|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. 6
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 133 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 133
6
Comparability of Estimates of Immigrant School-Age Children
In this chapter we discuss the definitions of immigrant students from the two allowable data sources and compare those definitions. In discussing the American Community Survey (ACS), we apply several of the analytical techniques used in Chapter 2 when considering the English language learner (ELL) estimates. We also assess the strengths and weakness of estimates based on state administrative data.
As noted in Chapter 1, Title III of the Elementary and Secondary School Act requires the U.S. Department of Education (DoEd) to allocate funds to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico on the basis of a formula that incorporates the population of immigrant children and youth in each state. Specifically, the legislation states that 20 percent of the funds are to be based on the population of “recently immigrated children and youth (relative to national counts of these populations).” Section 3301(6) defines an “eligible immigrant student” as an individual who (A) is aged 3 through 21; (B) was not born in any state; and (C) has not been attending one or more schools in any one or more states for more than 3 full academic years. In this definition, language spoken by an individual is not a criterion for classification as an immigrant. This absence in the statutory definition may affect the allocation of the 20 percent of the funds to the extent that the English speaking ability of immigrant populations might vary by state because the source of the immigrant population varies by state.
As with the counts of eligible limited English proficiency (LEP) children and youth, the data on immigrant students can and have been derived from both the ACS and administratively reported state counts, and both data series have been used in the allocation formula. Prior to fiscal 2005, the DoEd allocated the immigration-related portion of Title III funds to the states on the basis of the state-reported counts of the number of immigrant children and youth; since then, the department
OCR for page 134
has used ACS data for the number of immigrant children and youth to determine the state allocations.
ACS DATA AND ESTIMATES
Definition of Immigrant Children and Youth
Like the ACS data that the department uses to determine students with LEP, the data on immigrant status are based on self-reports. Three ACS questions are used to identify recent immigrants: (1) whether each household member was born in the United States, (2) whether he or she is a citizen, and (3) for those not born in the United States, when the person entered the country—see Box 6-1. Household members between the ages of 3 and 21 are classified as recent immigrants if they are not U.S. citizens at birth1 and entered the country less than 3 years prior to the survey.
Evaluation of the Survey Questions
Like the questions on language spoken and English speaking ability, the ACS questions that define an immigrant child or youth were adopted from the long form of the decennial census at the time the ACS was developed. They have also been a part of the Current Population Survey for some time. They play a critical role in the Census Bureau’s annual population estimates program as the basis for the net international migration estimate. Owing to their importance, the objectivity and collectability of these questions has been the subject of several analyses over the years, culminating in a major 2006 Census Bureau ACS test of the new and modified item content (Harris et al., 2007).
Although much of the research has focused on missing content, such as parental nativity and date of naturalization, the “year of arrival” question has been the subject of some evaluation because of the concern that the current question allows reporting of only one entry to the United States even when the respondents have entered multiple times, and the interpretation of “coming to live” in the United States may be too broad. Redstone and Massey (2003) identified problems with the year of entry question as a source of underestimation of the number of years that have elapsed since a person’s arrival. Most likely, the inconsistencies were the result of multiple entries into the United States by persons who may have provided the year of a recent entry rather than their first entry (Schmidley and Robinson, 2003).
The content test report suggested that there was confusion among both respondents and ACS field representatives about the kind of information that the entry question was seeking and about how to report multiple arrivals. This confusion was evident in the content test itself, when a test group that was asked further probing questions about year of arrival was not able to provide accurate answers to the ques-
1
The category includes respondents who indicate they are U.S. citizens by naturalization.
OCR for page 135
BOX 6-1
ACS Questions on Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry into the United States
Where was this person born?
□ In the United States
Print Name of State
□ Outside the United States
Print Name of Foreign Country, or Puerto Rico or Guam etc
Is this person a citizen of the United States?
□ Yes, born in the United States,
□ Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas
□ Yes, born abroad of U.S citizen parent or parents
□ Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization
Print Year of Naturalization
□ No, not a U.S. citizen
When did this person come to live in the United States?
Print year of Arrival
tions. Based on the results of the content test, in 2008 the ACS added a question on year of naturalization.
Unfortunately, it is not known how these issues with the precise timing of the date of entry affect the precision of the estimate of immigrant children and youth for purposes of Title III allocations. If a significant number of children and youth who had originally arrived 3 years ago or earlier reported a subsequent arrival because of confusion over the meaning of the question, there would be tendency for the count of recent immigrant children and youth from the ACS to be an overestimate.
Effect of Nonresponse on Data Quality
We next considered the possible effect of item nonresponse on the ACS estimates. The allocation (imputation) rates (described in Chapter 2) for the “place of birth” item were 7.0 percent in 2008, which is considered moderate, and the allocation rates for the “year of entry” items were also moderate, at 10.4 percent. However, the amount of imputation required has trended upwards from year to year for each of the immigrant-identifying questions: see Table 6-1.
The implications of nonresponse for the accuracy of estimates are not evident. Its effects depend, first of all, on the accuracy of the assumptions underlying the
OCR for page 136
TABLE 6-1 Allocation Rates for Nonresponse on Immigrant Items in the ACS, 2005-2008 (in percentage*)
Item
2008
2007
2006
2005
Place of Birth
7.0
5.5
4.8
4.7
Citizenship
2.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
Year of Entry: Total Population Not Born in U.S.
10.4
8.5
7.9
6.9
*The item allocation rates for year 2005 are for housing units only. The item allocation rates for 2006 to 2008 include housing units and group quarters populations.
SOURCE: From the Census Bureau Quality Measures Page, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/sse/ita/ita_def.htm [May 2010].
procedures used to impute the missing values, and, consequently, on whether they impute recent immigration at approximately the correct rate. Furthermore, even if estimates of the total number of recent immigrants are inaccurate, Title III allocations to states would only be affected if the errors are disproportionate across states. For 2008, the range in the imputation rates for “place of birth” and “year of entry” across states are fairly narrow with interquartile ranges (the area between the 25th and 75th percentiles) of only 1.4 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. Given the moderate overall item nonresponse rates and the fairly limited range of rates among the states, the effects of nonresponse on the allocations are not likely to be substantial.
The ACS Estimates
The 1-year and 3-year estimates of immigrant children and youth for 2005-2008 were derived from special tabulations provided by the Census Bureau: they are shown in Table 6-2. Along with the number of immigrant children and youth aged 3-21 years, the table shows the corresponding standard errors and coefficients of variation.
The panel’s conclusions regarding the characteristics of the 1- and 3-year estimates for ELL estimates (see Chapter 2) also apply to the ACS estimates of immigrant children. Because each 3-year estimate is based on three times the sample size of the 1-year estimates, the standard errors of the former are substantially lower. The shares of the states that are based on 1-year estimates do not fluctuate a great deal.
The variation is further dampened when shares are based on 3-year estimates because consecutive 3-year estimates include 2 overlapping years (in this case, 2006 and 2007) and so are more stable than 1-year estimates: see Table 6-3. However, the 1-year estimates respond more quickly to changes in economic and social characteristics than the 3-year estimates.
The percentage share of each state’s estimate of immigrant children and youth is shown in Table 6-4.
OCR for page 137
TABLE 6-2 Number of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State
State
ACS 2005
ACS 2006
ACS 2007
ACS 2008
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Alabama
7,710
862
0.11
7,335
829
0.11
9,815
1,404
0.14
5,405
920
0.17
Alaska
965
431
0.45
1,765
487
0.28
2,555
728
0.28
1,095
433
0.40
Arizona
35,660
2,855
0.08
32,565
2,852
0.09
37,565
3,158
0.08
22,250
2,429
0.11
Arkansas
4,680
935
0.20
5,330
838
0.16
5,785
1,044
0.18
4,510
914
0.20
California
251,275
9,185
0.04
214,095
6,483
0.03
208,295
6,405
0.03
179,500
6,834
0.04
Colorado
16,835
1,897
0.11
13,405
1,539
0.11
13,560
1,558
0.11
12,780
1,417
0.11
Connecticut
10,670
1,395
0.13
11,275
1,573
0.14
11,095
1,550
0.14
10,165
1,073
0.11
Delaware
2,495
491
0.20
1,980
706
0.36
1,515
512
0.34
1,100
451
0.41
District of Columbia
1,285
454
0.35
4,065
810
0.20
1,445
456
0.32
1,635
362
0.22
Florida
93,535
4,263
0.05
88,770
4,553
0.05
83,245
3,785
0.05
69,790
5,551
0.08
Georgia
36,945
3,031
0.08
31,160
2,172
0.07
26,295
2,172
0.08
28,460
2,670
0.09
Hawaii
6,645
1,512
0.23
8,495
1,273
0.15
5,110
858
0.17
7,810
2,288
0.29
Idaho
5,010
1,343
0.27
3,550
837
0.24
4,130
679
0.16
4,425
732
0.17
Illinois
35,965
2,710
0.08
35,225
2,771
0.08
44,240
2,900
0.07
32,535
2,505
0.08
Indiana
11,985
1,368
0.11
11,160
1,436
0.13
10,665
1,015
0.10
9,160
1,172
0.13
Iowa
4,150
733
0.18
4,685
704
0.15
4,580
812
0.18
5,540
818
0.15
Kansas
6,035
913
0.15
7,030
1,236
0.18
6,815
940
0.14
6,330
988
0.16
Kentucky
5,275
961
0.18
5,600
679
0.12
6,355
1,202
0.19
5,710
961
0.17
Louisiana
3,185
602
0.19
4,980
798
0.16
5,940
1,113
0.19
4,910
910
0.19
Maine
995
497
0.50
1,715
469
0.27
1,075
393
0.37
1,520
436
0.29
Maryland
26,765
2,621
0.10
23,940
1,858
0.08
22,260
1,974
0.09
19,500
1,392
0.07
Massachusetts
23,935
1,876
0.08
21,920
1,855
0.08
24,380
2,174
0.09
26,290
2,327
0.09
Michigan
20,640
2,328
0.11
17,700
2,054
0.12
21,810
2,030
0.09
18,945
1,904
0.10
Minnesota
14,420
1,562
0.11
17,285
2,044
0.12
15,100
1,536
0.10
10,980
1,165
0.11
Mississippi
2,695
703
0.26
2,925
663
0.23
3,300
534
0.16
3,420
896
0.26
Missouri
7,315
1,244
0.17
7,370
1,123
0.15
8,090
1,062
0.13
8,940
1,031
0.12
OCR for page 138
State
ACS 2005
ACS 2006
ACS 2007
ACS 2008
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Montana
465
170
0.37
1,240
366
0.30
1,415
462
0.33
800
281
0.35
Nebraska
4,130
904
0.22
4,820
759
0.16
2,790
560
0.20
3,885
797
0.21
Nevada
9,445
1,158
0.12
11,900
1,337
0.11
11,425
1,517
0.13
9,620
1,477
0.15
New Hampshire
1,155
368
0.32
2,635
779
0.30
1,640
439
0.27
1,395
381
0.27
New Jersey
38,670
2,645
0.07
38,475
2,245
0.06
34,525
2,470
0.07
37,725
2,451
0.06
New Mexico
5,720
1,063
0.19
9,465
1,439
0.15
3,920
759
0.19
2,340
500
0.21
New York
83,310
3,942
0.05
95,185
4,360
0.05
79,390
3,826
0.05
84,055
3,810
0.05
North Carolina
27,890
3,614
0.13
27,175
2,541
0.09
24,495
2,165
0.09
21,660
1,887
0.09
North Dakota
415
212
0.51
1,805
501
0.28
1,265
343
0.27
1,105
426
0.39
Ohio
13,525
1,331
0.10
11,720
1,531
0.13
12,625
1,638
0.13
16,370
1,932
0.12
Oklahoma
5,935
1,021
0.17
6,515
1,025
0.16
7,950
1,123
0.14
5,305
902
0.17
Oregon
10,925
1,638
0.15
12,480
1,255
0.10
9,450
1,388
0.15
9,860
1,303
0.13
Pennsylvania
16,150
1,430
0.09
18,285
1,856
0.10
21,255
2,165
0.10
19,565
1,498
0.08
Rhode Island
4,610
1,169
0.25
3,465
712
0.21
3,410
798
0.23
3,205
636
0.20
South Carolina
11,865
1,452
0.12
7,005
903
0.13
9,715
1,200
0.12
5,695
845
0.15
South Dakota
1,835
876
0.48
715
241
0.34
665
185
0.28
180
176
0.98
Tennessee
9,800
1,260
0.13
10,845
1,152
0.11
11,885
1,333
0.11
10,150
1,670
0.16
Texas
130,990
5,851
0.04
122,375
5,277
0.04
110,375
5,088
0.05
95,575
4,515
0.05
Utah
7,410
1,179
0.16
7,950
1,048
0.13
9,420
1,115
0.12
8,630
1,569
0.18
Vermont
645
178
0.28
880
394
0.45
805
204
0.25
970
283
0.29
Virginia
25,835
2,306
0.09
26,545
2,072
0.08
23,800
1,673
0.07
22,240
1,691
0.08
Washington
24,375
2,018
0.08
28,775
3,064
0.11
31,535
2,641
0.08
24,160
2,083
0.09
West Virginia
200
108
0.54
945
252
0.27
1,335
318
0.24
2,095
573
0.27
Wisconsin
8,805
1,057
0.12
9,110
1,029
0.11
7,525
890
0.12
6,300
1,010
0.16
Wyoming
1,085
422
0.39
1,290
362
0.28
680
281
0.41
165
92
0.56
United States
1,082,255
17,490
0.02
1,046,930
14,440
0.01
1,008,330
13777
0.01
895,760
15,175
0.02
NOTES: SE = standard error; CV = coefficients of variation.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
OCR for page 139
TABLE 6-3 Average Number of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State
State
ACS 2005-2007
ACS 2006-2008
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Alabama
8,680
575
0.07
7,295
607
0.08
Alaska
2,080
483
0.23
1,800
303
0.17
Arizona
35,815
1,995
0.06
30,470
1,584
0.05
Arkansas
5,355
486
0.09
5,300
557
0.11
California
225,860
4,538
0.02
198,565
3,896
0.02
Colorado
14,790
942
0.06
13,305
787
0.06
Connecticut
11,480
938
0.08
11,040
794
0.07
Delaware
1,950
367
0.19
1,455
353
0.24
District of Columbia
2,360
312
0.13
2,165
260
0.12
Florida
89,035
2,463
0.03
80,605
2,367
0.03
Georgia
31,355
1,458
0.05
27,390
1,319
0.05
Hawaii
6,540
713
0.11
7,065
913
0.13
Idaho
4,715
793
0.17
4,195
527
0.13
Illinois
39,335
1,603
0.04
36,725
1,497
0.04
Indiana
11,545
733
0.06
9,980
605
0.06
Iowa
4,635
404
0.09
4,935
459
0.09
Kansas
6,740
547
0.08
6,340
623
0.10
Kentucky
6,370
584
0.09
5,785
505
0.09
Louisiana
4,820
674
0.14
5,230
578
0.11
Maine
1,345
293
0.22
1,650
353
0.21
Maryland
24,730
1,313
0.05
22,530
1,268
0.06
Massachusetts
24,605
1,118
0.05
24,085
1,312
0.05
Michigan
21,035
1,208
0.06
19,370
907
0.05
Minnesota
16,315
956
0.06
14,895
1,005
0.07
Mississippi
3,425
472
0.14
3,315
426
0.13
Missouri
8,280
696
0.08
8,230
678
0.08
Montana
1,060
190
0.18
1,305
228
0.17
Nebraska
4,075
477
0.12
3,785
422
0.11
Nevada
10,925
789
0.07
11,055
931
0.08
New Hampshire
1,995
281
0.14
1,860
319
0.17
New Jersey
36,740
1,357
0.04
36,920
1,386
0.04
New Mexico
6,105
588
0.10
5,265
557
0.11
New York
88,090
2,421
0.03
8,5340
2,635
0.03
North Carolina
25,720
1,382
0.05
23,915
1,160
0.05
North Dakota
1,455
270
0.19
1,300
200
0.15
Ohio
13,595
1,006
0.07
13,660
1,013
0.07
Oklahoma
7,345
622
0.08
6,920
687
0.10
Oregon
11,435
921
0.08
10,615
945
0.09
Pennsylvania
19,500
1,315
0.07
19,725
1,095
0.06
Rhode Island
3,920
564
0.14
3,350
483
0.14
South Carolina
9,950
810
0.08
7,910
713
0.09
South Dakota
1,155
300
0.26
540
135
0.25
OCR for page 140
State
ACS 2005-2007
ACS 2006-2008
Estimate
SE
CV
Estimate
SE
CV
Tennessee
11,460
905
0.08
10,660
759
0.07
Texas
122,765
3,237
0.03
109,105
2,996
0.03
Utah
8,535
828
0.10
8,685
811
0.09
Vermont
745
138
0.19
800
160
0.20
Virginia
25,690
1,291
0.05
23,380
1,129
0.05
Washington
27,935
1,260
0.05
27,800
1,528
0.05
West Virginia
1,045
217
0.21
1,520
263
0.17
Wisconsin
8,615
673
0.08
7,340
518
0.07
Wyoming
1,005
223
0.22
750
164
0.22
United States
1,064,075
8853
0.01
977,220
9,638
0.01
NOTES: SE = standard error; CV = coefficients of variation.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
The corresponding standard errors are shown in Table 6-5. The percentage shares are the basis for the portion of the Title III allocations based on immigrants. The nine states with the largest shares—Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington—together account for more than 70 percent of immigrant youth.
We also calculated the ratio of immigrant children and youth aged 5-18 to all children and youth within each state of that age who are enrolled in public school. This ratio is computed by simply dividing the ACS estimate of immigrant children and youth enrolled in public school by the ACS estimate of all children and youth in public school: see Table 6-6.
Tables 6-3 through 6-6 are based on special tabulations of ACS data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Sensitivity of the Estimates to Variation in Subpopulations
We analyzed how the percentage share of states in the 3-year ACS estimates for 2006-2008 were affected by modifying the statutory criteria (3-21 years old, foreign born, and entered the United States after a particular year) to assess sensitivity of allocations to these criteria. We first limited the count to those aged 5-18 years old, an age range more similar to those reported to the states by local education authorities. We also examined the effect of limiting the count to either only those enrolled in school or only those enrolled in public schools.
Table 6-7 compares allocations with various combinations of these modifications to those under the base (statutory) criteria. Variations in age criteria did not influence the allocation of states very much (mean absolute difference, MAD, of 0.09%). For those aged 3-21, restricting the estimates to enrolled children and youth
OCR for page 141
TABLE 6-4 Share of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State (in percentage)
State
ACS 2005
ACS 2006
ACS 2007
ACS 2008
ACS 2005-2007
ACS 2006-2008
Alabama
0.71
0.70
0.97
0.60
0.82
0.75
Alaska
0.09
0.17
0.25
0.12
0.20
0.18
Arizona
3.29
3.11
3.73
2.48
3.37
3.12
Arkansas
0.43
0.51
0.57
0.50
0.50
0.54
California
23.22
20.45
20.66
20.04
21.23
20.32
Colorado
1.56
1.28
1.34
1.43
1.39
1.36
Connecticut
0.99
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.08
1.13
Delaware
0.23
0.19
0.15
0.12
0.18
0.15
District of Columbia
0.12
0.39
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.22
Florida
8.64
8.48
8.26
7.79
8.37
8.25
Georgia
3.41
2.98
2.61
3.18
2.95
2.80
Hawaii
0.61
0.81
0.51
0.87
0.61
0.72
Idaho
0.46
0.34
0.41
0.49
0.44
0.43
Illinois
3.32
3.36
4.39
3.63
3.70
3.76
Indiana
1.11
1.07
1.06
1.02
1.08
1.02
Iowa
0.38
0.45
0.45
0.62
0.44
0.51
Kansas
0.56
0.67
0.68
0.71
0.63
0.65
Kentucky
0.49
0.53
0.63
0.64
0.60
0.59
Louisiana
0.29
0.48
0.59
0.55
0.45
0.54
Maine
0.09
0.16
0.11
0.17
0.13
0.17
Maryland
2.47
2.29
2.21
2.18
2.32
2.31
Massachusetts
2.21
2.09
2.42
2.93
2.31
2.46
Michigan
1.91
1.69
2.16
2.11
1.98
1.98
Minnesota
1.33
1.65
1.50
1.23
1.53
1.52
Mississippi
0.25
0.28
0.33
0.38
0.32
0.34
Missouri
0.68
0.70
0.80
1.00
0.78
0.84
Montana
0.04
0.12
0.14
0.09
0.10
0.13
Nebraska
0.38
0.46
0.28
0.43
0.38
0.39
Nevada
0.87
1.14
1.13
1.07
1.03
1.13
New Hampshire
0.11
0.25
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.19
New Jersey
3.57
3.68
3.42
4.21
3.45
3.78
New Mexico
0.53
0.90
0.39
0.26
0.57
0.54
New York
7.70
9.09
7.87
9.38
8.28
8.73
North Carolina
2.58
2.60
2.43
2.42
2.42
2.45
North Dakota
0.04
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.13
Ohio
1.25
1.12
1.25
1.83
1.28
1.40
Oklahoma
0.55
0.62
0.79
0.59
0.69
0.71
Oregon
1.01
1.19
0.94
1.10
1.07
1.09
Pennsylvania
1.49
1.75
2.11
2.18
1.83
2.02
Rhode Island
0.43
0.33
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.34
South Carolina
1.10
0.67
0.96
0.64
0.94
0.81
South Dakota
0.17
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.11
0.06
Tennessee
0.91
1.04
1.18
1.13
1.08
1.09
Texas
12.10
11.69
10.95
10.67
11.54
11.16
Utah
0.68
0.76
0.93
0.96
0.80
0.89
Vermont
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.08
Virginia
2.39
2.54
2.36
2.48
2.41
2.39
Washington
2.25
2.75
3.13
2.70
2.63
2.84
West Virginia
0.02
0.09
0.13
0.23
0.10
0.16
Wisconsin
0.81
0.87
0.75
0.70
0.81
0.75
Wyoming
0.10
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.08
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
OCR for page 142
TABLE 6-5 Standard Errors of Shares of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State (in percentage)
State
ACS 2005
ACS 2006
ACS 2007
ACS 2008
ACS 2005-2007
ACS 2006-2008
Alabama
0.08
0.08
0.14
0.10
0.05
0.06
Alaska
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.03
Arizona
0.26
0.27
0.31
0.27
0.19
0.16
Arkansas
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.06
California
0.76
0.55
0.57
0.68
0.39
0.34
Colorado
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.09
0.08
Connecticut
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.09
0.08
Delaware
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
District of Columbia
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
Florida
0.37
0.42
0.36
0.61
0.22
0.23
Georgia
0.27
0.20
0.21
0.29
0.13
0.13
Hawaii
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.25
0.07
0.09
Idaho
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.05
Illinois
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.27
0.15
0.15
Indiana
0.13
0.14
0.10
0.13
0.07
0.06
Iowa
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.05
Kansas
0.08
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.05
0.06
Kentucky
0.09
0.06
0.12
0.11
0.05
0.05
Louisiana
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.06
Maine
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
Maryland
0.24
0.17
0.19
0.15
0.12
0.13
Massachusetts
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.25
0.10
0.13
Michigan
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.11
0.09
Minnesota
0.14
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.09
0.10
Mississippi
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.04
Missouri
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.07
Montana
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
Nebraska
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.09
0.04
0.04
Nevada
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.07
0.09
New Hampshire
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
New Jersey
0.24
0.21
0.24
0.26
0.12
0.14
New Mexico
0.10
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
New York
0.34
0.40
0.36
0.39
0.22
0.26
North Carolina
0.33
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.13
0.12
North Dakota
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.02
Ohio
0.12
0.15
0.16
0.21
0.09
0.10
Oklahoma
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.07
Oregon
0.15
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.10
Pennsylvania
0.13
0.18
0.21
0.16
0.12
0.11
Rhode Island
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.05
South Carolina
0.13
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.07
South Dakota
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
Tennessee
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.19
0.08
0.08
Texas
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.29
0.29
Utah
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.17
0.08
0.08
Vermont
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
Virginia
0.21
0.19
0.16
0.18
0.12
0.11
Washington
0.18
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.12
0.15
West Virginia
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.03
Wisconsin
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.06
0.05
Wyoming
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
OCR for page 143
TABLE 6-6 Ratio of Immigrant Children Aged 5-18 Enrolled in Public School to All Children Aged 5-18 Enrolled in Public School (in percentage)
State
ACS 2005
ACS 2006
ACS 2007
ACS 2008
ACS 2005-2007
ACS 2006-2008
Alabama
0.32
0.29
0.38
0.28
0.36
0.35
Alaska
0.20
0.88
1.01
0.58
0.87
0.88
Arizona
1.56
1.40
1.46
0.81
1.51
1.22
Arkansas
0.43
0.49
0.59
0.09
0.52
0.42
California
1.81
1.45
1.45
1.27
1.57
1.39
Colorado
0.90
0.86
0.72
0.67
0.86
0.74
Connecticut
0.86
1.04
0.98
0.77
0.97
0.95
Delaware
0.85
1.08
0.63
0.50
0.82
0.71
District of Columbia
0.90
1.93
1.19
0.40
1.28
1.08
Florida
1.77
1.58
1.52
1.29
1.64
1.46
Georgia
0.91
0.68
0.59
0.76
0.74
0.68
Hawaii
2.68
3.11
1.53
2.31
2.37
2.29
Idaho
1.18
0.77
0.62
0.87
0.94
0.80
Illinois
0.78
0.69
0.90
0.68
0.80
0.75
Indiana
0.48
0.43
0.36
0.35
0.41
0.36
Iowa
0.43
0.39
0.37
0.49
0.38
0.44
Kansas
0.84
0.58
0.53
0.50
0.67
0.54
Kentucky
0.42
0.32
0.38
0.43
0.39
0.38
Louisiana
0.21
0.16
0.32
0.30
0.23
0.23
Maine
0.13
0.50
0.17
0.25
0.27
0.40
Maryland
1.76
1.40
1.36
1.18
1.50
1.36
Massachusetts
1.21
0.95
1.21
1.09
1.14
1.08
Michigan
0.62
0.57
0.67
0.62
0.62
0.61
Minnesota
0.98
1.15
0.93
0.65
1.04
0.96
Mississippi
0.09
0.18
0.09
0.35
0.16
0.26
Missouri
0.38
0.38
0.31
0.40
0.38
0.38
Montana
0.12
0.52
0.21
0.21
0.34
0.45
Nebraska
0.35
0.66
0.47
0.65
0.54
0.57
Nevada
0.87
0.89
0.96
1.20
0.92
1.03
New Hampshire
0.31
0.55
0.18
0.19
0.36
0.28
New Jersey
1.22
1.26
1.22
1.52
1.23
1.37
New Mexico
0.74
1.29
0.72
0.19
0.89
0.72
New York
1.42
1.45
1.26
1.35
1.37
1.34
North Carolina
0.99
0.65
0.74
0.57
0.78
0.68
North Dakota
0.12
0.56
0.36
0.63
0.40
0.45
Ohio
0.44
0.30
0.28
0.37
0.36
0.32
Oklahoma
0.28
0.38
0.60
0.28
0.43
0.45
Oregon
0.77
0.79
0.61
0.58
0.76
0.65
Pennsylvania
0.46
0.44
0.59
0.41
0.49
0.47
Rhode Island
1.00
1.31
1.41
0.79
1.29
1.20
South Carolina
0.87
0.31
0.52
0.29
0.61
0.43
South Dakota
0.99
0.31
0.15
0.00
0.52
0.15
Tennessee
0.36
0.36
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.42
Texas
1.54
1.26
1.20
1.01
1.35
1.17
Utah
0.56
0.54
0.55
0.65
0.59
0.59
Vermont
0.09
0.66
0.28
0.42
0.28
0.37
Virginia
0.99
0.86
0.99
0.80
0.94
0.84
Washington
1.12
1.48
1.65
1.10
1.41
1.41
West Virginia
0.04
0.14
0.09
0.47
0.08
0.23
Wisconsin
0.47
0.50
0.28
0.32
0.42
0.36
Wyoming
0.15
0.69
0.20
0.13
0.40
0.36
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
OCR for page 150
COMPARISON OF ACS AND STATE ESTIMATES
There are important differences in the source, methodology, and results between the estimates of recent immigrant students that come from the ACS and the counts provided by the local school districts through the states. The differences in source and methodology were summarized in the GAO report: see Table 6-9. Not surprisingly, the very different sources and methods used in the two allowable sources result in very different estimates of the recent immigrant student population by state.
One way to depict the differences is to compute the ratio of the state student immigration counts with the ACS estimates of recent immigrant students. This comparison is shown in Table 6-10. In 17 states, the state count was higher than the ACS estimate, while it was lower in the remaining 34 states and the District of Columbia.
These relationships are illustrated graphically in Figure 6-2, which shows the ACS and state-reported counts for each state, together with the regression line through the origin (lower dashed line) and the line of equality (upper dashed line). Dotted lines around each state abbreviation represent 95 percent confidence intervals. Almost every state is below the line of equality, illustrating the generally lower
TABLE 6-9 Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant Children and Youth
Feature
ACS Dataa
State-Collected Datab
Measures Provided
Number of foreign-born persons aged 3 to 21 who arrived in the United States within the 3 years prior to the survey
Number of (public and private school) students in grades K-12 identified as recent immigrants
How It Is Measured
Self-report (sample of population)
States make determinations based on student records or other information. Some states told us that they are not able to directly ask students questions related to their immigration status.
Timing
Annual average of monthly sample
Varies
Purpose
To comply with Immigration Nationality Act and Public Health Service Act requirements; to provide data to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws.
To comply with the ESEA requirement to assess progress of all limited English proficient children, including immigrant children and youth, to attain English proficiency
(Department of) Education’s Role in Data Collection
Work with Census to make sure appropriate questions are included. Can propose new questions, if necessary.
Education collects this number from the states in the Consolidated State Performance Reports.
aThis column refers to data obtained by the U.S. Department of Education from ACS, but ACS collects additional data.
bSome states may have data available for children prior to kindergarten.
SOURCE: U.S. Government Accountability Office (2006b, p. 23).
OCR for page 151
TABLE 6-10 Comparison of State Student Immigrant Counts and American Community Survey Estimates of Recent Immigrant Students
State
ACS 3-Year Average, 2006-2008 Estimate
State 2007-2008 School Year Count
Ratio of ACS Estimate to State Count
Alabama
7,295
4,142
1.761
Alaska
1,800
880
2.045
Arizona
30,470
15,503
1.965
Arkansas
5,300
4,187
1.266
California
198,565
241,024
0.824
Colorado
13,305
12,940
1.028
Connecticut
11,040
13,571
0.813
Delaware
1,455
1,164
1.250
District of Columbia
2,165
993
2.180
Florida
80,605
142,333
0.566
Georgia
27,390
33,891
0.808
Hawaii
7,065
3,032
2.330
Idaho
4,195
3,188
1.316
Illinois
36,725
43,274
0.849
Indiana
9,980
11,763
0.848
Iowa
4,935
4,122
1.197
Kansas
6,340
11,206
0.566
Kentucky
5,785
7426
0.779
Louisiana
5,230
2,583
2.025
Maine
1,650
431
3.828
Maryland
22,530
16,617
1.356
Massachusetts
24,085
20,458
1.177
Michigan
19,370
11,052
1.753
Minnesota
14,895
15,985
0.932
Mississippi
3,315
6,007
0.552
Missouri
8,230
442
18.620
Montana
1,305
170
7.676
Nebraska
3,785
3,609
1.049
Nevada
11,055
14,694
0.752
New Hampshire
1,860
1,769
1.051
New Jersey
36,920
36,614
1.008
New Mexico
5,265
11,606
0.454
New York
85,340
98,797
0.864
North Carolina
23,915
23,365
1.024
North Dakota
1,300
497
2.616
Ohio
13,660
11,309
1.208
Oklahoma
6,920
4,954
1.397
Oregon
10,615
2,397
4.428
Pennsylvania
19,725
11,387
1.732
Rhode Island
3,350
2,903
1.154
South Carolina
7,910
6,415
1.233
South Dakota
540
197
2.741
OCR for page 152
State
ACS 3-Year Average, 2006-2008 Estimate
State 2007-2008 School Year Count
Ratio of ACS Estimate to State Count
Tennessee
10,660
1,5815
0.674
Texas
109,105
93,627
1.165
Utah
8,685
7,935
1.095
Vermont
800
556
1.439
Virginia
23,380
29,284
0.798
Washington
27,800
15,142
1.836
West Virginia
1,520
1,599
0.951
Wisconsin
7,340
5,882
1.248
Wyoming
750
391
1.918
United States
977,220
1,029,128
0.950
SOURCE: ACS estimates from U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulation. State counts from U.S. Department of Education’s EDEN Database.
FIGURE 6-2 Immigrant ratio from state counts (2007-2008 academic year) and ACS 3-year estimates (2006-2008).
NOTES: The vertical dashed lines represent 95 percent confidence intervals for ACS estimates. The upper diagonal line is the line of equality; the lower diagonal line is proportional regression (regression through origin).
OCR for page 153
ACS estimates. States are scattered above and below the regression line, indicating the deviations from proportionality of ACS and state-reported estimates. However, only in some cases are these deviations from proportionality statistically significant (confidence interval does not cross regression line).
TABLE 6-11 Comparison of Volatility in ACS Estimates of Youth Aged 5-18 and Enrolled in Public School and State Counts of Recent Immigrants (in percentage)
Sum of Absolute Difference in Share of States
Mean Absolute Relative Difference in Share of States
ACS 2006 to 2007
All
11.68
31.66
Large
3.83
8.98
Medium
5.32
21.85
Small
2.05
42.43
Minimum
0.48
73.09
ACS 2007 to 2008
All
15.97
38.08
Large
8.17
21.12
Medium
4.78
24.22
Small
2.75
53.58
Minimum
0.27
73.27
ACS 2005-2007 to 2006-2008
All
6.16
14.65
Large
3.53
6.34
Medium
1.71
8.22
Small
0.73
20.90
Minimum
0.20
34.01
State 2006-2007 to 2007-2008
All
9.76
26.62
Large
3.60
6.62
Medium
4.63
19.05
Small
0.93
20.11
Minimum
0.59
99.37
State 2007-2008 to 2008-2009
All
35.45
44.35
Large
22.92
33.61
Medium
10.28
47.39
Small
2.02
41.39
Minimum
0.23
57.20
OCR for page 154
Volatility of State and ACS Estimates
As we did for the analysis of counts of ELL students (in Chapter 2), we report our assessment of changes in shares between consecutive years using several different measures of immigrant children, which are summarized in Table 6-11. Both the absolute and relative year-to-year changes in shares that are based on the 1-year ACS estimates are much greater than those that are based on the 3-year estimates. The 1-year estimates consequently are more volatile than the 3-year estimates, although they are also more responsive to year-to-year changes. In relative terms, the volatility of the ACS estimates increases monotonically from “large” to “small” states, as would be expected with diminished sample size, although in absolute terms the largest part of the share (and hence money moved) is in the “large” states.
The relative changes in share between consecutive 1-year ACS estimates are quite large, in most cases averaging more than 10 percent for all but the “large” states. This observation, with the earlier analysis of reliability of changes—which showed that interyear changes in these estimates are largely noise—together suggest that the volatility of the 1-year estimates outweighs the value of their greater responsiveness.
The interyear changes in shares based on state-provided data are surprisingly large, even though they are based on administrative data and therefore not subject to sampling error. This is especially notable from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, when the shifts in share across states were even larger than those from single-year ACS estimates. (There seemed to be a substantial, but smaller, shift in single-year ACS estimates at about the same time.) This finding suggests that there might be substantial instability in the way child immigration counts are collected and reported by the states.
CONCLUSION 6-1 Due to greater stability and insensitivity to poorly estimated changes, the American Community Survey(ACS) 3-year estimates of immigrant children are statistically preferable to ACS 1-year estimates and more plausible at present than the state-provided counts.
ACS Data and LEA Reports
To better understand the relationship between ACS estimates and LEA-provided counts (through the states) of immigrant children, we performed an analysis of consistency between these measures across school districts within each state. The methods (correlations adjusted for sampling error and a hierarchical model), data (2006-2008 ACS), and inclusion criteria (districts with at least 20,000 population) are very similar to those presented in the parallel analysis of ELL rates in Chapter 5 and are not repeated here.
Table 6-12 presents summary statistics by state. Rates of immigrant status by school district vary substantially, often dramatically, within each state. ACS estimates are almost always lower than LEA-provided estimates, but the ratio varies greatly from state to state. This table shows that the state immigration rates were
OCR for page 155
TABLE 6-12 Rates of Immigrant Children by Eligible School District
State
State Counts
State Immigrant Student Rates
ACS Overall Rate
Ratio of ACS/State
Unadjusted Correlation
School Enrollment
Number of LEAs
Overall Rate
Mean of LEAs
20th Percentile
80th Percentile
Alaska
77,679
4
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.3
1.0
0.97
0.16
Arizona
834,896
64
1.7
1.5
0.1
3.0
1.4
0.82
0.50
Arkansas
217,450
28
1.6
1.1
0.1
1.7
0.6
0.38
0.60
California
5,491,668
411
4.1
3.9
2.0
5.6
1.4
0.33
0.51
Colorado
640,769
33
1.9
2.1
0.3
3.0
0.8
0.42
0.42
Connecticut
378,744
56
3.2
2.5
1.1
3.7
1.2
0.38
0.75
Delaware
102,396
13
1.1
0.9
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.62
0.09
District of Columbia
57,877
1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.82
NA
Florida
2,619,362
54
5.4
3.6
1.2
5.8
1.5
0.27
0.51
Georgia
1,412,950
91
2.3
1.2
0.3
1.8
0.7
0.32
0.66
Hawaii
179,897
1
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.36
NA
Indiana
701,769
86
1.4
1.3
0.3
2.2
0.5
0.33
0.59
Iowa
210,815
27
1.3
1.0
0.1
1.9
0.6
0.46
0.39
Kansas
250,297
23
4.3
2.7
0.4
2.5
0.8
0.19
–0.05
Kentucky
371,406
38
1.9
0.8
0.1
0.7
0.6
0.30
0.45
Louisiana
566,824
43
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.58
0.40
Maine
26,010
6
1.5
1.4
0.0
3.3
1.8
1.18
0.92
Maryland
843,426
23
2.0
1.0
0.2
1.3
1.4
0.69
0.68
Massachusetts
590,965
97
3.2
2.4
0.2
4.2
1.4
0.45
0.64
Michigan
445,557
46
1.9
1.9
0.3
3.0
1.0
0.53
0.60
Mississippi
288,725
42
1.5
1.4
0.4
2.4
0.3
0.22
0.26
Missouri
94,131
9
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.8
1.74
–0.12
Montana
34,686
8
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.9
2.16
–0.63
Nebraska
169,074
15
1.7
1.4
0.4
2.5
0.8
0.47
0.27
OCR for page 156
State
State Counts
State Immigrant Student Rates
ACS Overall Rate
Ratio of ACS/State
Unadjusted Correlation
School Enrollment
Number of LEAs
Overall Rate
Mean of LEAs
20th Percentile
80th Percentile
Nevada
419,488
8
3.5
1.8
0.8
2.8
1.1
0.30
0.59
North Carolina
1,373,592
89
1.7
1.2
0.5
1.8
0.7
0.42
0.57
North Dakota
41,118
5
1.2
1.2
0.1
2.6
0.8
0.69
0.27
Oklahoma
274,584
23
1.5
1.0
0.3
1.8
0.7
0.46
0.33
Oregon
421,039
43
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.7
1.45
0.48
Pennsylvania
794,662
101
1.3
0.9
0.2
1.4
0.8
0.63
0.34
Rhode Island
112,975
19
2.2
1.1
0.2
1.5
1.4
0.63
0.72
South Carolina
632,088
49
1.0
0.8
0.2
1.3
0.5
0.47
0.54
Tennessee
806,634
61
2.0
0.9
0.1
1.5
0.5
0.23
0.30
Texas
3,616,573
183
2.4
1.7
0.6
2.5
1.3
0.56
0.60
Virginia
1,075,882
66
2.7
1.6
0.1
1.7
0.9
0.34
0.76
Washington
639,676
60
2.1
1.7
0.5
3.3
1.4
0.70
0.69
West Virginia
212,029
26
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.40
0.13
Wisconsin
413,481
49
1.1
0.8
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.43
0.36
NOTE: See text for discussion.
OCR for page 157
TABLE 6-13 Relationship at the School District Level Between ACS Estimates and State-Provided Estimates of the Rate of Immigrant Children Among Public School Enrollees, in Eligible Districts as Described in Text, for States with at Least 10 Eligible Districts
Model with Intercept, State Data Rate
No-Intercept Model
Ratio of Sigma Estimates
Intercept Coefficient
State Coefficient
Sigma
Adjusted Correlation
State Coefficient
Sigma
Number of LEAs
Arizona
0.0071
0.1461
0.0035
0.6680
0.3562
0.0065
64
1.86
Arkansas
0.0028
0.1081
0.0004
0.9802
0.2268
0.0001
28
0.22
California
0.0033
0.1507
0.0036
0.7168
0.2217
0.0038
411
1.06
Colorado
0.0031
0.1506
0.0030
0.7115
0.2573
0.0032
33
1.05
Connecticut
−0.0015
0.3513
0.0011
0.9862
0.3003
0.0010
56
0.91
Delaware
0.0034
0.0030
0.0000
0.3748
0.2115
0.0001
13
1.17
Florida
0.0023
0.1699
0.0039
0.8306
0.2076
0.0038
54
0.98
Georgia
0.0007
0.2040
0.0016
0.8647
0.2328
0.0016
91
0.97
Indiana
0.0019
0.1100
0.0008
0.8801
0.1969
0.0011
86
1.43
Iowa
0.0015
0.1848
0.0007
0.9543
0.2636
0.0006
27
0.75
Kansas
0.0058
−0.0015
0.0005
0.1722
0.0271
0.0047
23
8.73
Kentucky
0.0021
0.1749
0.0001
0.9993
0.2432
0.0001
38
1.08
Louisiana
0.0003
0.2898
0.0003
0.9591
0.3554
0.0001
43
0.52
Maryland
0.0015
0.4868
0.0031
0.8727
0.5511
0.0032
23
1.01
Massachusetts
0.0031
0.2607
0.0015
0.9825
0.3320
0.0001
97
0.09
Michigan
0.0028
0.2796
0.0025
0.9454
0.3704
0.0025
46
1.00
Mississippi
0.0023
0.0936
0.0001
0.9956
0.1955
0.0001
42
1.05
Nebraska
0.0000
0.3624
0.0003
0.9965
0.3657
0.0003
15
0.85
North Carolina
−0.0003
0.2857
0.0013
0.9087
0.2686
0.0013
89
1.03
Oklahoma
0.0045
0.0144
0.0016
0.0836
0.2255
0.0028
23
1.76
Oregon
0.0023
0.8148
0.0015
0.9321
1.1533
0.0001
43
0.06
Pennsylvania
0.0041
0.0407
0.0020
0.1765
0.2971
0.0029
101
1.48
OCR for page 158
Model with Intercept, State Data Rate
No-Intercept Model
Ratio of Sigma Estimates
Intercept Coefficient
State Coefficient
Sigma
Adjusted Correlation
State Coefficient
Sigma
Number of LEAs
Rhode Island
0.0016
0.4022
0.0002
0.9997
0.4494
0.0002
19
1.01
South Carolina
0.0023
0.1685
0.0015
0.5744
0.3782
0.0018
49
1.19
Tennessee
0.0020
0.0785
0.0012
0.6575
0.1358
0.0004
61
0.36
Texas
0.0019
0.3480
0.0031
0.8401
0.4218
0.0031
183
0.98
Virginia
0.0006
0.2743
0.0015
0.9836
0.2933
0.0014
66
0.94
Washington
0.0009
0.3521
0.0023
0.9128
0.3911
0.0027
60
1.15
West Virginia
0.0025
0.0736
0.0001
0.9938
0.2416
0.0001
26
1.12
Wisconsin
0.0024
0.0619
0.0012
0.4047
0.1859
0.0013
49
1.09
OCR for page 159
substantially different from the ACS rates in many states. In the most populous state, California, the state reports yielded an immigrant student estimate of 4.1 percent of all students in school year 2007-2008 while the ACS estimate was 1.4 percent. In most, but not all states, the state-reported rates were higher than the ACS rates.
Table 6-12 also summarizes the strength of the association between ACS and state-provided rates within each state, corrected for overfitting due to sampling error. With some exceptions, these correlations tend to be generally quite high, with half of the 30 states included showing adjusted correlations of higher than 0.90. This finding suggests that the measures are usually fairly consistent within each state, holding constant the state procedures and to some extent the immigration patterns (to the extent that they are more consistent within than between states). However, the correlations are considerably weaker in some states, perhaps providing evidence of inconsistent collection of immigration data or of varying patterns of immigration that affect consistency of reporting.
We also tested the relationship at the school district level between ACS estimates and state-provided estimates of rate of immigrant children among public school enrollees. As shown in Table 6-13, the results are mixed, with some states showing a very good consistency between the ACS and state-provided numbers for immigrants, and other states showing a very weak relationship between the series. When compared with the results of this test for the ELL estimates and counts in Chapter 5, these findings suggest that there are perhaps systemic differences between the ACS and state-provided counts at the school district level. The results suggest the possibility of less consistent procedures and criteria within many states than was observed with the within-state counts of ELL students, an indication that caution should be exercised in using the state-provided counts of immigrant children.
OCR for page 160
This page intentionally left blank.