates between Whites and Blacks is
period there was a fluctuation of the rate. As
Page 48
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
closing, but is increasing between
Figure 3.51
Whites and Hispanics (see Figure
High School Completion Rates, 1989 - 1996
3.51).
120
In 1996, 92.6% of 25 to 29-
100
89.3
89 :
91.2
92.5
92.6
86.8
86
year-old Whites had com-
82.3
81.8
82.7
80
pleted high school, compared
Percent
61
60.9
61.1
60
56.7
57.2
with 86.0% and 61.1% of their
40
Black and Latino counter-
20
parts, respectively.
0
1989
1991
1993
1995
1996
Between 1989 and 1995,
Year
there was an increase from
White
Black
Hispanic
89.3% to 92.5% in the White
high school completion rate,
Sources: The Condition of Education 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
compared to a decrease for
Department of Education, June 1996; Educational Attainment in the United States, Current
Population Reports, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, March 1995.
Latinos from 61.0% to 57.2%.
The proportion of African
Americans who had com-
pleted high school increased from 82.3% to
86.8% during this time. However, between
1995 and 1996, the rates for both Whites and
educational aspirations have increased, real
Blacks remained relatively unchanged,
barriers such as college costs, adequate college
whereas the proportion of Latinos who had
preparation, and access to information threaten to
completed high school increased 3.9 percent-
dampen students' desire to attend college.
age points, from 57.2% to 61.1%.
In 1992, three-quarters (75.4 %) of Hispanic
J.
EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS
high school seniors planned to attend college
right after high school. This reflects a signifi-
Overall, educational aspirations increased for
cant increase in the proportion since 1982
all groups between 1982 and 1992. The greatest
(45.6%). The gap in postsecondary educational
increases in high school seniors aspiring to attain
aspiration between Whites (60.2%), Blacks
college and post graduate-degrees were reported
(57.5%), and Hispanics (45.6%) reported in
among Blacks and Hispanics. Of all groups, His-
1982 had narrowed significantly by 1992
panics had the largest increase (30 points)
be-
(76.6%, 75.2%, and 75.4%, respectively).
tween 1982 and 1992 in high school seniors plan-
A slightly larger proportion of Hispanic high
ning to attend college (see Figure 3.52).
His-
school seniors were deciding to attend college
panics also account for the largest percentage of
a year or more after graduation in 1992 (15.4%)
high school seniors aspiring to attend two-year col-
than in 1982 (13.3%). This delay in
leges or vocational schools (see Figure 3.53). While
postsecondary school attendance is higher than
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 49
that for Whites (15.2%) or Blacks (14.4%).
school seniors aspired to this level of educa-
The percentage of Hispanics who will not or
tional attainment in 1992, compared to 11.5%
in 1982.
do not know if they will attend college has sig-
nificantly declined since 1982. In 1992, 9.4%
In part, as a result of this increased interest in
of Hispanic high school seniors did not know
four-year college and post-graduate degrees,
whether they would attend college, as opposed
the percent of Hispanic high school seniors de-
to 41.1% of Hispanic high school seniors in
siring two-year associate or vocational school
1982. The 1992 figure is higher than that for
degrees declined. In 1992, 31.3% of Hispanic
White high school seniors (8.4%) but lower
high school seniors aspired to two years of col-
than that for Black high school seniors (10.6%).
lege or vocational school, compared to 39.8%
in 1982.
In 1992, a greater proportion of Hispanic high
school seniors were aspiring to attain college
In 1992, Hispanic high school seniors were still
and post-graduate degrees than in 1982. Al-
aspiring to college (31.6%) and post-graduate
most one-third (31.6%) of Hispanic students
(30.8%) degrees at lower levels than Whites
were aspiring to a college degree in 1992, com-
(37.3% college and 32.3% graduate) and
pared to 13.3% in 1982. In regard to post-
Blacks (34.0% college and 37.9% graduate).
graduate degrees, 30.8% of Hispanic high
FIGURE 3.52
PERCENT OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WHO PLAN TO GO TO
COLLEGE AFTER GRADUATION: 1982 AND 1992
Student and School
Planned timing of postsecondary attendance
Characteristics
Right after
A year or more after
No or
high school
graduation
don't know
1982
1992
1982
1992
1982
1992
All seniors
58.3
76.6
11.0
14.8
30.6
8.6
Male
53.4
73.0
10.6
16.0
35.9
11.2
Female
63.0
80.1
11.4
13.8
25.8
6.1
Race/ethnicity
White
60.2
76.6
10.4
15.2
29.5
8.4
Black
57.5
75.2
13.9
14.4
28.7
10.6
Hispanic
45.6
75.4
13.3
15.4
41.1
9.4
Source: Thomas Snyder and Linda Shafer, Youth Indicators, 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
Page 50
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
The percent of Hispanic high school seniors
images of ability level, and opportunities might af-
aspiring only to a high school degree (6.3%)
fect achievement throughout life. The National
has declined significantly since 1982 (35.4%),
Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88)
but was still slightly higher than that for Whites
contains reports of the highest level of education
(5.3%) or Blacks (4.7%) in 1992.
students expected to attain, collected both while
More than three in 10 (31.3%) Hispanics -
cohort members were in the eighth grade and four
the highest proportion of high school seniors
years later.
- aspired to an associate or vocational degree,
Overall, there was a decline between 1988
compared to one-quarter (25.1%) of Whites
and 1992 in the percentage of students who ex-
and almost one-quarter (23.5%) of Blacks.
pected to earn a bachelor's degree. According to
the U.S. Department of Education, this decline
1.
THE NELS:88 COHORT
may be attributed to the knowledge acquired by
In 1988, the U.S. Department of Educa-
students during the four-year period in which they
assessed factors such as their interests and abili-
tion asked students participating in a longitudinal
study of eighth graders about their educational ex-
ties; availability and cost of postsecondary alterna-
pectations. The presumption was that early goals,
tives; life-style choices, such as marriage and em-
FIGURE 3.53
PERCENT OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS ASPIRING TO
VARIOUS LEVELS OF EDUCATION: 1982 AND 1992
Student and School
Characteristics
High School
Two years or
College
Post-graduate
diploma or
less of college or
graduate
degree
less
vocational school
1982
1992
1982
1992
1982
1992
1982
1992
All seniors
24.6
5.3
36.6
25.3
21.3
36.1
17.5
33.3
Male
28.2
6.7
34.0
26.0
20.5
36.2
17.3
31.1
Female
21.1
3.9
39.2
24.5
22.0
36.2
17.8
35.4
Race/Ethnicity
White
22.7
5.3
35.6
25.1
23.4
37.3
18.3
32.3
Black
25.3
4.7
40.7
23.5
17.1
34.0
16.9
37.9
Hispanic
35.4
6.3
39.8
31.3
13.3
31.6
11.5
30.8
Source: Thomas Snyder and Linda Shafer, Youth Indicators, 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 51
ployment experience; and potential gains from a
A lower proportion of Hispanics from the
college or advanced degree. In 1992, a lower per-
NELS: 88 group expected to obtain a high
centage of Hispanic 1988 eighth graders than
school diploma in 1992 (9.4%) than had ex-
Whites expected to earn a bachelor's degree or
pected to do so in 1988 (13.1%).
higher (see Figure 3.54). Overall, a greater pro-
A slightly higher proportion of Hispanics from
portion of Hispanics than any other group expected
the NELS: 88 group expected to obtain a
to obtain some college or vocational school educa-
bachelor's degree or more in 1988 (54.8%) than
tion.
did in 1992 (52.7%).
In 1992, 4.2% of Hispanics in the NELS: 88
In 1992, a greater proportion of Hispanics
group said they expected to achieve less than
(33.8%) than Blacks (28.7%) or Whites (27.6%)
a high school diploma, compared to 2.3% of
expected to obtain some level of college or vo-
this same group in 1988.
cational school education. The data indicate
Figure 3.54
PERCENTAGE OF 1988 EIGHTH GRADERS INDICATING IN 1988 AND 1992
THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION THEY EXPECT TO OBTAIN
Less than
Some college
Bachelor's
High school
high school
or vocational
degree or
Year
diploma
graduate
school
more
TOTAL
1988
1.5
10.3
22.4
65.8
1992
2.3
8.1
28.1
61.4
SEX
Male
1988
1.8
11.7
23.2
63.3
1992
2.8
8.9
28.6
59.7
Female
1988
1.1
8.9
21.7
68.2
1992
1.9
7.2
27.6
63.2
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic
1988
2.3
13.1
29.8
54.8
regardless of race
1992
4.2
9.4
33.8
52.7
Black not of
1988
2.3
7.5
25.9
64.3
Hispanic origin
1992
1.8
10.5
28.7
59.0
White not of
1988
1.1
10.5
20.7
67.6
Hispanic origin
1992
2.2
7.4
27.6
62.8
Source: Descriptive Summary Report: with an Essay on Access and Choice in Postsecondary Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
Page 52
NCLR . Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
that a slightly higher percentage of all groups
about 25% of seniors participating in 1992. 16 Dur-
had these expectations than in 1988 when
ing this period, Hispanic high school senior par-
29.8% of Hispanics, 25.9% of Blacks, and
ticipation has generally increased for honorary so-
20.7% of Whites expected to obtain some col-
cieties and school literature activities, while de-
lege or vocational school education.
creasing for academic clubs and student govern-
ment.
A lower proportion of Hispanic students
(52.7%) than Blacks (59.0%) and Whites
Hispanic high school senior participation in
(62.8%) in 1992 expected to obtain a bachelor's
academic clubs in 1992 (22.6%) had decreased
degree or more. The data reflect a decrease
slightly since 1972 (24.2%). This 1992 figure
from 1988, when 54.8% of Hispanics, 64.3%
for Hispanics was higher than the percentage
of Blacks, and 67.6% of Whites expected to
of Black high school seniors (20.6%), but lower
obtain a bachelor's degree or more.
than that for White high school seniors
(25.8%).
K. EXTRACURRICULAR
Black, White, and Hispanic high school seniors
ACTIVITIES
increased their participation in honorary soci-
eties since 1972, but Hispanics in 1992 (at
Extracurricular activities are an important
12.4%) still participated at lower levels than
part of a student's education. Whether these in-
Whites (19.6%) and Blacks (14.0%) in such
clude academic clubs, student government, hon-
activities.
orary societies, community service, part-time work,
or spending time with family or friends, extracur-
Hispanic high school senior participation in
ricular activities often influence a child's life choices
student government declined from 16.0% in
and educational decisions. Data show that His-
1972 to 14.6% in 1992. In 1992, Hispanics
panic high school seniors continue to participate
participated less in student government than
less than their White counterparts in a number of
White (15.4%) or Black (16.7%) high school
traditional extracurricular activities (see Figure
seniors, who had the highest participation rate.
3.55).
Participation in the school newspaper or year-
book remained constant for Hispanic high
1. SCHOOL-SPONSORED
school seniors during the 1972-1992 period,
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
16.2% to 16.8%. This participation rate is
lower than that for White high school seniors
During the 1972 to 1992 period, the overall
(19.7%), but higher than that for Black high
proportion of seniors participating in a variety of
school seniors (14.3%). Both Black and White
extracurricular activities changed relatively little.
high school seniors experienced a decline in
There has been some decline in the percent of stu-
participation in this activity from 1972 to 1992
dents participating in student government and an
(See Figure 3.55).
increase in participation in honorary societies.
Academic clubs remain a popular activity, with
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 53
2.
AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
In 1992, only 9.3% of Hispanic high school
seniors watched five or more hours of televi-
According to the U.S. Department of
sion on a school night, compared to 21.5% in
Education, "there appears to be a negative rela-
1980. The percentage of White high school
tionship between television watching and perfor-
seniors watching five or more hours of televi-
mance on achievement tests." This is also true for
sion on a school night declined from 13.7% in
other variables; for example, high-socioeconomic-
1980 to 6.4% in 1992, while the correspond-
status students were less likely to watch five or more
ing percentage of Black high school seniors
hours of television on school nights than low socio-
declined from 29.0% to 21.3% during the same
economic status students. 17 (see Figure 3.56.)
time period.
Hispanic students are watching less television
Hispanic students (63.8%) were more likely
than they did a decade ago. Although in ac-
than Black students (62.0%) but less likely than
cordance with the general trend of watching
Whites (68.2%) to do things with their parents.
less television, Hispanic high school seniors ex-
Hispanic students (82.4%) were also more
perienced the largest decline, 12.2 percentage
likely than Blacks (79.8%) but less likely than
points, in students who watched five hours or
Whites (90.7%) to do things with friends.
more of television on a school night from 1980
to 1992.
FIGURE 3.55
PERCENT OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WHO PARTICIPATE IN
SELECTED SCHOOL-SPONSORED EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES:
1972, 1980 AND 1992
Student and
Academic
Honorary
Student
Newspaper or
School
clubs
societies
Government
yearbook
Characteristics
1972 1980 1992
1972
1980
1992
1972
1980
1992
1972 1980 1992
All Seniors
25.6
23.8
25.1
14.4
17.1
18.5
19.4
18.5
15.4
20.2
19.9
18.8
Male
20.3
19.0
22.8
10.7
13.8
14.4
18.1
15.8
13.1
14.7
15.4
14.0
Female
30.9
28.3
27.4
18.1
20.1
22.7
20.8
21.0
17.7
25.5
24.0
23.5
Race/Ethnicity
White
25.0
22.9
25.8
15.1
17.8
19.6
19.2
17.7
15.4
20.4
20.1
19.7
Black
33.1
28.8
20.6
11.7
13.7
14.0
25.3
23.1
16.7
20.7
17.8
14.3
Hispanic
24.2
24.7
22.6
10.2
11.9
12.4
16.0
16.7
14.6
16.2
15.8
16.8
Source: Thomas Snyder and Linda Shafer, Youth Indicators, 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
Page 54
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
IV.Elementary and Secondary School
Teachers and Principals
A. OVERVIEW
schools. Additionally, the data demonstrate that
many of the schools offering bilingual education
A
major factor influencing children's
programs are unable to fill teaching positions for
success in education is role models. For
ESL or bilingual education teachers.
Hispanic students, it is particularly impor-
tant that there be Hispanic adult role models in
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF
the classroom and throughout the school. Hispanic
teachers, administrators, and school personnel
TEACHERS
serve as role models for Hispanic students and can
Some research has indicated that seeing mi-
provide an important link between schools and
nority adults in positions of authority has positive
parents. This is especially important because a sig-
effects on minority children and that minority
nificant portion of Hispanic parents lack the edu-
teachers understand the backgrounds of their mi-
cation necessary to provide their children with
nority students. Yet the data indicate that, as of
needed guidance about educational opportunities
1993-94. almost one-half (48.0%) of all schools still
and their ability to pursue educational goals. Ad-
had no minority teachers at all (42% of all public
ditionally, Latino school staff act as models for non-
schools and 66% of all private schools). In addi-
Hispanic students to demonstrate that professional
tion, the proportion of minority teachers (12.8%)
positions are held by representatives of all racial/
is still far smaller than the proportion of minority
ethnic groups. Thus, the importance of the em-
students (32%). While the percentage of minority
ployment of Hispanic teachers and administrators
teachers has only increased slightly since the 1987-
cannot be overstated. While any trained and com-
88 school year. the percentage of minority princi-
mitted teacher can provide a high-quality educa-
pals had increased at a somewhat higher rate by
tion, the lack of Hispanic teachers contributes to
1993-94 (11.0% to 14.0%).
the failure of school systems to respond to the lin-
guistic, cultural, and social needs of Hispanic and
During the 1993-94 school year, there were
non-Hispanic students alike.
2.9 million teachers working In the nation's elemen-
tary and secondary schools. As the data below
This section provides information on Ameri-
describe, a major part of the elementary and
can public and private school teachers at the el-
secondary schools' teaching workforce is in the
ementary and secondary levels, including their race/
nation's public rather than private schools:
ethnicity, qualifications, salaries, and years of ex-
perience, as well as information on the nation's prin-
Of the estimated 2.6 million public school and
cipals. The data indicate that, overall, Hispanic
380,000 private school teachers in the U.S.,
4.1% were Hispanic, while 87.2% were White
teachers are underrepresented in the professional
and 6.8% were Black. In public schools the
ranks and that they are concentrated in urban
*
All data are from National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A
Statistical Profile, 1993-94. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, July 1996.
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects
July 1998
Page 61
corresponding statistics indicate that 4.2% of
student enrollment have a higher propor-
the teaching workforce was Hispanic, while
tion of minority teachers; in those central
86.5% of the teachers were White and 7.4%
city schools, Hispanics comprised one-
were Black. The private schools had a slightly
tenth (10.8%) of all teachers and Blacks
higher percentage of White teachers; nine in
accounted for almost one-fifth (18.2%) of
ten (91.9%) of the teachers in private schools
teachers.
were White, compared to 3.1% who were
In urban fringe public schools, Whites
Black and 3.2% who were Hispanic.
comprise 89.2% of the teachers, yet are
As Figures 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate, the larg-
80.3% of teachers in schools with minor-
est percentages of Hispanic teachers were in
ity enrollment over 20.0%. By compari-
schools with minority enrollments in excess of
son, Blacks make up 5.1% of the teachers
20%. In addition:
in urban fringe public schools, but in
The overall statistics for teachers in cen-
schools with minority enrollment over
tral city public schools show that 74.8%
20.0% they constitute 9.7% of the teacher
are White, 14.6% are Black, and 8.3% are
population. Hispanics account for 3.5%
Hispanic. However, center city public
of the general teaching population in ur-
schools with more than a 20.0% minority
ban fringe public schools, but accounted
Figure 4.1
PROPORTION OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY
PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS, 1993-94
White
Black
Hispanic
Public Schools
86.5
7.4
4.2
Central City Schools
74.8
14.6
8.3
Minority Enrollment
Less than 20%
95.3
2.3
1.4
More than 20%
68.4
18.2
10.8
Urban Fringe Schools
89.2
5.1
3.5
Minority Enrollment
Less than 20%
96.6
1.2
1.0
More than 20%
80.3
9.7
6.5
Rural/Small Town Schools
92.5
4.1
2.0
Minority Enrollment
Less than 20%
97.1
1.1
0.8
More than 20%
83.0
10.5
4.3
Source: Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94, National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
Page 62
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
for 6.5% of the teachers in those schools
20.0%, 77.1% of the teachers are White,
in which the minority enrollment is over
10.7% are Black, and 7.9% are Hispanic.
20.0%.
The pattern is similar in urban fringe pri-
In rural/small-town public schools, Whites
vate schools where Whites make up
accounted for 92.5% of the teacher popu-
93.5%, Blacks make up 2.0%, and Hispan-
lation, while Blacks and Hispanics ac-
ics make up 2.9% of the teacher popula-
counted for 4.1% and 2.0%, respectively.
tion. Yet in urban private schools in which
In rural schools with minority enrollment
minority enrollment is over 20.0%, 84.6%
rates over 20.0%, the percentage of
of the teachers are White, 5.0% are Black,
Whites teaching at these school decreases
and 6.5% are Hispanic.
to 83.0%, while the percentages for Blacks
In rural private schools, the percentage of
and Hispanics more than doubles to 10.5%
White teachers decreased relative to the
and 4.3%, respectively.
proportion of minority students. For ex-
Teachers in central city private schools in-
ample, Whites make up 96.4% of the
clude 88.6% who are White, 4.8% who are
teachers in rural private schools, while
Black, and 4.2% who are Hispanic. How-
Blacks comprise 1.2% and Hispanics ac-
ever, for central city private schools in
count for 1.7%. However, in schools with
which the minority enrollment is over
a larger percentage of minority students,
Figure 4.2
PROPORTION OF ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY
PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS, 1993-94
White
Black
Hispanic
Private Schools
91.9
3.1
3.2
Central City Schools
88.6
4.8
4.2
Minority Enrollment
Less than 20%
96.1
1.2
2.2
More than 20%
77.1
10.7
7.9
Urban Fringe Schools
93.5
2.0
2.9
Minority Enrollment
Less than 20%
96.5
0.7
1.9
More than 20%
84.6
5.0
6.5
Rural/Small Town Schools
96.4
1.2
1.7
Minority Enrollment
Less than 20%
96.5
1.1
1.8
More than 20%
94.0
2.6
2.1
Source: Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94. National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 63
Figure 4.3
Public and Private School Students by Race/Ethnicity, 1993-94
White 68.5
the proportion of White teachers de-
creases to 94.0%, while that of Blacks and
Hispanics increases to 2.6% and 2.1%, re-
spectively.
Other 4.4
Over the past 10 years the presence of His-
panic students and teachers in the nation's schools
Hispanic 11.5
has increased significantly. The Hispanic popula-
tion in public schools increased from 9.1% of all
Black 15.5
students in the 1987-88 school year to 11.5% in
Source: Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94, National
the 1993-94 school year. During the same period,
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
the percentage of Hispanic public school teachers
grew from 2.9% to 4.1%. According to NCES, the
percentage of Hispanic students in the 1996-97
school year exceeded 13%.
Figure 4.4
While Hispanic teachers appear to be con-
Public and Private School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity, 1993-94
centrated in areas with high minority enrollments,
U.S. elementary and secondary school teachers, as
a group, are considerably less diverse than the stu-
dents they teach (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4). His-
White 872
panics made up 11.5% of the students enrolled in
grades K-12 in the 1993-94 school year, but repre-
sented only 4.1% of the K-12 teaching force. Simi-
Other 1.9
larly, Blacks accounted for 15.5% of students, but
Hispanic 4.1
only 6.8% of the teaching workforce. On the other
hand, Vhite teachers were overrepresented in the
Black 6.8
K -12 teaching force relative to the proportion of
White students in these grades (87.2% vs. 68.5%).
Source: Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94, National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
As role models for both Hispanic and non-
Hispanic students, Hispanic teachers are in short
supply. Proportionately, there are approximately
three times more Hispanic students in U.S. schools
as there are Hispanic teachers. The ratio of Black
during the 1993-94 school year. Overall, public
students (15.5%) to Black teachers (8.7%) is slightly
school teachers are more likely than private school
less than two to one.
teachers to hold master's degrees. In addition:
Hispanic teachers are less likely than either
C. TEACHER CREDENTIALS
their White or Black colleagues to hold degrees
above the bachelor's level. About three in 10
Figure 4.5 presents the data on the highest
(29.8%) Hispanic public school teachers hold
degrees held by public and private school teachers
Page 64
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
V. Postsecondary Education
A. OVERVIEW
to non-Hispanic White students. Hispanics who do
complete college take longer, on average, than their
A
college education has always been seen
White counterparts and work more and longer
as a means of upward mobility, especially
hours during their postsecondary careers than both
for economically or socially disadvantaged
their White and Black counterparts. Hispanic male
groups. In recent years, postsecondary education
and female differences in educational attainment
has become more accessible to all segments of the
have changed significantly over time, with an al-
population. Over the last two decades, as the
most three-fold increase in Hispanic female col-
economy has become increasingly complex and
lege graduates over the past 20 years.
reliant on higher levels of literacy and numeracy,
there has been a rise in educational attainment
B. SAT SCORES
across all ethnic groups. The U.S. Department of
Education attributes this trend to both the growth
Experts in higher education understand the
in the population of Hispanic and Asian students
limitations of using standardized test scores to pre-
and to their increasing education levels.
dict academic performance. At most, even the
College Board, which administers many of the stan-
As the following data show, however, there
dardized tests, "claims only that the SAT correlates
continues to be a gap between Hispanics and their
with first-year grades a little less than half the time
White and Black counterparts in many areas
(42 percent). "2 Moreover, many colleges and uni-
related to educational access, achievement, and
versities are relying less on SAT scores while de-
attainment. Further, there is statistical evidence
veloping multi-assessment admissions policies. Yet,
that differences in course-taking patterns in high
in the wake of Hopwood v. The State of Texas, and
school, educational aspirations, and college atten-
Proposition 209 in California, both of which have
dance and completion influence each attainment
ended traditional affirmative action programs and
indicator for the Latino community.
have led to huge declines in minority enrollment
This section will provide information which
in the Texas and California state university systems,
shows that while the number of Hispanics who are
many schools stills use SAT test scores or an equiva-
enrolling in and graduating from college has in-
lent as the principal basis for admissions.
creased in absolute numbers, they remain
Despite efforts to de-emphasize standardized
underrepresented on university campuses and
tests, they remain an important factor in tracking
among degree recipients, both relative to other
the academic progress of students. Thus, it is im-
groups and as a proportion of their total popula-
portant to track trends in student performance on
tion. Additionally, the gap between White and
such tests. Data indicate that while Hispanics tend
Hispanic student college transition rates¹ has in-
to perform better than Blacks on the SAT exams,
creased since 1980.
both groups' scores continue to lag behind those
Hispanic college students tend to concentrate
of Whites. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 present the data on
in different fields, have a higher number of dis-
the math and verbal SAT scores for two years in a
ruptions in their education, and are only half as
10-year period. All groups have experienced a
likely to complete four years of college compared
gradual rise in their total scores between 1987 and
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 71
Figure 5.1
Average Math SAT Scores
1997. However, while the gap between Whites
by Race/Ethnicity, 1987 and 1997
600
and Blacks decreased by four points, the gap
550
514
526
between Whites and Hispanics increased by six
500
462
468
450
411
423
points. In 1987, the average total SAT score for
400
Whites was 1038, compared to 839 for Blacks
350
300
and 926 for Hispanics. By 1997, the scores for
250
Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics increased to 1052,
200
150
857, and 934, respectively. Additionally, the in-
100
crease in the test scores for Whites and Blacks
50
0
was double that of Hispanics. Between 1987
White
Black
Hispanic
and 1997, math scores for Whites increased by
1987
1997
12 points, from 514 to 526; the scores for Blacks
Source: Summary Statistics, The College Board's Annual Survey of Colleges, The College Board,
New York (1997)
also increased by 12 points from 411 to 423.
However, the increase for Hispanics was only
six points, from 462 to 468. On the verbal test,
the scores for Whites and Hispanics increased
vo points each between 1987 and 1997, from
Figure 5.2
24 to 526 and from 464 to 466, respectively.
Average Verbal SAT Scores
The scores for Blacks increased six points, from
by Race/Ethnicity, 1987 and 1997
428 to 434 over that period.
600
550
524
526
500
Given the recent bans on affirmative ac-
464
466
450
428
434
tion in public institutions in the two states with
400
350
the largest concentrations of Latinos, colleges
300
and universities may again focus on tests scores
250
200
for admissions decisions, despite recent steps
150
to develop broader admissions policies. Thus,
100
50
the challenge is for colleges and universities to
0
identify promising alternatives to promote di-
White
Black
Hispanic
1987
1997
versity. Otherwise, many of the nation's public
Source: Summary Statistics, The College Board's Annual Survey of Colleges, The College Board.
colleges and universities may see the declines
New York (1997)
in minority enrollment that both California and
Texas have recently experienced.
C. ENROLLMENT STATISTICS
dent body, compared to 11.0% and 8.1% for Blacks
Hispanics continue to be underrepresented
and Hispanics, respectively (see Figure 5.3). The
at institutions of higher education despite an in-
data show a drop in the enrollment rate of Whites
crease in their enrollment since 1988. In 1994,
since 1988, when they comprised 80.2% of under-
Whites comprised 74.3% of the undergraduate stu-
graduate students. Both Hispanics and Blacks ex-
Page 72
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Figure 5.3
Enrollment Rates by Level of Study
perienced increases in enrollment
and Race/Ethnicity, 1988-94
1988
1990
1992
1994
rates since 1988, when they ac-
counted for 5.7% and 9.4% of the
All Students
White
81.1
79.9
77.5
75.4
Black
8.9
9.3
9.9
10.5
nation's undergraduates, respec-
Hispanic
5.4
5.8
6.8
7.6
tively. At the graduate level, in 1994
Undergraduates
White
80.2
79
76.4
74.3
Whites accounted for 83.5% of stu-
Black
9.4
9.8
10.4
11
dents, compared to 7.2% and 4.1%
Hispanic
5.7
6.2
7.2
8.1
for Blacks and Hispanics, respec-
Graduate
White
87.3
86.6
85.3
83.5
tively. By contrast, 1988 data show
Black
5.8
5.9
6.3
7.2
that 87.3% of graduate students
Hispanic
3
3.3
3.8
4.1
were White, compared to 5.8% who
Source: Digest of Educational Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
were Black and 3.0% who were His-
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
panic.
In 1995, Hispanic high school
graduates were less likely than White
and Black high school graduates to
Figure 5.4
be enrolled in college. Between
College Enrollment Rates of High School Graduates
1988 and 1995, the gap in the per-
Aged 18 - 24 Years-Old by Race/Ethnicity, 1988-95
centage of White and Hispanic high
50
425
43.6
43.7
school graduates aged 18 - 24 years
403
40
38.4
old increased, while the gap between
36.1
355
35.2
34.9
32.4
33.4
329
30.8
White and Black students decreased
30
27.8
28 4
(see Figure 5.4). In 1988, 38.4% of
20
White high school graduates aged 18
- 24 years old were enrolled in col-
10
lege, compared to 27.8% of Blacks
0
(a difference of 10.6 percentage
1988
1990
1992
1994
1995
points) and 30.8% of Hispanics (a
White
Black
Hispanic
difference of 7.6 percentage points).
Source: The Condition of Education 1997, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1997)
By 1995, the enrollment rate for
Whites was 43.7%, compared to
35.2% for Blacks and 34.9% for His-
panics (a gap of 8.8 percentage
points).
after high school.³ Such data provide insight into
the accessibility of higher education, as well as the
Data on the immediate transition from high
school to college represent one indicator of the
value of obtaining a college education as opposed
number of students who will ever enroll in college,
to taking other career paths.4 Differences in col-
lege transition rates between Whites and Hispan-
since most students who enroll in college do so right
ics have grown over time. In 1987, 58.6% of White
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 73
high school graduates aged 16 - 24 years old en-
two times more likely than Whites (11.2%) to be
rolled in college within one year of graduation,
poor, it appears that poverty status is a significant
while 33.5% of Hispanics and 52.2% of Blacks did
factor in the small proportion of Latino students
so. By 1995, 64.3% of Whites, 53.7% of Hispan-
enrolled in college. Similarly, if students have low
ics, and 51.2% of Blacks entered college by Octo-
expectations of academic achievement it may af-
ber following their high school graduation.5
fect their decisions to go to college. Hispanic stu-
dents have lower educational aspirations than
Some of the factors which affect the transi-
Whites (see Chapter 3). In 1992, nearly one-third
tion from high school to college include family pov-
(31.3%) of Hispanic high school students aspired
erty and low educational aspirations. According to
to complete their formal education with two years
NCES, high school graduates from high-income
or less of either vocational training or college. In
families are more likely than high school graduates
contrast, approximately one-fourth of White and
from low-income families to go directly to college.
Black students planned to end their postsecondary
Given that 1996 poverty data indicated that both
Hispanics (29.3%) and Blacks (28.3%) were over
careers at this point.
Figure 5.5
TOTAL FALL ENROLLMENT IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
BY LEVEL OF STUDY, GENDER, AND RACE/ETHNICITY, 1980 - 1994
1980
1988
1990
1992
1994
All Students
Total Hispanic
4.0
5.4
5.8
6.8
7.6
Hispanic Men
2.0
2.4
2.6
3.0
3.4
Hispanic Women
2.0
2.9
3.2
3.8
4.2
Undergraduates
Total Hispanic
4.2
5.7
6.2
7.2
8.1
Hispanic Men
2.1
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.6
Hispanic Women
2.2
3.1
3.4
4.0
4.5
Graduate
Total Hispanic
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.7
4.1
Hispanic Men
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
Hispanic Women
1.3
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.4
First-Professional
Total Hispanic
2.4
3.6
4.0
4.4
4.7
Hispanic Men
1.7
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.6
Hispanic Women
0.7
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Source: Digest of Education Statistics 1996, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
Page 74
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Hispanic females made significant educa-
tions of higher education remains, on average, con-
tional gains relative to Hispanic males since 1980
sistently well below the Hispanic proportion of the
in both undergraduate and graduate enrollment
state's population (see Figure 5.6). With the ex-
rates (see Figure 5.5).6 In 1980, Hispanic women
ception of Florida and Illinois, which possess the
accounted for 2.2% of the undergraduate student
most equitable distribution between state and stu-
population, while the enrollment rate of Hispanic
dent Hispanic populations, all other states with the
men was about the same at 2.1%; however, by 1994
largest Hispanic populations display significant gaps
the enrollment rate of Hispanic females had more
between the percentage of Hispanics of the total
than doubled. Hispanic female enrollment in-
state population and the percentage of Latinos in
creased to 4.5%, while the rate increased to 3.6%
college. The largest discrepancies between total
for Hispanic men. However, with respect to pro-
state Hispanic populations and Latino student par-
fessional degrees, data show that a slightly smaller
ticipation in higher education are in the states with
percentage of Hispanic females than Hispanic
the largest total Hispanic populations - Califor-
males were enrolled in such programs in 1994;7
nia, Arizona and Texas.
Hispanic women accounted for 2.0% of students
Hispanic students have a higher tendency
enrolled in such degree programs, compared to
than non-Hispanic students to enroll in schools
2.6% of Hispanic men.
offering either vocational certificates or associate
Among the top 10 states with the highest per-
degrees. In particular, a higher percentage of His-
centage of Latinos, Hispanic enrollment in institu-
panics and Blacks are enrolled in two-year colleges
Figure 5.6
HISPANIC ENROLLMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
IN STATES WITH LARGEST HISPANIC POPULATIONS (ESTIMATED AS OF 1994), 1980 - 1995
Hispanic % of
State Pop (1994)
1980
1990
1993
1995
California
28.4
9.7
13.4
18.5
19.7
Texas
27.3
12.7
16.9
19.2
20.5
New York
13.7
5.5
7.9
8.9
9.6
Florida
13.4
8.1
11.5
12.8
13.5
Illinois
8.9
2.5
6.9
7.8
8.1
New Jersey
II.O
4.3
6.9
8.2
9.5
Arizona
20.1
7.6
11.6
13.5
14.4
New Mexico
39.0
24.8
28.1
30.2
31.3
Colorado
13.5
5.7
7.7
8.8
9.2
Massachusetts
5.6
1.5
3.2
4.0
4.4
Source: State Comparisons of Education Statistics, 1969-70 to 1993-94, National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1994); State Population Data, Population Division, U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. (1994)
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 75
Figure 5.7
Enrollment Rates in Two- and Four-Year
Colleges by Race/Ethnicity, 1994
100
80
78.3
than in four-year colleges (see Fig-
71
use 5.7). In 1994, Hispanics ac-
60
counted for 10.7% of the students
enrolled in two-year institutions,
40
but accounted for 5.5% of the stu-
20
dent population enrolled in four-
11.3
9.9
10.7
5.5
year institutions. By comparison,
0
Blacks accounted for 11.3% of stu-
White
Black
Hispanic
dents in two-year colleges and
Two-Year Colleges
Four-Year Colleges
9.9% of students in four year
Source: Digest of Educational Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
schools, while 71.0% of Whites
attended two-year institutions and
78.3% attended four-year colleges.
D. DEGREES
Figure 5.8
Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older
CONFERRED
by Race/Ethnicity, 1997
100
As more Hispanics are at-
83
tending college, the number of
80
74.9
postsecondary degrees awarded to
60
54.7
Hispanics has increased, but their
49.1
rates of educational attainment are
39
40
28.8
not in line with either their over-
24.6
20
all population rates or their college
13.3
10.3
enrollment rates. Figures 5.6
0
through 5.9 demonstrate the aca-
High School Degree +
Some College or more
Bachelor's Degree or more
White
Black
demic areas in which Hispanics
Hispanic
Source: Current Population Reports, Educational Attainment in the United States, Bureau of the
are concentrating, as well as the
Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (1997)
percentage of the postsecondary
degrees they are receiving.
In 1997, approximately one-
fourth of Hispanics aged 25 years and older
Since 1977, Hispanics are still less likely to get
had completed some college, compared to
physical sciences and mathematics degrees; as
nearly one-half of Whites and nearly two-fifths
of 1991, the most favored majors of Hispanic
of Blacks. About one in ten Hispanic adults
students have changed from humanities and
had obtained a bachelor's degree or more in
social/behavioral sciences to technical and pro-
1997, compared to slightly less than one-
fessional degrees, with the single largest area
quarter of Whites and more than one-eighth
of concentration in business and management
of Blacks (see Figure 5.8)
(see Figure 5.9). In 1977, 41.6% of degrees
Page 76
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
While 4.1% of students in graduate
Figure 5.11
school write Hispanic in 1994, only
Bachelor's Degrees Conferred by Race/Ethnicity, 1988 - - 1994
3.1% received a master's degree, but
this rate is up from 2.3% in 1988-89
100
(see Figures 5.3 and 5.12).
84.6
84.3
82.9
$0.3
80
R
E CONTINUITY OF
60
ENROLLMENT
40
As discussed above, there has been
20
5.7
5.8
64
7.2
29
3.1
3.6
4.3
a marked change in the number and per-
0
-
centage Increase in bachelor's degrees
1988-89
1989-90
1991-92
1993-94
White
Black
conferred to Hispanics and other stu-
Hispanic
ents. However, while more students are
Source: Digest of Education Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
rolling in and graduating from college,
some are experiencing personal, financial,
and academic problems which disrupt
their college careers. Non-completion
rates are not indicative of failure but,
Figure 5.12
rather, show that students "may have an
unrealistic view as to how much time, ef-
Master's Degrees Conferred by Race/Ethnicity, 1988 - 1994
fort, and money will be needed to com-
100
plete postsecondary education pro-
grams."" Generally, data on persistence
80
78.4
78.1
77
74.8
toward a bachelor's degree demonstrate
60
that Hispanics (23.3%) are less likely than
Whites (36.9%) or Blacks (24.8%) to com-
40
plete a degree within four years; and that
20
Hispanics (34.9%) are more likely than
4.6
2.3
48
52
5.7
2.5
2.7
3.1
Whites (25.0%) and Blacks (32.2%) to
0
1988-89
1989-90
1991-92
1993-94
take more than six years to receive a
White
Black
Hispanic
bachelor's degree (see Figure 5.13).
Source: Digest of Education Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
A 1996 longitudinal study on stu-
dents enrolled during the 1969-90 school
year indicated the following:"
Although 37.2% of Hispanic high school gradu-
ates aged 16-24 were enrolled in two-year edu-
only 16.3% had received an associate's degree.
cational institutions in the fall of 1989. by 1994
Of the remainder, 22.2% were still enrolled
but had not received a degree, and 39.8% had
Page 78
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
neither received an associate's
Figure 5.13
degree nor were enrolled in
College Graduates Receiving a Bachelor's Degree
school at all.
within Various Years of Starting College, 1993
Of the 17.9% of Hispanic high
school graduates enrolled in
more than 4
more than 5
more than 6
four-year institutions in 1989,
4 years or less
up to 5 years
up to 6 years
years
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
fewer than one-third (32.4%)
White
36.9
27.5
10.5
25
Black
24.8
27.8
15.2
32.2
succeeded in obtaining a
Hispanic
23.3
28.7
13.1
34.9
bachelor's degree by 1994.
By 1994, 22.1% of Hispanic
students pursuing a bachelor's
degree were still enrolled but
had not graduated and over
Source: The Condition of Education 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
one-third (36.6%) had effec-
tively dropped out of their
four-year educational institu-
tions.
OERI conducted a longitu-
Figure 5.14
dinal study from 1989 to 1994 to
Undergraduate Receiving College Financial Aid
compare completion rates per ini-
by Source and Race/Ethnicity, 1992-1993
tial degree objective among part-
60
54.1
time and full-time students. The
50
47.2
43
findings indicated that first-time
39.3
38 8
40
beginning students seeking
32.1
30
26 8
bachelor's degrees in 1989-90
20
were more likely than those seek-
20
15.2
ing associate's degrees to obtain
10
their degree objective within five
0
years of initial enrollment. 19 OERI
Any Aid
Grants
Loans
found that full-time enrollment is
White
Black
Hispanic
associated with higher rates of per-
Source: Digest of Education Statistics 1996, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (1996)
sistence and attainment; to illus-
trate, 51.7% of full-time students
had completed a degree within five
years, while 43.4% of part-time col-
lege students failed to get a degree or still be en-
high rates of part-time enrollment (see Figure 5.16),
rolled after five years. 20 Given that Hispanics have
they are less likely to obtain a college degree.
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 79
F. FINANCING A
Figure 5.15
COLLEGE
Employed College Students 16- 24 Years-Old
By Race and Hours Worked per Week. 1988 - - 1993
EDUCATION
1988
1991
PM
just
There is evidence that de-
White
Total Hours
48.9
the
to !
101
20 or more
25.1
2%1
22:
263
pendence upon loans and fear of
35 of more
5
1:
:
:
debt inhibit many students from
-
Black
Total Hours
31.8
à
1112
ever attending college.²¹ Low
20 or more
186
171
199
1K
family incomes, tuition levels that
35 or more
3.3
:
44
1K
continue to outstrip inflation by a
Hispanic
Total Hours
40.9
4:7
'
467
nearly two-to-one ratio, and the
20 or more
28.7
it
204
25
35 of more
0.7
"
4 :
11
stagnant or declining incomes of
many Hispanic families are deter-
Source: Indicator of the Month. Working While in College. Office of I doe ational Research and
g many Latino students from
Improvement. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DI 19961
Arsuing postsecondary educa-
tion.
Financial aid is positively
related to whether students seeking sub-baccalau-
tively few candidates for associate's degrees,
reate degrees will ultimately obtain a degree. Rela-
however, received financial aid during 1989-90.
THE EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF HISPANIC ADULTS
Academic achievement is an important factor in an individual's socioeconomic well-being. For example,
on average, people who do not graduate from high school earn $12,809 annually, compared to those with
a B.A. who earn $32,629 a year. Given the strong correlation between education, employment, and
earnings, a brief examination of the education of adult Hispanics (25 and over) is relevant to this
Hispanic education profile. The following statistical overview shows that Hispanic adults tend to have
low levels of education attainment which affects their employment outcomes, as well as their earnings
and income.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
In 1994, among Hispanics 25 years old and older, 10.8% had less than a 5th grade education. More
specifically, 13.3% of Mexican Americans, 7.5% of Puerto Ricans, 5.4% of Cuban Americans, and 5.6% of
Central and South Americans had less than a 5th grade education."
In 1996, 53.1% had graduated from high school, compared to 82.8% of Whites and 74.3% of Blacks.'
Among Hispanic subgroups, the data indicate that Mexican Americans were the least likely and Cuban
Americans were the most likely to obtain a diploma; 46.7% of Mexican Americans graduated from high
school compared to 59.4% of Puerto Ricans, 64.1% of Cuban Americans, and 62.4% of Central and South
Americans."
Page 80
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
In 1994, 77.4% of Mexican Americans, 72.2% of Puerto Ricans, 62.0% of Cuban Americans, and 65.9% of
Central and South Americans reported that they had no college experience."
About one in fifteen (6.2%) Hispanics reported that he/she had obtained a bachelor's degree in 1994;
subgroup data show that 4.4% of Mexican Americans received a bachelor's degree. compared to 6.9%
of Puerto Ricans, 9.0% of Cuban Americans, and 8.3% of Central and South Americans.
LITERACY
In 1992, the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) reported that Hispanics had the least years of school-
ing of all racial/ethnic groups. The average years of schooling for Whites was 12.8 years, compared to
11.6 years and 10.2 years for Blacks and Hispanics, respectively.
NALS also reported that, overall, 21% of all adults performed at Level I (the lowest level in a measure-
ment of one to five) on the Prose Literacy Scale." Relative to their population rates, Hispanics were
overrepresented in Level 1. While Hispanics comprised 10.0% of the population, they accounted for 23%
of the adults performing at Level I on the Prose Literacy Scale. By comparison, Whites accounted for
76% of the population, but 51.0% of the Prose Level I population in 1992.
EMPLOYMENT. EARNINGS, AND POVERTY STATUS
For Hispanics and all other groups, the higher the level of education, the more likely an individual is to
be employed. In 1996, among Hispanics 25 years old and older, 51.3% of individuals who did not have
a high school diploma were employed, compared to 69.9% of Hispanic high school graduates and
79.7% of Hispanic college graduates."
Hispanic college graduates aged 25-64 are more likely to work in professional and managerial posi-
tions than Hispanic high school dropouts and graduates, who are more likely to work in the service and
laborer industries." In 1996, 46.0% of Hispanic college graduates aged 25- 64 years were employed in
managerial and professional jobs, compared to 8.5% of Hispanic dropouts and 17.5% of Hispanic high
school graduates. Almost one-half (48.0%) of Hispanic high school dropouts and approximately one-
third (30.6%) of Hispanic high school graduates worked in the service industry, compared to only 5.0%
of Hispanic college graduates. Over one-half (54.9%) of Hispanic dropouts and almost one-third (32.1%)
of Hispanic high school graduates were employed as laborers/operators/fabricators, compared to only
2.0% of Hispanic college graduates.
The median weekly earnings for Hispanics 16 years and older was lower among high school dropouts
than college graduates. In 1996, Hispanic dropouts earned $278 per week, compared to $345 for His-
panic high school graduates and $656 per week for Hispanic college graduates."
High school dropouts are more likely than either high school or college graduates to live below the
poverty level." Moreover, within each category of educational attainment, a higher percentage of
Hispanics and Blacks than Whites live below the poverty level. For example, in 1996, 33.9% of Hispanic
and 39.5% of Black high school dropouts 25 years and older lived below the poverty level, compared to
21.8% of Whites. For college graduates 25 years old and older, the percentage of persons living below
the poverty line declined; however, a higher percentage of Hispanics and Blacks than Whites were
poor; 11.1% of Hispanic, 12.6% of Black, and 5.9% of White college graduates lived below the federal
poverty level.
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Pag 81
VI. Policy Implications
A. OVERVIEW
There is a growing consensus among both re-
searchers and practitioners about what needs
As the preceding chapters demonstrate, there
to be done to improve the educational status
is an enormous education gap between Hispanic
of Latino students.
students and other Americans by virtually every
4A number of schools and communities have
known measurement of educational opportunities
and outcomes. Compared to non-Hispanics, Latino
overcome many adverse factors and have suc-
students are:
ceeded in assuring quality education for their
Hispanic children.
More likely to enter school with significant dis-
advantages, including high poverty rates, low
B. HISPANIC EDUCATIONAL
levels of parental education, and (for a high
EXCELLENCE: THE VALUE TO
proportion of them) limited English profi-
ciency
AMERICAN SOCIETY
Less likely to receive early childhood educa-
The benefits to individual Latinos and the
tional development through pre-school pro-
entire Hispanic community resulting from im-
grams
provements in educational attainment are well-
More likely to be retained in grade
known. Previous NCLR research has shown that
as many as one-third of poor Hispanics would be
More likely to be placed in general education
lifted out of poverty if Hispanic educational out-
tracks, and less likely to be placed in programs
comes were equal to those of their White counter-
for the gifted and talented
parts.¹ Similarly, researchers have shown that the
Less likely to complete high school
"premium" for obtaining a bachelor's degree (over
a high school degree) is worth an additional 75%
Less likely to pursue post-secondary education,
more in lifetime earnings. Every Hispanic who now
particularly at four-year colleges
has a high school education would earn between
Less likely to obtain a bachelor's degree or an
$400,000 and $500,000 more over his or her life-
advanced degree
time if he/she had a bachelor's degree; the premium
Despite this distressing portrait, the National
for a Latino with a professional degree is a remark-
Council of La Raza believes that now, more than
able $1.7 million.2
ever before, there are reasons for optimism. As
Perhaps less well known are the benefits to
this chapter will show:
American society that would result from improve-
It is increasingly clear that improving Hispanic
ments in educational opportunity and outcomes for
educational opportunities and outcomes is of
Hispanics. Closing the education gap between
vital interest to all Americans.
Hispanic and non-Hispanic Americans is critical
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 87
Safe, orderly learning environment
ments of an effective school. These attributes have
Frequent assessment of student progress
been found to be essential for a variety of student
populations, including language-minority children.⁸
More recently, other characteristics, includ-
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education's
ing a focus on subjects beyond the basics, ongoing
High School Dropout Project identified five key
staff development, and strong home-school con-
characteristics of schools that effectively educate
nections have been identified as important ele-
Hispanic students (see box on Hispanic Dropout
Project).
Hispanic-Dropout Project
Researchers at the University of Texas have
compiled a similar "short list" of actions the schools
Five Characteristics of Effective Schools
need to take to promote successful educational
First, these schools have very high academic and
outcomes for Latino9 students, as have the National
behavioral standards for their students
Coalition of Advocates for Students,¹⁰ researchers
Second, they communicate those standards
studying the Achievement for Latinos through the
very clearly, and they provide access and sup
Academic Success (ALAS) project," and numer-
port to students in meeting those standards -
that is, they provide students with many op:
ous others. In sum, there is no shortage of research
portunities to succeed in meeting these high
reports, program evaluations, practitioner's guides,
standards.
or other material to help those truly interested in
Third schools that make a difference connect
improving Hispanic educational attainment. As the
their students in meaningful ways to adults In
Hispanic Dropout Project concluded:
spite of their size, secondary schools can adopt
strategies - such as a school within a school, a
Ways to improve the schools that Hispan-
group of teachers accepting responsibility for
ics attend and solutions to [the Hispanic
the same students, everyone on staff agreeing
dropout problem] are known; they should
to" adopt" some students, older students
be implemented on a large scale. There
mentoring younger students to increase the
are dozens of proven, replicable programs
personal attention that students need to expe-
rience.
capable of increasing Hispanic students'
Fourth these schools connect their students to
achievement, increasing their high school
possible futures in college and the workforce
completion, and increasing their college
Fifth they provide families with useful. infor:
enrollment Only a lack of political lead-
mation about how their children are doing and
ership, will, and resources keeps the na-
about their futures: Rather than accepting the
tion from solving the problem; there is no
myth that parents do not care, good schools
shortage of effective models.¹²
adopt the position that parents need informa
tion in order to make informed decisions that
While significant and contentious policy de-
affect their children. Aspirations-are-not
bates continue over a wide variety of issues, there
enough. For schools to make a difference, they
appears to be a growing consensus that schools and
must provide ways for students and their fami-
education programs must incorporate three basic
lies to achieve those aspirations.
themes in order to succeed with Hispanic children;
these themes include:
NCLR
Latino Education: Status and Prospects July 1998
Page 91
Public Schools That Work for
In the Calexico Unified School District, on the Mexican border in California's 80% of
the students are English Language Learners (ELLs), 30% are children of migrent and seasonal farmworkers,
and the average family earns less than $12,000. The system was one of the first to Implement a full
bilingual curriculum in each of its schools in the 1970s, has established aggressive perental Involvement
programs, and perhaps most importantly, has created what one observer called's calture of learning
All students must pass an English proficiency test and complete a senior project to graduate, The dropout
rate has been less than half of the national average for Hispanics and about half of the statewide average
for all students. More than 80% of the school system's graduates go on to higher education, more than
twice the national average for Latino and non atino high school graduates."
The Central Park East School in East Harlem, New York, is one of the nation's best-known public "choice"
schools. The majority of the school's students are low-income; about three-quarters come from families
who earn at or barely-above poverty-level incomes. However, the school is racially diverse; about 45% of
its students are African American, while another 30% are Hispanic, principally of Puerto Rican and
Dominican origins. Despite serious resistance from the school bureaucracy and some community opposi-
tion owing to the school's acceptance of significant numbers of (largely White) students from outside the
neighborhood, its results have been dramatic: school attendance far above the city average a negligible
dropout rate in a city where minority dropout rates exceed 50%, and high standardized test scores.
Community School District Six, located in upper Manhattan in New York City, contains a large popula
tion of English language learners (ELLs). Of the total enrollment of over 29,000 students, 48.2% are ELLs
the highest proportion among all school districts in New York State. In addition, 98 9% of the district's
students are from low-income families. Despite these demographic challenges, District Six has built an
educational environment that promotes higher standards of excellence for the entire learning community
It is at the forefront of innovative technology initiatives, with the largest computer laptop program in the
state; it also operates an extensive parent education initiative that includes basic literacy career develop-
ment, computer training, GED and bachelor's degree, and parent leadership programs. During the last 10
years; the district's reading and math scores have increased significantly. in reading, the district has
gone from being ranked 32nd to 19th in the city; in mathematics, the district's rank has increased from 32
to 13th The district also has the city's second highest Spanish language reading scores.
The Ysleta Independent School District (Ysleta ISD) in El Paso, Texas, includes 47 000 students; 75% of
whom come from below-poverty-level families 85% of the student body is Hispanic, and about 40% of all
students are predominantly Spanish speaking Ysleta ISD operates one of the most comprehensive
bilingual education programs in the country, designed to assure that all students will graduate from high
school fluently bilingual and fully prepared to enter a four-year college. Prior to adopting this program
between 50-60% of Ysleta students passed Texas standardized reading, mathematics and writing tests.
In 1997, 85% of the district's students passed the reading exam, 81% passed the mathematics exam and
86% passed the writing exam; these scores surpass those of virtually all urban school districts in the United
States.
NCLR Latino Education: Status and Prospects . July 1998
Page 93