NCES Blog

National Center for Education Statistics

A Closer Look at the Performance of Hispanic and Asian Subgroups

Breaking down data by racial and ethnic groups, such as White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian, can provide a better understanding of education performance and outcomes than just looking at overall outcomes. But these broad racial/ethnic groupings can still be large enough to hide important information and nuances about student performance and outcomes.  

A recent NCES report, Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018, examines current conditions and changes over time in education activities and outcomes for members of racial and ethnic groups in the United States. The report also uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey[1] to examine outcomes for U.S. and foreign-born individuals who identify with specific Hispanic and Asian ancestry subgroups (e.g., Mexican, Puerto Rican, Chinese, Asian Indian).[2] For example, although 11 percent of Asian children under age 18 were living in poverty in 2016, the child poverty rate differed by more than 30 percentage points across the selected Asian subgroups—ranging from 6 percent each for Asian Indian, Filipino, and Japanese children to 37 percent for Bangladeshi children.

These differences among subgroups were seen in other measures as well, including college participation and attainment.

 

COLLEGE PARTICIPATION RATES

The College Participation Rates indicator shows the total college enrollment rate, meaning the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges and universities.

  • In 2016, the Hispanic average college enrollment rate was 36 percent. However, among Hispanic subgroups, the average college enrollment rate ranged from 27 percent for Honduran 18- to 24-year-olds to 64 percent for Chilean 18- to 24-year-olds. (See figure 1 below.)
  • In 2016, the Asian average college enrollment rate was 67 percent. However, among Asian subgroups, the average college enrollment rate ranged from 23 percent for Burmese 18- to 24-year-olds to 78 percent for Chinese 18- to 24-year-olds.

 



 

ATTAINMENT OF A BACHELOR'S OR HIGHER DEGREE

The Attainment of a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree indicator shows the percentage of adults (25 or older) who earned at least a bachelor’s degree.

  • In 2016, about 15 percent of Hispanic adults had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree. However, among Hispanic subgroups, the percentage ranged from 9 percent for Salvadoran and Guatemalan adults to 55 percent for Venezuelan adults.
  • In 2016, about 54 percent of Asian adults had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree. However, among Asian subgroups, the percentage ranged from 10 percent for Bhutanese adults to 74 percent for Asian Indian adults. (See figure 2 below.)

 



 

This report also presents information about Hispanic and Asian subgroups on topics including nativity, children’s living arrangements, children living in poverty, and high school status dropout rates.

Looking for more information about different racial/ethnic populations on topics spanning from early childcare and education arrangements to earnings and employment as an adult? Check out the full Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 report!

 

By Sidney Wilkinson-Flicker


[1] Learn more about the Public Use Microdata Sample of the American Community Survey.

[2] If the number of individuals in a subgroup is too small, the data may not be presented for privacy reasons. Additionally, a small sample size can mean that an apparent difference between two groups is not statistically significant.

A Slightly More Diverse Public School Teaching Workforce

There is research evidence that having a teacher of the same race/ethnicity can have positive impacts on a student’s attitudes, motivation, and achievement[1] and that minority teachers may have more positive expectations for minority students’ achievement than nonminority teachers.[2] New data from the National Center for Education Statistics show that the public school teaching workforce is becoming more diverse, but is still predominantly White.

The majority of public elementary and secondary school teachers were White in both 2003–04 and 2015–16. However, the percentage of teachers who were White was lower in 2015–16 than in 2003–04 (80 vs. 83 percent). While the percentage of teachers who were Black also fell slightly in that time, the percentages of teachers who were Hispanic, Asian, and of Two or more races were higher in 2015–16 than in 2003–04.

 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: School years 2003–04 and 2015–16



# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Data are based on a head count of full-time and part-time teachers. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Although rounded numbers are shown, figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2003–04; and National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.10.


 

The racial/ethnic diversity of teachers differed somewhat by school characteristics. For example, schools with more racial/ethnic diversity in their student populations also tended to have more racial/ethnic diversity among teachers. In 2015–16, the percentage of minority[3] teachers was highest at schools that had 90 percent or more minority students (55 percent) and was lowest at schools with less than 10 percent minority students (2 percent). The opposite pattern was observed for White teachers, who accounted for 98 percent of teachers at schools with less than 10 percent minority students but made up only 45 percent of staff at schools with 90 percent or more minority students.

 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by percentage of minority students in school and teacher minority status: School year 2015–16



NOTE: Excludes the 7 percent of teachers for whom the percentage of minority enrollment in the school was not available. Minority teachers include all racial/ethnic groups except for White. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.23.


 

Are you interested in other differences in teacher characteristics by race/ethnicity? Then check out the spotlight feature in the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 report.

 

By Lauren Musu

 

[1] Egalite, A.J., and Kisida, B. (2018). The Effects of Teacher Match on Students’ Academic Perceptions and Attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1): 59–81; Egalite, A.J., Kisida, B., and Winters, M.A. (2015). Representation in the Classroom: The Effect of Own-Race Teachers on Student Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52.

[2] Gershenson, S., Holt, S.B., and Papageorge, N.W. (2016). Who Believes in Me? The Effect of Student-Teacher Demographic Match on Teacher Expectations. Economics of Education Review, 52, 209–224.

[3] Minority teachers include all racial/ethnic groups except for White.

The Digital Divide: Differences in Home Internet Access

The expanding use of technology affects the lives of students both inside and outside the classroom. While exposure to learning technology inside schools and classrooms is important, access can also differ once those students are in their homes. It’s important for educators to be aware of the potential barriers to technology and internet access that students may face. A recent report from NCES, Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom, highlighted some differences in home internet access for students.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students with either no internet access or only dial-up access differed by students’ race/ethnicity.

Access also differed geographically. Remote rural locales had the highest percentage of students with either no internet access or only dial up access at home. Within these remote rural areas, the percentage of students lacking access differed by students’ race/ethnicity. Forty-one percent of Black students and 26 percent of Hispanic students living in remote rural areas had either no internet access or only dial up access at home. This was higher than the percentage of White students (13 percent) and Asian students (11 percent) living in remote rural areas who had either no internet access or only dial up access at home.   

The percentage of students who had no access to the Internet or only dial-up access was higher for students living below the poverty threshold (26 percent) than for students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold (15 percent) and at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold (4 percent).

In 2015, the two most common main reasons for children ages 3 to 18 to not have home internet access were that it was too expensive or that the family did not believe they needed it/ were not interested in having it (38 percent each). Other main reasons for not having home internet access included that the home lacked a computer or a computer adequate for internet use (8 percent), internet service was not available in the area (5 percent), the Internet could be used somewhere else (3 percent), and privacy and security concerns (i.e., online privacy and cybersecurity and personal safety concerns) (2 percent). 

Browse the full report for more data on additional topics relating to differences in access to technology and the internet.

 

By Lauren Musu

Provide Input on Proposed Changes to Statistical Standards for Federal Collection of Race and Ethnicity Data

By Jill Carlivati McCarroll and Tom Snyder

Each Federal agency is responsible for collecting and disseminating different types of data on topics of interest and importance to the American public. In order to look across data sources to get a more complete picture of any one topic, it is important that those datasets are comparable.

Federal agencies that collect and report race and ethnicity data use the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity to promote uniformity and comparability.  The standards guide information collected and presented for the decennial census, household surveys, administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending applications), and numerous other statistical collections, as well as for civil rights enforcement and program administrative reporting.

Periodically, these standards are reviewed. The Federal Interagency Working Group for Research on Race and Ethnicity has been tasked with reviewing the standards on race and ethnicity. A March 1st Federal Register Notice and associated interim report by the Working Group communicates the current status of this work and requests public feedback on the following four areas:

 

  1. The use of separate questions versus a combined question to measure race and Hispanic origin, and question phrasing as a solution to race/ethnicity question nonresponse;
  2. The classification of a Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) group and distinct reporting category;
  3. The description of the intended use of minimum reporting categories (e.g., requiring or encouraging more detailed reporting within each minimum reporting category); and
  4. The terminology used for race and ethnicity classifications and other language in the standard.

 

Additional details on each of these four areas are available in the full notice, posted on the regulations.gov website. All members of the public are encouraged to provide feedback on these topics.  OMB will use all the public comments, along with recommendations from the Federal Interagency Working Group, to determine if any proposed revisions to the standards are warranted. According to established practice, OMB plans to notify the public of its final decision, along with its rationale.

Comments on the Federal Register Notice are due by April 30, 2017 and can be submitted electronically to Race-Ethnicity@omb.eop.gov or via the Federal E-Government website. Comments may also be sent by mail to U.S. Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget, 1800 G St., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20503. All public feedback will be considered by the Federal Interagency Working Group as they write their final report, which will be used by OMB as they decide on any possible revisions to the standards.  

Additional information on how federal agenices use race and ethnicity data as well as more a more detailed description of the potential changes to the current standards are available in this webinar:

New Release: Forum Guide to Collecting and Using Disaggregated Data on Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

By the National Forum on Education Statistics’ Disaggregation of Racial/Ethnic Subgroups Working Group

Across the nation, our schools serve a diverse student population reflecting a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, interests, identities, and cultures. The more accurately education data reflect the diversity of the student population, the better prepared education practitioners will be to customize instructional and support services to meet those students’ needs.

Local and state members of the National Forum on Education Statistics (the Forum) convened a Data Disaggregation of Racial/Ethnic Subgroups Working Group to identify best practices for disaggregating data on racial/ethnic subgroups. The Forum Guide to Collecting and Using Disaggregated Data on Racial/Ethnic Subgroups is intended to identify some of the overarching benefits and challenges involved in data disaggregation; recommend appropriate practices for disaggregating racial/ethnic data in districts and states; and describe real-world examples of large and small education agencies disaggregating racial/ethnic data successfully. This resource will help state and district staff better understand the process of disaggregating data in the field of education. It can also help agency staff determine whether data disaggregation might be an appropriate analytical tool in their communities, and, if so, how they can successfully institute or advance a data disaggregation project in their agencies.

 

The guide is organized into the following chapters:

  • Chapter 1: Introduction to Data Disaggregation in Education Agencies explains the purpose of the document; describes the concept of data disaggregation for racial/ethnic subgroups; discusses why the issue is becoming increasingly important in many communities; refers to current U.S. population data; and provides a case study of why this type of data collection can be important and advantageous in a school district.
  • Chapter 2: Strategies for Disaggregating Racial/Ethnic Data Subgroups recommends specific strategies for disaggregating data, including tasks undertaken during the two major phases of the effort: (1) needs assessment and (2) project implementation.
  • Chapter 3: Case Studies offers an in-depth look at how the disaggregation of racial/ethnic subgroup data is already being implemented through a wide range of state and district case studies.

Examples from the case studies and other education agencies are used throughout the document to highlight real-world situations. For instance, readers will learn how Highline (Wash.) Public School District changed the information it gathered on students to support its community’s commitment to equity and how the Springdale (Ark.) School District is using data to better serve its growing population of students from the Marshall Islands.

The recommendations in the resource are not mandates. Districts and states are encouraged to adapt or adopt any recommendations they determine to be useful for their purposes.


About the National Forum on Education Statistics

The work of the National Forum on Education Statistics is a key aspect of the National Cooperative Education Statistics System. The Cooperative System was established to produce and maintain, with the cooperation of the states, comparable and uniform education information and data that are useful for policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels. To assist in meeting this goal, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education, established the Forum to improve the collection, reporting, and use of elementary and secondary education statistics. The Forum addresses issues in education data policy, sponsors innovations in data collection and reporting, and provides technical assistance to improve state and local data systems.

Members of the Forum establish working groups to develop best practice guides in data-related areas of interest to federal, state, and local education agencies. They are assisted in this work by NCES, but the content comes from the collective experience of working group members who review all products iteratively throughout the development process. After the working group completes the content and reviews a document a final time, publications are subject to examination by members of the Forum standing committee that sponsors the project. Finally, Forum members (approximately 120 people) review and formally vote to approve all documents prior to publication. NCES provides final review and approval prior to online publication.

The information and opinions published in Forum products do not necessarily represent the policies or views of the U.S. Department of Education, IES, or NCES. For more information about the Forum, please visit nces.ed.gov/forum or contact Ghedam Bairu at Ghedam.bairu@ed.gov.