Part III
Conference Papers



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary Part III Conference Papers

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary Trends in Educational Achievement of Minority Students Since Brown v. Board of Education Kim M. Lloyd, Marta Tienda, and Anna Zajacova1 Prior to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that ordered the racial integration of public schools, segregation produced and perpetuated unequal educational chances for blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. This landmark Court decision gave a strong impetus to the civil rights movement and a spate of antidiscrimination and affirmative action legislation designed to equalize educational opportunity and, ultimately, eliminate racial gaps in education and economic outcomes. The decade of the 1960s inspired great hope that the War on Poverty and the civil rights movement would yield high social dividends toward the twin goals of reducing socioeconomic inequality and promoting racial and ethnic integration. Achieving a color-blind meritocracy— one consistent with the vision of the architects of the Great Society— seemed well within the reach of social policy. Philosophically, the meritocratic foundations of our democratic society remain intact. However, support for the social policies needed to achieve the integrated society envisioned after the 1954 Supreme Court decision has eroded as the demographic composition of the population has become more diverse along racial and ethnic lines (Bobo and Kluegel, 1993; Kuklinski et al. 1997; Olzak et al., 1994; Orfield et al., 1996; Tienda, 1999). Moreover, recent trends indicate that in some ways we are further away from the goal of economic equality than we were in the mid-1970s (Marshall, 2000; Danziger and Gottschalk, 1995). Persisting educational disparity is a major reason for persisting economic inequality. This has been even more true after 1973, when the returns to education rose, especially favoring college-educated workers (Danziger and Gottschalk, 1993; Carnevale, 1999).2

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary Our purpose here is to present a broad overview of educational trends to illustrate group differences in educational attainment over time and to document where racial/ethnic groups stand as they begin the 21st century. To trace the evolution of educational attainment since the landmark Supreme Court decision mandating integration of segregated schools, we assemble comparative data from published statistics on minority schooling from 1950 to the present. Two disturbing developments set the stage for changing educational opportunity in the United States. First, despite impressive gains in educational attainment since the 1960s, more recent improvements since 1980 have been very modest, especially for Hispanics, who continue to leave school before graduating at four times the rate of non-Hispanic whites (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999a; Current Population Surveys, 1999, 2000).3 Second, gaps in graduation rates of majority white and nonwhite youth have widened at all education levels, but especially among the college-educated (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993). These troubling trends signal deepening cleavages between race and ethnic groups; worse, if allowed to follow their current course, they could undermine the social and economic foundations of the nation’s democratic institutions. Our purpose in raising these issues is not to replay past societal failures, but rather to question whether it is possible to achieve a color-blind meritocracy without first equalizing educational opportunity at all levels of education. To begin, we trace the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the school-age population in the United States and illustrate key social and economic correlates of group membership that exacerbate educational disparities, such as residential concentration, living arrangements, poverty, parental education, access to computers, and linguistic diversity. Subsequently, we discuss how the educational pipeline reduces the pool of students able to compete for college admissions. The concluding section discusses the practices that can reverse the trends toward rising educational inequality by leveling the playing field when children enter the educational system and preventing achievement gaps at the lower and middle grades. We argue that the increasing diversification of the student population requires strong policies of inclusion and representation because this is a minimum condition for shaping a common voice and preserving the meritocratic foundations of all educational institutions. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Three master trends characterize the changing demography of the school-age population since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. These are: (1) rapid racial and ethnic diversification of the school-age population, (2)

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary a growing presence of foreign-born students at primary, middle, and secondary schools, and (3) increased regional and urban concentration of minority students. The spatial dimensions of population distribution are important for appreciating how segregation continues to delimit educational opportunity to the present day. In 1950, the U.S. Bureau of the Census enumerated 150 million inhabitants, of which just under one-third were of school age.4 At that time, 14 percent of youth were classified “minority” (i.e., nonwhite). The vast majority of such students—12 percent—were black and just 2 percent were Hispanic and other races combined. During the 1950s, the U.S. population increased by 30 million, and 25 million more were added to the population during the 1960s. Because this growth was driven by higher fertility, the school-age population as a share of the total rose from 31 to 37 percent during the “baby boom.”5 Thereafter, the proportion of youth began a gradual decline and currently accounts for just over one-quarter of the total population. However, because the U.S. population base has continued to grow, the absolute size of the school-age population has remained stable since 1970—about 75-76 million. The minority share of youth rose relatively slowly during the 1950s and 1960s, reaching 15 percent by 1960 and 16 percent a decade later (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960, 1970). However, the gradual increase in the racial and ethnic diversification of the population changed dramatically during the 1970s—partly due to an increase in the volume and diversity of immigration, partly due to higher fertility of minority populations, and partly due to changes in the Census Bureau’s methods used to enumerate minority groups, particularly Hispanics and Asians. By 1980 nearly 1 in 4 of the 77 million people ages 5 to 24 were classified as minority. Ten years later, 30 percent of school-age youth were black, Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian. And, as Figure 1 shows, this proportion exceeded 1 in 3 by 2000. Although the diversification of the school-age population appears gradual when evaluated on a decade-by-decade basis, the pace of change is quite striking from a 50-year perspective—approximately two generations in demographic time. Figure 1 reveals that the minority share of the K-12 population more than doubled in 50 years, increasing by a factor of 2.5. The absolute size of the minority college-age population grew slightly faster, at 61 percent. These trends indicate that diversification simultaneously affected primary and secondary schools, as well as colleges and universities. Both the direction and timing of these demographic shifts have important implications for educational opportunities and outcomes. Changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the school-age population occurred in tandem with equally profound shifts in other spheres, including the residential distribution of youth from rural to urban and suburban

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 1 Racial/ethnic composition of the school-age population: 1950 and 2000. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1950, 2000). areas (Long, 1988); in the diversification of educational institutions (Barron’s Educational Series, 1992; National Center for Education Statistics, 1999a); and in the structure of employment away from manufacturing and toward the service sector and technical jobs requiring higher levels of skills (Levy, 1987; Danzinger and Gottschalk, 1993). Combined, these trends have raised the value of postsecondary schooling while in-

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary creasing competition for slots in the most prestigious colleges and universities. During this same period the volume and composition of immigrants arriving on U.S. shores also had a profound impact on the American educational system. The foreign-born share of the total population decreased slightly during the 1950s, stabilized during the 1960s, and increased substantially thereafter (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999). Not only did the volume of immigrants admitted to the United States increase after 1970, but also the regional origins of new arrivals became more diversified (Farley, 1996; Rumbaut, 1996). Because the majority of immigrants and their children now hail from Latin America and Asia, the foreign born share of Hispanic and Asian students rose appreciably. In 1960, 16 percent of all Hispanics were foreign born, but by 1990, over 1 in 3 was born outside the United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960, 1999). This share remained constant during the 1990s, but since the population base increased by 25 million in absolute terms, there were more immigrant children enrolled in educational institutions. Large-scale Asian immigration is a more recent phenomenon than Hispanic immigration. Because the Asian population base is much smaller, the impact of recent immigration is even more striking. In 1960, 1 in 3 Asians were foreign born, but by 1990 over 3 in 5 Asians were immigrants (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960, 1999). This share remained quite stable during the 1990s, as the Immigration and Naturalization Service implemented new measures to regulate the numbers of immigrants admitted. As evident in Figure 2, recent immigration trends have left an indelible imprint on the school-age population at the turn of the 21st century. Nearly 3 in 4 Hispanic and 81 percent of Asian youth are either foreign born or children of immigrants. By contrast, only 10 percent of black school-age youth are foreign born or children of immigrants, and an even smaller share of white youth so qualify. These demographic shifts pose formidable challenges for education systems, but not uniformly at the national, regional, and local levels. Not only are minority youth geographically concentrated, but they are also disproportionately more likely than their white peers to be in central-city school districts (Current Population Surveys, 2000). If all schools afforded equal educational opportunity, differences in geographic location would be irrelevant for the contours of racial and ethnic inequality. Unfortunately, this is not the case (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999a, 2001a). Moreover, the distribution of minority students among urban, suburban, and rural schools has also become more unequal since the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1954 (Orfield et al., 1996). Regionally, black students remain concentrated in the South and in the major industrial cities of the Midwest and the Northeast (U.S. Bureau

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 2 Immigrant generation status of the school-age population: 2000. SOURCE: Current Population Surveys (2000). of the Census, 1990). Hispanics have increased their presence throughout the Southwest, even while they established a strong representation in South Florida, the Eastern Seaboard, and in selected pockets of the Midwest, where agricultural and industrial jobs lured employment-hungry workers during the 1950s and 1960s (Bean and Tienda, 1987; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990). Compared with blacks and Hispanics, Asians are more regionally dispersed, but they also have a strong presence on the West and East coasts, as well as several pockets in the South and South-east. At the state level, the impact of recent demographic trends on population composition has been highly uneven. According to the 2000 Census, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians combined comprise half of California’s population and over half of New Mexico’s population (Newsweek, 2000). Furthermore, 45 percent of Texans are nonwhite, as are approximately one-third of New York, New Jersey, and Florida residents. Just over one-quarter of Illinois inhabitants self-identify as black, Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian. In many counties and cities in these states, people of color represent a clear demographic majority.6 Within state jurisdictions, not only is the minority school-age population disproportionately concentrated in large, central cities, but this concentration has also increased over time. Figure 3 provides detail about the

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 3 Racial/ethnic composition of the school age central-city population. SOURCE: Current Population Surveys (1971, 2000). racial/ethnic profile of urban central-city school districts. In 1971, 39 percent of central-city student populations were minority, but 29 years later this share had climbed to 64 percent. These changes in the school-age population occurred during a period of suburbanization and depopulation of the largest urban areas, which further polarized educational opportunity among precollege students (Orfield et al., 1996). Currently, just over 1 in 3 central-city students are white, 30 percent are black, 1 in 4 are Hispanic, 8 percent are Asian, and 1 percent American Indian. These differences are stark enough when mapped against the racial/ethnic composition of the student body, but when viewed as group-specific population shares (depicted in Figure 4), racial and ethnic differences in urban school attendance are even more dramatic. Of all black students, nearly half reside in a central-city school district, whereas only 14 percent of all white students do so. Although only 14 percent of American Indians live in urban school districts, the vast majority of the remainder attends rural schools rather than higher performing suburban schools where white youth are disproportionately concentrated. These differences in the geographic distribution of students would be inconsequential if the quality of schooling afforded in central-city, suburban, and rural school districts were roughly comparable. Unfortunately, minority students are

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 4 Population shares of school-age youth residing in central-city school districts: 2000. SOURCE: Current Population Surveys (2000). more likely to attend highly segregated and low-performing schools where educational opportunities are limited (Orfield et al., 1996). Overall, these trends in the demography of the school-age population pose formidable challenges for school systems responsible for educating large numbers of minority students, including recent immigrants. But with the possible exception of linguistic variation, these challenges do not derive from diversity per se. Rather, they are the consequence of persistent inequities in the resource endowments of urban, suburban, and rural schools and the inability of local governments to implement significant reform in underperforming schools (Arum, 2000; Kain and Singleton, 1996). In the face of persisting residential segregation (Massey and Denton, 1993), the need to readdress inequities in educational curricula is even more urgent now than in the past, when minority representation in underperforming, central-city schools was lower. SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS Additional obstacles to enhancing educational opportunity, regardless of race, lie in the substantial social and economic differences among demographic groups. Key correlates of group membership—such as family structure, poverty, parental education, access to computers, and linguistic diversity—exacerbate educational disparities in the United States. These disparities then contribute to the exclusion of large numbers of

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary minority students from the privileges enjoyed by many whites. Because of their pivotal role in determining educational outcomes, we briefly summarize and illustrate these correlates of educational attainment that produce educational disparities between minority and nonminority youth. The rise in the share of children reared in single-parent homes is one of the most profound social changes witnessed during the past 40 years (Wojtkiewicz et al., 1990). Living arrangements are crucial for understanding racial and ethnic differences in educational opportunities and outcomes, because youth reared by a lone parent have considerably lower educational achievement than those reared by two parents (Teachman et al., 1997; Thomson et al., 1994), and because minority youth are more likely than whites to reside with a single parent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994; Wojtkiewicz, 1992). The share of youth living with one parent more than doubled from 1970 to the present, but as Figure 5 shows, this overall change conceals large differences by race and Hispanic origin. In 1970, less than 10 percent of white children and nearly a third of black children lived with a single mother. By 1998, 18 percent of white children, 27 percent of Hispanic children, and over half of blacks lived with a single mother. FIGURE 5 Children 18 and under living with mother only: 1970-1998. SOURCE: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (1998).

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 18 College enrollment rates of 20-year-olds by socioeconomic status (SES): 1994. SOURCE: National Center for Educational Statistics (1996a). almost 80 percent of Asian youth enroll in college by the time they are 20, compared with about 30 to 40 percent of others. Clearly the large gap in college-going rates cannot be solely attributed to material resources and family background. At the other extreme of the socioeconomic distribution, college enrollment is not differentiated among whites, Hispanics, and Asians, but blacks from families with high socioeconomic status are significantly less likely to enroll in college than their high-status racial and ethnic counterparts. Further research is required to understand why high-status blacks are less likely to attend college than white and Hispanic youth with similar backgrounds. However, these differentials suggest that corrective measures— such as race-sensitive admissions policies—may be necessary to narrow the college enrollment and graduation gaps of blacks and Hispanics vis-à-vis whites that appear in Figures 16 and 17. Moreover, the disparities among the status groups in Figure 18 suggest that a one-size-fits-all policy may not have uniform effects on blacks and Hispanics. That Hispanic youth are more likely than Asians, blacks, or whites to reside with poorly educated parents (see Figures 8 and 9 above) significantly lowers their likelihood of college attendance because the norms and expectations of college education are largely, though not exclusively,

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary set by parental experiences (Coleman, 1990; Mare, 1995). We hope that as the number of college-educated Hispanics rises, so too will the postsecondary enrollment rates of subsequent generations, particularly if the expansion of four-year institutions continues. However, in light of the demographic and socioeconomic trends outlined above, the number of generations required for educational convergence does not provide hope for achieving a color-blind meritocracy any time soon. The demographic trends outlined in this paper so far are all the more problematic if immigration continues to increase the number of parents with low levels of completed schooling (National Research Council, 1997). Furthermore, the college experience of minorities, especially Hispanics, is further differentiated by their unequal propensity to enroll in two-year rather than four-year colleges (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999a). By requiring another transition before college completion, this aspect of educational stratification in higher education contributes to lower rates of college graduation and also narrows the pipeline into graduate and professional schools. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics (1999a) reports that over half (56 percent) of Hispanic college students enrolled in two-year colleges, compared with 39 percent of Asians, 42 percent of blacks, and just 36 percent of whites. Although a large share of junior college students do transfer to four-year institutions, only tiny shares of transfer students make their way to the most competitive postsecondary institutions, particularly private and four-year liberal arts colleges. This can be shown using data from the 1994 wave of the National Education Longitudinal Study (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996b). Of all college goers, only 13 percent of Hispanic and black students attend highly competitive postsecondary institutions compared with 22 percent of their white and 36 percent of their Asian counter-parts.11 Figure 19 demonstrates that of the small share of minority students who do enroll in highly competitive colleges, Hispanics and blacks are more likely than Asians or whites to hail from lower-status family backgrounds. Hispanics are also much more likely than other groups of students to be first-generation college goers. These are promising signs that the long-term educational prospects of Hispanics and blacks may improve in the future, presuming that socioeconomic status does not hinder access to higher education for financial reasons. However, this promise will be severely compromised if the elimination of race-sensitive admissions policies forecloses higher educational opportunity for talented students whose socioeconomic circumstances may otherwise restrict access to selective institutions. Improvements in minority representation in higher education since the civil rights era notwithstanding, the differentials in college graduation

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 19 Enrollment in highly competitive colleges: 1994. SOURCE: National Center for Educational Statistics (1996b). rates by group membership actually increased since 1970, which adds to the ledger of troubling signs. As Figure 20 reveals, this is because the rates of college attendance and graduation of whites rose faster than those of blacks. In 1971, 21 percent of white young adults graduated from college, compared with 8 and 5 percent of blacks and Hispanics, respectively. By 2000, 32 percent of whites ages 25 to 34 had graduated from college, twice that of blacks and nearly three times that of Hispanics. Asians are an exception, inasmuch as their college graduation rates have consistently surpassed those of whites since they were separately identified in statistical systems. That blacks and Hispanics must swim upstream faster to catch up with their white and Asian peers is a tall order, given the trends in scholastic performance and educational attainment documented above coupled with recent demographic trends. For Hispanics the challenge is even more formidable because they must do so as their numbers swell at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic distribution. TRENDS AND PROSPECTS Racial and ethnic disparities in educational attainment imply lifelong differences in socioeconomic welfare and underscore the urgency of equal-

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary FIGURE 20 College graduation rates for persons ages 25-34:1971-2000. SOURCE: Current Population Surveys for 1971 to 2000. izing opportunity to reverse troubling trends that generate widening gaps among demographic groups. Parents’ education often constructs a floor below which offspring are not likely to fall. However, for some minority populations with historically low levels of education, such as Hispanics and many recent immigrants from Latin America and some Asian nations, parents’ education may also represent a ceiling that young people’s scholastic achievements are unlikely to surpass. This circumstance underscores one of the great dilemmas of equal opportunity—namely, that family background remains decisive in shaping individual opportunity beyond what is objectively possible through economic prosperity alone (Coleman, 1990). If educational inequalities cannot be narrowed during prosperous times, they certainly will not improve during leaner years. Another serious challenge for educational institutions is that intolerance for difference seems to have risen as the diversity of the U.S. population has increased (Tienda, 1999). This view finds support in the rise of antiimmigrant sentiment in many public and local debates and in the repeal of race-sensitive college admissions policies in three states with some of the most diverse populations—California, Texas, and Florida. The putative grounds for eliminating race-sensitive admission criteria is that, by giving unfair advantages to some applicants, preferential admission guidelines violate the very foundations of a meritocracy, which requires fair competition. This position ignores the fact that fair competition is only possible when starting lines are equal and the playing field is level.

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary But as demonstrated above, appreciable racial/ethnic differences in scholastic performance are already evident in kindergarten. Moreover, as minority youth progress through the educational hierarchy, their school enrollment rates decline, thereby narrowing the pool of students available for college. The legacy of disadvantage probably cannot be reconciled either with fair competition or a meritocracy. The important educational challenge for the future, of course, is to ensure that diversity—broadly defined—is not the main correlate of rising inequality. Ironically, this has been occurring since the landmark Supreme Court decision that banned segregated schools as a step toward equalizing educational opportunities. Although discrimination has been legally outlawed, architects of the Great Society appreciated that more was required to create a just society. Affirmative action policies attempted to go beyond the simple prohibition of disparate treatment on the grounds of race, national origin, and sex by encouraging race-sensitive admissions to selective colleges and universities for groups that have historically experienced barriers in accessing higher education. The problem resides not in the philosophy or intent, but rather in the interpretation of what measures beyond outlawing discrimination are justified while protecting the meritocratic foundations of democratic institutions. As the debate about affirmative action gains momentum, colleges and universities will face additional challenges to maintaining a diverse educational pipeline because there is no consensus about what conditions must be equal for opportunity to be equal; there is no common understanding about the meaning of a “fair chance”; nor is there agreement about what solutions produce the fairest outcomes. Stated as questions: Whose freedom to choose must be compromised for whose opportunity? Is it possible to create a more just society without compromising someone else’s freedom to choose? Affirmative action programs represent society’s past response to the dilemma of fair chance in an unequal society and, while imperfect, the various attempts to evaluate these initiatives indicate that the benefits may outweigh their costs. This is the conclusion reached by Holzer and Neumark (2000) in a comprehensive article in the Journal of Economic Literature; it is consistent with the main theme of Bowen and Bok’s (1998) landmark study showing that black students who attend selective institutions outperform their statistical counterparts who attend less selective institutions. Based on the available empirical evidence, it appears that affirmative action may be both good social policy and good economic policy. It represents good social policy because it begins to reduce the class cleavages along racial/ethnic lines, and it represents good economic policy because it widens the pool of college-educated groups equipped with the skills needed in the high-tech economy of the future.

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary While we have not been able to address all of the important questions regarding the correlates of widening and narrowing educational differentials, the challenges we have identified are all the more urgent because the demographic trends outlined at the outset are projected to continue. Almost half of the school-age population will be minority by the year 2020 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). The youth of 2020 represent the children of the generation that is currently in college—one in which whites and Asians are greatly overrepresented relative to their population shares, while blacks and especially Hispanics are underrepresented. While high performance standards and merit-based rewards should remain important criteria in structuring college admissions, the legacy and persistence of urban residential segregation forecloses equal educational opportunity to students whose family circumstances cannot purchase access to quality elementary, middle, and high schools. Against a backdrop of rising inequality, the problem of diversity in a meritocracy becomes even more difficult. This is why policies that promote equal opportunity must continue to widen the educational pipeline at all schooling levels. The ultimate injustice in a meritocratic society is foreclosing educational opportunity. NOTES 1.   Please direct all correspondence to Kim M. Lloyd or Marta Tienda, Office of Population Research, Wallace Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, kimlloyd@princeton.edu or tienda@princeton.edu. 2.   This is not to say that discrimination in access to employment does not also operate to create economic disparities. 3.   Throughout the text the term “dropout” refers to status dropout. Status dropout is defined as persons ages 16-24 who attain less than a high school diploma or equivalent and are not enrolled in school at the time of interview. For more information see National Center for Educational Statistics (2001b). 4.   Unless otherwise specified, the term “school-age” refers to youth ages 5-24. 5.   The baby boom period spans approximately 1948 to 1964. 6.   Given states’ disparate levels of minority concentration, it may not be a coincidence that the leading initiatives to eliminate race-sensitive admissions policies in colleges and universities first began in California and Texas. 7.   To facilitate between-group comparisons, Figures 6, 14, 15, 17, and 20 do not show the zero point on the vertical axis. 8.   Kao and Tienda argue that parents’ optimism about their children’s prospects is decisive in the educational achievement of both first- and second-generation youth, who comprise a very large share of the Asian population in America. They show that Asian youth who are high achievers have immigrant parents. For a discussion of the cultural and social correlates of Asians’ high educational achievement, see Kao (1995).

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary 9.   For a detailed discussion of proficiency levels in reading and mathematics in all tested grades, see “Mathematics Framework for the 1996 and 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress” (http://www.nagb.org/pubs/math96-2000.pdf) and “Reading Framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992 – 2000” (www.nagb.org/pubs/read92-2000.pdf). 10.   Although standard errors fluctuate slightly, the greatest variability in test performance occurs among Hispanics, followed by blacks, with whites having the lowest levels of variation. For instance, the average standard errors for reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are 3.3, 2.2, and 1.1 for Hispanics, blacks, and whites between 1971-1999, respectively (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999b). The same general monotonic pattern by group membership is evident for math scores, although the average level of variability is somewhat lower. 11.   Highly competitive postsecondary institutions are defined here in terms of Barron’s institutional selectivity rating of “very competitive,” “highly competitive,” and “most competitive” (see Barron’s Educational Series, 1992). REFERENCES Arum, R. 2000 Schools and communities: Ecological and institutional dimensions. Annual Review of Sociology 26:395-418. Attewell, P., and J. Battle 1999 Home computers and school performance. Information Society 15(1):1-10. Barron’s Educational Series, I 1992 Profiles of American Colleges. Woodbury, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. Bartick, T.J. 2001 Jobs for the Poor: Can Labor Demand Policies Help? New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bean, F.D., and M. Tienda 1987 The Hispanic Population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Blake, J. 1989 Family Size and Achievement. Berkeley: University of California Press. Blank, R.M. 2000 Enhancing the opportunities, skills, and security of American workers. Pp. 105-123 in A Working Nation: Workers, Work and Government in the New Economy, D. Ellwood, R.M. Blank, J.Blasi, D.Kruse, W.A. Niskanen and K. Lynn-Dyson, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bobo, L., and J.R. Kluegel 1993 Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review 58(4): 443-464. Bowen, W.G., and D. Bok 1998 The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carnevale, A.P. 1999 Education = Success: Empowering Hispanic Youth and Adults. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service for the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Carnevale, A.P., and D.M. Desrochers 2000 Employer training: The high road, the low road, and the muddy middle path. Pp. 300-307 in Back to Shared Prosperity, R. Marshall, ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Coleman, J.S. 1990 Equality and Achievement in Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary Current Population Surveys 1971 Machine-readable data files. Conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Santa Monica, CA: Unicon Research Corporation. 1996 Machine-readable data files. Conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Santa Monica, CA: Unicon Research Corporation. 1999 Machine-readable data files. Conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Santa Monica, CA: Unicon Research Corporation. 2000 Machine-readable data files. Conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Santa Monica, CA: Unicon Research Corporation. Danzinger, S., and P. Gottschalk, eds. 1993 Uneven Tides. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Danzinger, S., and P. Gottschalk 1995 America Unequal. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Donahoe, D., and M. Tienda 2000 The transition from school to work: Is there a crisis and what can be done? Pp. 231-263 in Securing the Future: Investing in Children from Birth to College, S. Danziger and J. Waldfogel, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Duncan, O.D., D.L. Featherman, and B. Duncan 1972 Socioeconomic Background and Achievement. New York: Seminar Press. Farley, R. 1996 The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We Got Here, Where We Are Going. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 1998 America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum of Child and Family Statistics. 2000 Difficulty Speaking English: Children Age 5 to 17 Who Speak a Language Other than English at Home, and Who Are Reported to Have Difficulty Speaking English by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Region, Selected Years 1979-95. [Online]. Available: http://www.childstats.gov/ac2000/pop4.htm. [Accessed July 5, 2001]. Fuligni, A.J. 1997 The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The role of family background, attitudes and behavior. Child Development 68(2):351-362. Hauser, R.M. 1971 Socioeconomic Background and Education Performance. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Hirschman, C. 1988 Minorities in the labor market: Cyclical patterns and secular trends in joblessness. Pp. 63-86 in Divided Opportunities: Minorities, Poverty and Social Policy, G.D. Sandefur and M. Tienda, eds. New York: Plenum Press. Holzer, H., and D. Neumark 2000 Assessing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature 38(3): 483-568. Jones, L.V. 1984 White-black achievement differences: The narrowing gap. American Psychologist 39(11):1207-1213. Kain, J.F., and K. Singleton 1996 Equality of educational opportunity revisited. New England Economic Review May/ June:87-114. Kao, G. 1995 Asian Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. American Journal of Education 103:121-159.

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary Kao, G., and M. Tienda 1995 Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly 76(1):1-19. 1998 Educational aspirations of minority youth. American Journal of Education 106(3): 349-384. Kao, G., M. Tienda, and B. Schneider 1996 Racial and ethnic variation in educational outcomes. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 11:263-297. Kuklinski, J. H., P. M. Sniderman, K. Knight, T. Piazza, P. E. Tetlock, G. R. Lawrence, and B. Mellers 1997 Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science 41(2): 402-419. Levy, F. 1987 Dollars and Dreams: The Changing American Income Distribution. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lloyd, K.M. 1993 Equal Processes of Mobility? The Effects of Family Size on Whites’, Blacks’, and Hispanics’ Educational Achievement. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Miami, Florida, August 5-9. Long, L.E. 1988 Migrations and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Mare, R.D. 1995 Changes in educational attainment and school enrollment. In State of the Union: America in the 1990s. Volume One: Economic Trends, R. Farley, ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Marshall, R., ed. 2000 Back to Shared Prosperity: The Growing Inequality of Wealth and Income in America. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Massey, D.S., and N.A. Denton 1993 American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mitchell, P.R. 1996 Stop the world—West Georgia is getting on. Technos 5(3):14-15,19-20. National Center for Education Statistics 1996a Dropout Rates in the United States: 1994. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=96863. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1996b National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988-94. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=96174. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1997 NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=97488. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1998a The NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999500. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1998b The Condition of Education 1998. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98/. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1999a Digest of Education Statistics. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99. [Accessed November 20, 2001].

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary 1999b NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main1999/2000469.pdf [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 2000 The Condition of Education 2000. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/coe2000/. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 2001a Condition of Education 2001. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001072. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 2001b Dropout Rates in the United States: 1999. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/quarterly/winter/elementary/e_section3.html. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. National Research Council 1997 The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration, J.P. Smith and B. Edmonston, eds. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Newsweek 2000 America 2000: A map of the mix. September 18. Olzak, S., S. Shanahan, and E. West 1994 School desegregation, interracial exposure, and antibusing activity in contemporary urban America. American Journal of Sociology 100(1):196-241. Orfield, G., S.E. Eaton, and the Harvard Project on School Desegregation 1996 Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press. Portes, A. and R. Rumbaut 1996 Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2001 Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley and New York: University of California and Russell Sage Foundation. Powell, B., and L. Carr Steelman 1993 The educational benefits of being spaced out: Sibship density and educational progress. American Sociological Review 58(June):367-381. Rumbaut, R.G. 1996 Origins and destinies: Immigration, race, and ethnicity in contemporary America. Pp. 21–42 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut, eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Solow, R. 2000 What can macro policy do? Pp. 183-185 in Back to Shared Prosperity, R. Marshall, ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Stier, H., and M. Tienda 2001 The Color of Opportunity: Pathways to Family, Work, and Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Teachman, J.D., K. Paasch, and K. Carver 1997 Social capital and the generation of human capital. Social Forces 75(4): 1343-1359. Thomson, E., T.L. Hanson, S.S. McLanahan 1994 Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces 73(1):221-242. Tienda, M. 1993 Puerto Ricans and the underclass debate. Pp. 122-136 in The Ghetto Underclass: Social Science Perspectives, W.J. Wilson, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1995 Latinos and the American pie: Can Latinos achieve economic prosperity? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17(4):403-429..

OCR for page 147
Achieving High Educational Standards For All: Conference Summary 1999 Immigration, opportunity and social cohesion. Pp. 129-146 in Diversity and Its Discontents: Cultural Conflict and Common Ground in Contemporary American Society, N.J. Smelser and J.C. Alexander, eds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trejo, S. 1997 Why do Mexican Americans earn low wages? Journal of Political Economy 105:1235-1268. U.S. Bureau of the Census 1950 United States Census of Population: 1950. Volume IV: Special Reports, Part 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1960 United States Census of Population: 1960. Volume II: Subjects Reports, Part 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1970 United States Census of Population: 1970. Volume II: Subject Reports, Part 1 and 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990 Tiger Mapping Service. [Online]. Available: http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapgen?lon=98&lat=36&wid=58&ht=25&iwd=1000&iht=600&tlevel=counties&tvar=black&tmeth=q. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1993 We the American Hispanics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994 The Diverse Living Arrangements of Children: Summer 1991. Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 38. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998a Current Population Reports: Consumer Income and Poverty. (P60-201). [Online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/poverty.html. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1998b Household and Family Characteristics: March 1998 (Update). [Online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-515u.pdf. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 1999 Race and Hispanic Origin of the Population by Nativity: 1850 to 1990. [Online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab08.html [Accessed November 20, 2001]. 2000 National Population Projections: I. Summary Files. [Online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum-T3.html. [Accessed November 20, 2001]. Wojtkiewicz, R.A. 1992 Diversity in experiences of parental structure during childhood and adolescence. Demography 29:59-68. Wojtkiewicz, R.A, S. McLanahan, and I. Garfinkel 1990 The growth of families headed by women: 1950-80. Demography 27:19-30. Zhou, M. 2000 How Community Matters for the Education of Immigrant Children. Paper presented at the Notestein Seminar, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, November 7.