Today's Promise, Tomorrow's Future by Council of the Great City Schools

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE:

THE SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE OUTCOMES OF HISPANICS IN URBAN SCHOOLS

Research Conducted by The Council of the Great City Schools October 2011

TODAY’S PROMISE,TOMORROW’S FUTURE: THE SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE OUTCOMES OF HISPANICS IN URBAN SCHOOLS Authors: Candace Simon Sharon Lewis Gabriella Uro Renata Uzzell Moses Palacios Michael Casserly

The Council of the Great City Schools

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Council of the Great City Schools thanks our superintendents and school board members for their continued support in producing this study.

SOURCES U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Reading U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” and “Local Education Agency Universe Survey.” (All data are labeled preliminary by NCES.) COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS The Council of the Great City Schools is a coalition of 65 of the nation’s largest urban school systems. Its board of directors is composed of the superintendent of schools and one school board member from each member city. An executive committee of 24 individuals, equally divided in number between superintendents and school board members, provides oversight of the 501 (c) (3) organizations in between board meetings. The mission of the Council is to advocate for and to assist in the improvement of public education in the nation’s major cities. To meet that mission, the Council provides services to its members in the areas of legislation, research, communications, curriculum and instruction, and management. The group convenes two major conferences each year on promising practices in urban education; conducts studies on urban school conditions and trends; and operates ongoing networks relating to personnel, communications, curriculum, research, technology, and other areas. The Council was founded in 1956 and incorporated in 1961 and has its headquarters in Washington, DC.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE CHAIRS

CHAIR Winston Brooks, Superintendent Albuquerque Public Schools

Carlos Garcia, Superintendent San Francisco Unified School District

CHAIR-ELECT Candy Olson, Board Member Hillsborough County School District

Eileen Cooper Reed, Board Member Cincinnati Public Schools

SECRETARY/TREASURER Eugene White, Superintendent Indianapolis Public Schools

Carol Comeau,Superintendent Anchorage Public Schools

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR Carol Johnson, Superintendent Boston Public Schools

Lydia Lee, Board Member Minneapolis School Board

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Michael Casserly

Deborah Shanley, Dean Brooklyn College, CUNY

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

PREFACE Hispanic young people are a growing part of the American landscape and promise to shape the cultural and demographic flavor of the United States for the foreseeable future. Yet, many Hispanic students are not doing well in our Great City Schools and our schools, in turn, are not doing well by them. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) analyzed for this report show that Hispanic fourth graders read and do math at substantially lower levels than students with greater advantages and students who speak English. The situation is compounded by the fact that large numbers of Hispanic students live below the poverty line, do not have health insurance nor access to pre-school services, are unlikely to have a parent who has graduated from high school, are among the working poor, and face constant suspicions about whether they are in the country legally. However, the truth is that Hispanics have been in the United States for a long time. In fact, the U.S.-Mexican War of 1846 to 1848 resulted in the American annexation of most of what is now Arizona, California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and parts of Utah—acreage that was comparable in size to western Europe. Large numbers of Hispanics had been living in this territory for generations, only to find themselves “foreigners” at the conflict’s end without ever having moved an inch. The early 20th century saw another large influx of individuals, mostly from Mexico, to fill jobs in agriculture, construction, the railroad, and labor. People from Latin American countries continue to migrate to the United States to this day. The 2010 Census counted some 50.5 million Hispanics in the United States, accounting for about 16.3 percent of the nation’s total population. In the last decade, the Hispanic population has grown 43 percent mostly from births rather than from immigration. At this point, Hispanic children represent 23 percent of all school-aged children in the United States. Numbers are even higher in our urban cores. Hispanic students now account for 37 percent of all students in the Great City Schools. This concentration of students places a substantial responsibility on the nation’s major urban school districts to ensure that these students succeed and their special needs are met, because their skills and knowledge will form the backbone of much of America’s future. It is this duty, along with all the other challenges that urban education faces, that prompted the Council to prepare this report. The analysis distinguishes between Hispanics and English language learners since while the majority of ELLs are Hispanic, not all Hispanics are ELL. The data in this report clearly show that many Hispanic school-aged children live in circumstances that hinder their ability to do well in school, but the results also indicate enormous potential. The job of the Great City Schools—indeed, its job with all children—is to ensure that this potential is realized and that today’s promise becomes tomorrow’s future. Michael Casserly Executive Director Council of the Great City Schools

The Council of the Great City Schools

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................2 PROFILES OF EXCELLENCE.................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 2. SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACTORS...................................................................................17 FACTOR 1 – READINESS TO LEARN. ...................................................................................................18 FACTOR 2 - HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP FACTOR 2A – READING GRADE 4 ..........................................................................................28 FACTOR 2B - READING GRADE 8 ..........................................................................................36 FACTOR 2C - MATHEMATICS GRADE 4 .................................................................................44 FACTOR 2D - MATHEMATICS GRADE 8 .................................................................................52 FACTOR 3 – HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS..................................................................................................... 60 FACTOR 4 –COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS .....................................................................78 FACTOR 5 – SCHOOL EXPERIENCE ....................................................................................................82 FACTOR 6 – POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCE ...................................................................................86 APPENDIX: A. COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS’ DEMOGRAPHICS, 2009-2010 ..............................95

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURES DEMOGRAPHICS Figure D1. CGCS Demographic Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, 2009 ..................................................................15 Figure D2. Percentage of ELL, FRPL and SD Students in CGCS School Districts, 2009.....................................15 Figure D3. Percentage of CGCS Students by Range of Selected Groups, 2009 .................................................16 Figure D4. CGCS Student Enrollment as Percentage of Nation by Group, 2009 .................................................16 FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN Figure 1.1. Percentage of Hispanic Children Ages 18 and Under Born Within the United States, 2007 ......................................................................................................................19 Figure 1.2. Percentage of Hispanic Children Ages 18 and Under Born Within the United States by Group, 2007......................................................................................................19 Figure 1.3. Infant Mortality Rate per 1,000 Live Births for Hispanic Mothers, 2007 & 2008 .................................. 20 Figure 1.4. Percentage of Children Not Covered by Private or Government Health Insurance by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ....................................................................... 20 Figure 1.5. Percentage of Hispanic Children Under Age 18 by Living Arrangements, 2007.................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 1.6. Percentage of Children Ages 18 and Under Living in Single Parent Households by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 .............................................................................. 21 Figure 1.7. Percentage of Children Under Age 18 Living in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 2007............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 1.8. Percentage Distribution of Primary Care Arrangements of Four-Year-Old Hispanic Children, 2005-2006 ........................................................................... 22 Figure 1.9. Percentage of Hispanic Children Ages 6 to 18 by Parentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Highest Level of Educational Attainment, 2008 ................................................................................. 23 Figure 1.10. Children Ages 18 and Under Living in Families Where No Parent Has Full-Time, Year-Round Employment by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 .......................................... 24 Figure 1.11. Percentage of Children Between the Ages of 3 to 5 Years-Old with Parental Involvement in Home Literacy Activities by Race/Ethnicity, 2007 ................................................... 25 Figure 1.12. Percent of Children Between the Ages of 3 to 5 Years-Old with School Readiness Skills by Race/Ethnicity, 2007 ........................................................................ 26 FACTOR 2: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP FACTOR 2A: READING GRADE 4 Figure 2.1. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2003-2009 .......................................... 29 Figure 2.2. Percentage of Grade 4 Hispanic Students (LC) and White Students (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009............................... 29

The Council of the Great City Schools

Figure 2.3. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores of Hispanic Males (LC), Hispanic Females (LC), Black Males (LC) and Black Females (LC), 2003-2009 ................................................30 Figure 2.4. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores of ELL Hispanic Students (LC) and Non-ELL Hispanic Students (NP), 2003-2009 ..............................................................................................31 Figure 2.5. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores of ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students, 2005-2009 ...............................................31 Figure 2.6. Percentage of Grade 4 ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2005-2009 ...........32 Figure 2.7. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores for SD Hispanic (LC), Non-SD Hispanic (LC), SD White (NP), and Non-SD White Students (NP), 2003-2009.....................................33 Figure 2.8. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores for FRPL Hispanic (LC) Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC), FRPL White (NP), and Non-FRPL White Students (NP), 2003-2009 ........................34 FACTOR 2B: READING GRADE 8 Figure 2.9. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2003-2009 .......................................... 37 Figure 2.10. Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic (LC) and White (NP) Students Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading, 2003-2009 ........................................................ 37 Figure 2.11. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores of Hispanic Males (LC), Hispanic Females (LC), Black Males (LC), and Black Females (LC), 2003-2009 ............................................... 38 Figure 2.12. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores of ELL Hispanic Students (LC) and Non-ELL Hispanic Students (NP), 2003-2009 .............................................................................................. 39 Figure 2.13. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores of ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic Students (NP), 2005-2009 ............................................... 39 Figure 2.14. Percentage of Grade 8 ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Reading .............................. 40 Figure 2.15. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores for SD Hispanic (LC), Non-SD Hispanic (LC), SD White (NP), and Non-SD White (NP) Students, 2003-2009..................................... 41 Figure 2.16. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores for FRPL Hispanic (LC), Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC), FRPL Hispanic (NP), and Non-FRPL Hispanic (NP) Students, 2003-2009 ............... 42 FACTOR 2C: MATHEMATICS GRADE 4 Figure 2.17. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2003-2009 ................................ 45 Figure 2.18. Percentage of Grade 4 Hispanic (LC) and White Students (NP) Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 ............................................................... 45 Figure 2.19. Average Grade 4 Mathematics Scores of Hispanic Males (LC), Hispanic Females (LC), Black Males (LC), and Black Females (LC), 2003-2009 ............................................... 46 Figure 2.20. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores of ELL Hispanic (LC) and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students, 2003-2009 .............................................................................................. 47 Figure 2.21. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores of ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students, 2005-2009 ............................................... 47

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURES CONTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;D... Figure 2.22. Percentage of Grade 4 ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL (NP) Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 .................................. 48 Figure 2.23. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores of SD Hispanic (LC), Non-SD Hispanic Students (LC), SD White (NP), and Non-SD White Students (NP), 2003-2009 ..................... 49 Figure 2.24. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores of FRPL Hispanic (LC), Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC), FRPL White (NP), and Non-FRPL White (NP) Students, 2003-2009 ........................ 50 FACTOR 2D: MATHEMATICS GRADE 8 Figure 2.25. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2003-2009 ................................. 53 Figure 2.26. Percentage of Hispanic (LC) Students Performing At or Above Proficient in Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 .................................................. 53 Figure 2.27. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores of Hispanic Males (LC), Hispanic Females (LC), Black Males (LC), and Black Females (LC), 2003-2009 ............................................... 54 Figure 2.28. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores for ELL Hispanic (LC) and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students, 2003-2009 .............................................................................................. 55 Figure 2.29. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores for ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic (LC) Students, 2005-2009 ................................................ 55 Figure 2.30. Percentage of Grade 8 ELL Hispanic (LC), Formerly-ELL Hispanic (LC), and Non-ELL Hispanic (NP) Students Performing At or Above Proficient in NAEP Mathematics, 2003-2009 .... 56 Figure 2.31. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores for SD Hispanic (LC), Non- SD Hispanic (LC), SD White (NP), and Non-SD White Students, 2003-2009 ............................................ 57 Figure 2.32. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores for FRPL Hispanic (LC), Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC), FRPL White (NP), and Non-FRPL White Students, 2003-2009 ................................. 58 FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS Figure 3.1. Percentage of Grade 4 Hispanic Students Performing At or above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Reading in LC, NP and TUDA Districts, 2009 ........................ 62 Figure 3.2. Percentage of Grade 4 ELL Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Reading, in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ...................... 63 Figure 3.3. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores of Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 3.4. Average Grade 4 NAEP Reading Scores of ELL Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 3.5. Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Reading in LC , NP and TUDA Districts, 2009 ....................... 66 Figure 3.6. Percentage of Grade 8 ELL Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic NAEP Reading in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ........................... 67 Figure 3.7. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores of Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 68

The Council of the Great City Schools

vii

Figure 3.8. Average Grade 8 NAEP Reading Scores of ELL Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 3.9. Percentage of Grade 4 Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Mathematics in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................ 70 Figure 3.10. Percentage of Grade 4 ELL Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Mathematics in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................ 71 Figure 3.11. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores of Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 3.12. Average Grade 4 NAEP Mathematics Scores of ELL Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 3.13. Percentage of Grade 8 Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Mathematics in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................ 74 Figure 3.14. Percentage of Grade 8 ELL Hispanic Students Performing At or Above Proficient and Below Basic in NAEP Mathematics in LC, NP and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................. 75 Figure 3.15. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores of Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 3.16. Average Grade 8 NAEP Mathematics Scores of ELL Hispanic Students in LC, NP, and TUDA Districts ............................................................................................................................. 77 FACTOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS Figure 4.1 High School Dropout Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ......................................................................... 79 Figure 4.2 Average Freshman Graduation Rate for Public High School Students and Number of Graduates, by Race/Ethnicity: 2006-2007 ................................................................... 79 Figure 4.3. Percentage of High School Students Taking AP Exams by Race/Ethnicity, 2010 ............................. 80 Figure 4.4 Average SAT Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2010 .................................................................................... 80 Figure 4.5 ACT Composite Score of High School Seniors by Race/Ethnicity, 2010............................................ 81 Figure 4.6 Percentage of Hispanic and White Students Meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmarks, 2010 ....................................................................................................... 81 FACTOR 5: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE Figure 5.1. Percentage of High School Seniors Who Participate in School-Sponsored Extracurricular Activities by Race/Ethnicity, 2004 ..............................................................83 Figure 5.2. Percentage of Kindergarten through Grade 8 Students Retained in a Grade During Their School Career, 2007 ......................................................................................................83 Figure 5.3. Percentage of Students Suspended from Public Elementary and Secondary Schools by Race/Ethnicity, 2006 .................................................................................................84 Figure 5.4. Percentage of High School Students Ages 16 Years and Older Who Were Employed, 2008............84

viii

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

Figure 5.5. Percentage Distribution of High School Students Employed, by Hours Worked Per Week and Race/Ethnicity, 2008 ....................................................................................... 85 FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY SCHOOL EXPERIENCES Figure 6.1. College Graduation Rates For First-Time Postsecondary Students in Full-Time Degree Seeking Four-Year Institutions, 2001 ..................................................................................87 Figure 6.2. Unemployment Rates for White and Hispanic Males and Females Ages 20 and Over, First Quarter 2011 .................................................................................................................87 Figure 6.3. Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Degrees Conferred on Hispanic Students by Most Popular Field of Study, 2008 ...........88 Figure 6.4. Educational Attainment of Population 18 Years and Over by Race/Ethnicity, 2009 ..........................89 Figure 6.5. Income by Educational Attainment of Hispanic and White Population Ages 18 and Over, 2009 ......90 Figure 6.6. Percentage of Hispanic Population Ages 18 and Over in the Labor Force by Occupation, 2008 .....91 Figure 6.7. Percentage Distribution of Hispanic and White Population Ages 18 and Over in College and Prison Population, 2008 ................................................................................92 Figure 6.8. Imprisonment Rate per 100,000 Persons in the U.S. Resident Population of Hispanic and White Persons Ages 18 and Over, 2008 ....................................................................................92 Figure 6.9. Percentage of Hispanic and White Male Prisoners Under State and Federal Jurisdiction by Age, 2008 ............................................................................................93

The Council of the Great City Schools

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council of the Great City Schools

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE DIFFERENCES; WE SHOULD GREET DIFFERENCE, UNTIL DIFFERENCE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE ANYMORE. “ ~DR. ADELA ALLEN, EDUCATOR In October of 2010, the Council released its well documented study on the challenges Black males confront in urban education-- A Call for Change: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black males in Urban Schools. This report, Today’s Promise, Tomorrow’s Future: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Hispanics in Urban Schools, is its companion document in that it examines similar factors. Today’s Promise, Tomorrow’s Future, however, goes one step further and reviews, when possible, the achievement of formerly-English Language Learners who are Hispanic and compares their progress with Hispanic students and English Language Learners (ELL) who are Hispanic.1 At nearly 55 million strong, including 4 million in Puerto Rico, Hispanics are 16 percent of the nation’s population and by far the largest minority demographic in the nation. The Census Bureau projects that Hispanics will account for one of every four of the more than 400 million Americans by 2050. With a median age of 27.5, versus 36.8 for non-Hispanic Whites, they also are the youngest population and already account for nearly one of every four K-12 students. Although many Latino adults and teens who arrive in the United States from other countries have difficultly learning English, most young Latino children grow up learning English as their primary language. In 2008, 17 percent of Latino children ages five to 17 had difficulty speaking English well. The Department of Education estimates that in 2007-08 English language learners2 comprised 10.7 percent of total kindergarten to twelfth (k12) grade student population. Using a different

data collection instrument and casting a wider net, The American Community Survey (ACS) estimated almost twice the percentage--21 percent of all 5 to 17 year olds spoke a language other than English at home and estimated that 62 percent of the 55 million people who spoke a language other than English at home spoke Spanish. The growth over the past decade for both Hispanics and ELLs has outpaced the general population growth and the growth in school age children. Specifically, according to the Department of Education, the number of all pre-K-12 students increased by 8.5 percent, from 46.0 million in 1997-1998 to 49.9 million in 2007-2008, and the number of ELL students increased by 53.2 percent (from 3.5 million to 5.3 million) in the same period. 3 Moreover, the Council of the Great City Schools enrolls approximately 3 million (24 percent) of the nation’s pre-k-12 Hispanic students; and 1.3 million (26 percent) of the nation’s English language learners.4 Our urban school districts educate a considerable percentage of both Hispanic students and ELLs. We realize that the future of our cities largely depends on how well we succeed in educating this burgeoning demographic group. The initiatives, policies and programs implemented over the past few decades have been for the most part, reactive, fragmented and without strategic direction. It is imperative that Hispanic youth participate in rigorous instructional programs and have greater access to educational opportunities resulting in successful educational outcomes. The Council of the Great City Schools pays special tribute and gives thanks to the

1 According to the U.S. Census, Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2010 questionnaire. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. For further information see U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population, Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data File. 2 A term used to describe students who are in the process of acquiring English language skills and knowledge. Some schools refer to these students using the term limitedEnglish-proficient (LEP). "Limited English Proficient" is also the terminology used in NAEP technical documentation prior to the 2005 NAEP assessment. 3

State Title III Directors and 2007-08 State CSPR; other years indicated. NCELA, The Growing Numbers of English Learner Students, 1997/98-2007/08, www.ncela.gwu.edu/ files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0708.pdf. Migration Policy Institute

The ELL statistics for CGCS includes students from all ethnic backgrounds.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

organizations that have examined and brought attention to these issues—the Pew Hispanic Center, New Journalism on Latino Children and Institute on Human Development at UC Berkeley, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), National Women’s Law Center, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development (NYU), National Council of La Raza Migration Policy Institute, and WestEd, to name a few. This study attempts to pull together achievement data specifically focusing on Hispanic students in our urban schools. This document will provide a reference point or baseline data to ignite and guide our future work. Still, the work is limited in that it examines only six areas in the lives of America’s Hispanic youth:

1. Readiness to learn 2. Hispanic and ELL Hispanic student

4. 5. 6.

achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Hispanic and ELL Hispanic student achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in selected big city school districts College and career preparedness School experience Postsecondary experience

Although we recognize that many more indicators could have been addressed we are convinced that we have more than made the case for action in this report. Readers should keep a number of things in mind as they go through the report. First, all data reported here are from secondary sources unless otherwise indicated.

the most part, data are disaggregated for race/ELL status so that comparisons can be made between Hispanic ELLs and Hispanic non-ELLs. It is also important to note that for two factors – Hispanic and ELL achievement at the national level and Hispanic and ELL achievement for selected big city school districts--data were disaggregated by race/ELL status. When possible, data were tested to determine whether the differences between Hispanic and ELL students living in large cities (LC) and Hispanic and ELL students across the nation (NP) were statistically significant. Fourth, the Council analyzed National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) achievement data for Hispanic and Hispanic ELL students at the national public (NP), large city (LC) levels, and on 18 big city school districts using data from the Trial Urban District Assessments (TUDA).5 The large cities in the nation are those with populations of 250,000 or more. In this paper, large city means the combined public school student enrollments in the nation’s large city public schools. All of the NAEP analyses were conducted using the NAEP Data Explorer. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/ report.aspx. Wherever possible, we also analyzed the differences in the NAEP data to determine whether or not they were statistically significant. Finally for NAEP data, the terms Hispanic and ELLs are based on National Center Education Statistics definitions. Starting in 2002, NAEP reports of students’ race and ethnicity are based on the school records, with students’ self-report used only if school data are missing. The definition for English Language Learner varies from state to state and in some cases from district to district.

This report does not contain recommendations; but, the Council will move to convene a panel of esteemed school district, state, national, and university leaders and policy makers who are concerned about the education of Hispanic Third, data are disaggregated to identify Hispanic, children and youth. This panel of leaders would English language learners, and when available, provide guidance to the Council in its continued formerly English language learners. For work to address the challenges in improving achievement, we chose White students in national achievement for Hispanic children in our urban public schools as our comparison point. We did schools and help develop targeted strategies to this because they tend to be the highest performing accelerate their learning. overall student group on most of the indicators of success. Hence, there is no reason for us not to expect Hispanic students to do as well or better. For Second, the years on which data are reported vary from indicator to indicator depending on the source, but all are the most recently available.

Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore City, Boston, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, District of Columbia, Fresno, Houston, Jefferson County (KY), Los Angeles, Miami-Dade, Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, San Diego

The Council of the Great City Schools

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS A summary of the key findings follows: FACTOR 1 READINESS TO LEARN Although the structure of Hispanic families is stable there are a number of parents who lack the resources and assistance to prepare their children for school. A significant number of Hispanic parents lack post high school experience, live in poverty, and are without fulltime employment. •

In 2008, Hispanic children were less likely to have health insurance than White children.

•

In 2007, six out of ten Hispanic children lived in households with married adults; three out of ten lived with a female parent only.

•

In 2007, 27 percent of Hispanic children lived in poverty compared with 10 percent of White children.

•

In 2008, 33 percent of Hispanic children lived in families where no parent had fulltime, year-round employment compared with 21 percent of White children.

•

In 2007, Hispanic children between the ages of 3 to 5 years old were least likely to have parents involved in home literacy activities than White or Black children.

•

In 2007, Hispanic children between the ages of 3 to 5 years old, were least likely to have school readiness skills than White or Black children.

FACTOR 2: HISPANIC AND ELL HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) NAEP READING GRADES 4 AND 8 NAEP data show that achievement levels of grade 4 and grade 8 Hispanic students (LC) have increased significantly from 2003 to 2009; however, they continue to be lower than White students (NP). The achievement gaps between Hispanic students (LC) and White students

across the nation (NP) were wide in 2003 and continued to be wide in 2009. In 2009, formerlyELL Hispanic students (LC) performed similarly to their non-ELL peers (NP) at the fourth- and eighth- grade levels. Furthermore, Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free and reducedprice lunch (non-FRPL) performed similar to White students (NP) eligible for free and reducedprice lunch (FRPL). •

Between 2003 and 2009 average reading scores of grades 4 and 8 Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White (NP) students increased significantly. However, in 2009, average scores of Hispanic (LC) and Black (LC) students were not statistically different at both grades 4 and 8.

•

From 2003 to 2009 the percentage of Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient levels in reading was at least 26 percentage points lower than White students (NP) at grade 4 and 24 points lower at grade 8.

•

In 2009, 22 percent of fourth-grade formerlyELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient levels in reading compared with 23 percent non-ELL Hispanic students (NP). Eleven percent of eighth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient levels in reading compared with 21 percent of nonELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

Between 2003 and 2009, average reading scores for grades 4 and 8 Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly; however, average scores were 28 points lower at grades 4 and 26 points lower at grades 8 than White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

•

In 2009, average reading scores of grade 4 Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) increased significantly from 2003 while the average scores for eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) remained unchanged. Scores for grade 4 and 8 Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) were similar to White students (NP) eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

NAEP MATHEMATICS GRADES 4 AND 8

•

NAEP data show that the achievement levels of grade 4 and 8 Hispanic students in large central cities (LC) has increased from 2003 to 2009; however, they continued to lag behind White students in national public schools (NP). In 2009, formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed similarly to their non-ELL peers (NP) at the fourth- and eighth- grade levels. In general, average scores for Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) and those not eligible for free and reduced-priced lunch (nonFRPL) continue to lag behind White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD) and eligible for free and reduced-priced lunch (FRPL). •

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of grades 4 and 8 Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White (NP) increased significantly. In addition, in 2009 the average score of Hispanic students (LC) was higher than average scores of Black students (LC) at both grades 4 and 8.

•

From 2003 to 2009 the percentage of Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient levels in mathematics was at least 29 percentage points lower than White students (NP) at grade 4 and 26 points lower at grade 8.

•

In 2009, 30 percent of fourth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in mathematics compared with 28 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP). Thirteen percent of eighth-grade formerlyELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient levels in mathematics compared with 22 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of grades 4 and 8 Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (nonSD) increased significantly. However, the 2009 average score for fourthgrade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) was 22 points lower than the average score of White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD) and the average score for eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (nonSD) was 28 points lower than White students (NP) without disabilities (nonSD).

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of grades 4 and 8 Hispanic students (LC) who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) increased significantly. However, the 2009 average score of grade 4 Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) was three points higher than the average score of White students (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL); and average grade 8 mathematics scores of Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) was not different from average scores of White students (NP) eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC AND ELL HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS With few exceptions, reading and mathematics scores for Hispanic and ELL students in TUDA districts were lower than Hispanic and ELL students across the nation (NP) at grades 4 and 8. Furthermore, at least 50 percent of fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic and ELL students in most TUDA districts scored at below Basic levels. •

In 2009, at least 60 percent of grade 4 and 68 percent of grade 8 ELL Hispanic students in every TUDA district (with the exception of districts who had too few cases for a reliable estimate) performed at below Basic levels in reading.

•

In 2009, average reading scores of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Boston, Charlotte, Miami-Dade County were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP). Additionally, average reading scores of eighth-grade Hispanic students in MiamiDade County were significantly greater than scores of Hispanic students in large cites (LC) and the nation (NP).

•

In 2009, the average reading scores of ELL Hispanic students in Austin were significantly higher than scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP) in both grades 4 and 8. Furthermore, average reading scores of

The Council of the Great City Schools

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY grade 4 ELL Hispanic students in Boston were higher than Hispanic ELL students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP). •

•

In 2009, less than 20 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County performed at or below Basic levels in mathematics compared to 30 percent of ELL students nationally. Furthermore, less than 40 percent of eighthgrade Hispanic students in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County performed at below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 44 percent of ELL students nationally. In 2009, average mathematics scores of Hispanic students in Austin, Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP) at grades 4 and 8. While average scores of students in Boston and New York City were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students (LC) and the nation (NP) at grade 4. In 2009, average mathematics scale scores of ELL Hispanic students in Austin and Houston were significantly higher than scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP) at grades 4 and 8. Moreover, average mathematics scores of ELL Hispanic students in Boston, Charlotte, and Milwaukee were significantly higher than the scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP) at grade 4.

FACTOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS When compared with White students, Hispanic students were more likely to drop out of high school and not graduate. Fewer Hispanic students took Advanced Placement exams and were less likely to graduate from high school on time. Furthermore, average SAT and ACT scores of Hispanic students were lower than White students. •

•

In 2008, Hispanic students were two and a half times more likely to drop out of high school as White students; and almost twice as likely as Black students. In 2007, six out of ten Hispanic students graduated from high school on time compared

with eight out of ten White students completing grades 9 through 12 in four years. •

In 2010, fewer than two out of ten Hispanic students took an Advanced Placement exam compared with six out of ten White students.

•

In 2010, average SAT scores for students of Hispanic origin were below scores for White students in critical reading, mathematics, and writing.

•

In 2010, average ACT scores for Hispanic students were at least two points below all students nationally and at least three points below scores for White students in English, mathematics, and reading.

•

In 2010, less than 50 percent of Hispanic students met the ACT college readiness benchmarks in reading, mathematics, and English.

FACTOR 5: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE In general, Hispanic high school students were less likely to participate in academic clubs, more likely to be suspended from school, and more likely to be retained in a grade than their White peers. Moreover, Hispanic students who were employed were more likely to work more than 20 hours per week than their other peers. •

In 2004, Hispanic high school seniors were less likely to participate in academic clubs, music, or any sport than other student groups.

•

In 2007, about one in ten Hispanic students was retained in a grade during their school career.

•

In 2006, Hispanic students were more likely than White students to be suspended from public elementary and secondary schools.

•

In 2008, 18 percent of Hispanic students ages 16 and older were employed compared with 29 percent of White students.

•

In 2008, 86 percent of the Hispanic students who were employed worked at least ten hours per week and 54 percent worked more than 20 hours per week.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FACTOR 6: POST SECONDARY EXPERIENCE

•

Hispanic students had significantly different postsecondary experiences than their White peers. Their graduation rates were lower, unemployment • rates higher; and they were more likely to earn a lower income than the White population with similar educational backgrounds. •

In 2001, 26 percent of Hispanic students graduated from college within four years, compared with 39 percent of White students. Some 48 percent of Hispanic students graduated within six years, compared with 60 percent of White students.

•

In the first quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate of the Hispanic population ages 20 and over was twelve percent compared with 8 percent of the White population.

•

In 2008, Hispanic students were more likely to receive a Bachelor’s degree in business and social sciences than any other fields of study.

•

In 2009, approximately 13 percent of Hispanic students ages 18 and over had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with 33 percent of White students.

•

In 2009, the Hispanic population ages 18 and over earned, on average, lower incomes than the White population with similar educational backgrounds, except at the Master’s degree level. The salary gap was approximately $280 for the Hispanic and White population without a high school diploma and approximately $12,000 for those with a Bachelor’s degree. However, the Hispanic population earned approximately $2,000 more than the White population with a Master’s degree.

•

In 2008, the Hispanic population was more likely to have an occupation in the service, sales and office, and management fields than other fields.

•

In 2008, the Hispanic population ages 18 and over accounted for 12 percent of the college population and 16 percent of the prison population.

In 2008, Hispanic males were more than twice as likely to be imprisoned as White males. In 2009, Hispanic males accounted for 21 percent of the male prison population ages 18-19 compared with 27 percent of White males.

The Council of the Great City Schools

PROFILES OF EXCELLENCE “ALL OF OUR CHILDREN HAVE SO MUCH POTENTIAL. ALL OF OUR CHILDREN DESERVE A CHANCE AT LIFE.” ~ JOE BACA It is clear that many Hispanic students and English language learner Hispanic students are making strides in educational achievement. In this section, we highlight young Hispanic students from Council districts who stood out among their peers. Their profiles show that with support from teachers, strong language acquisition classes, and programs that promote their academic success, they are more than capable of suceeding. OMAR RAMIREZ, SCHOOLS

AUSTIN

PUBLIC

Omar Ramirez sees himself as a role model for underclassmen, and tells them they are not alone and they can do anything. Enrolled in three Advanced Placement classes and maintaining a 4.1 grade point average, Omar acts as president of his senior class, a member of the medical careers club, Spanish club, science club, and founder and president of the Gay Straight Alliance Club. Omar is also an intern at Clapps Nursing Home as part of the medical careers program, which gives him the opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge of the medical field. When Omar graduated in the spring of 2011 he earned his Certified Nursing Assistant Certification as well as his Pharmacy Technician Certification. CRISTEL FERNANDEZ, BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Cristel Fernandez is an outstanding senior at Lafayette High Sschool. When she came to LHS she spoke no English. From her freshman year to the present she has been involved in various student organizations and is running for class president. She completed an internship in Councilman David Rivera’s office. She is an student ambassador for LHS. DERK VELA, CHARLOTTEMECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOLS Derk Vela is a ninth-grade student at South Mecklenburg High School. His mother is from Ecuador and his father is from Colombia. Spanish is the family’s primary language. Derek credits his family for supporting him and challenging him to succeed. “My dad learned

English while we lived in New York. He helps me, just as I help him,” said Derek. Derek wants to attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, so he can stay near his family. He has earned very few grades less than an A, but says that English is still his toughest subject. Derek recalls his academic struggle to succeed: “Early in elementary school I wasn’t a good student. By third grade I decided I wanted to do better. My parents stayed up late, helping me with homework. They never gave up on me and they are very proud.” JOSE GARCIA, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Jose Garcia attended Virgin Valley High School. He entered high school reading at a 4th grade level and took a not-for-credit math class. Classified as a special education learning disability student and ELL, Jose had a stutter and very little confidence. At home, Jose’s father spoke mainly Spanish and broken English. Thanks to a special program supportive of reading and math, Jose found the value in an education. Jose’s accomplishments include meeting all requirements and passing all state proficiency exams; graduating with a regular high school diploma instead of an adjusted diploma; becoming a student at a four-year college; and passing all of his first semester college classes. BRENDA TENA , CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Brenda has achieved top honors in both leadership and academics. Academically, Brenda has achieved a perfect 4.0 GPA while taking the most rigorous curriculum offered, including seven AP classes. In addition to excelling in academics, Brenda was elected to Del Sol High School’s highest leadership position, Student Body President. In that position Brenda plans activities and assemblies and speaks to a student body of more than 2,100 students. With so many accomplishments in high school, Brenda will most certainly be successful in college.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

JENIFER MORALES, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

ODALMY MOLINA, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOLS

As a student at Blake High School Jenifer has maintained a 3.7 grade point average and is presently ranked number 92 out of 151 magnet students. Maintaining good grades has not come easy for Jenifer. She came to the United States from Colombia and faced numerous obstacles - first learning a language, then trying to settle into the middle school system within Hillsborough County. With the support of her family and the school district she was determined to excel. Jenifer has worked extremely hard to maintain her grades, and as a result of her efforts, she has consistently made the Honor roll and Principal’s Honor roll for the past four years. She is also a member of the National Honor Society. Not only does Jenifer juggle the demands of being academically focused and involved in numerous school organizations, she also is involved in community organizations. She has volunteered her time to work with the Ronald McDonald House while helping to meet the needs of the families housed in this facility.

Odalmy Molina is known at her school for her exceptional academic achievement, her extraordinary leadership abilities and her genuine interest in the well being of others. She was fourteen years old when her father died of cancer. She became determined to become the best student possible. She has challenged herself by taking 19 AP courses and ranking in the top 1 percent of her class of over 857 students. She is a United States Achievement Academy Mathematics Scholar, a Sunshine State Scholar for her excellent FCAT scores, and was named an AP Scholar with Distinction and National AP Scholar by the College Board. Currently, Odalmy attends Brown University where she is enrolled in an eight-year program in Liberal Medical Education.

SASHA MARTINEZ , HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Sasha Martinez was Senior Class President, Secretary of Best Buddies and a member of Student Government, National Honor Society, Spanish Honor Society and the Thespian Society. She has been in numerous drama productions, often having the lead role. She was also a member of the Flag Football team. Sasha graduated with a 4.64 grade point average. She has taken over seven 7 AP classes and has received AP credit for each class. Sasha was accepted to Rutgers, University of Miami and University of Tampa. MARJORIE CANOLA, PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOLS Marjorie Canola came from Peru with her mother almost three years ago. Like many immigrant families, Marjorie and her mother left behind their extended support network. Marjorie struggled with a new language and culture initially but over the past year, has progressed significantly. Her GPA is at 3.19 and she passed both of the Florida state exams. Marjorie’s ultimate goal is to receive a degree in business administration and to become an entrepreneur.

ANDY GARCIA, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOLS Andy Garcia is described as determined, responsible and committed to education. Andy came to the United States with his mother from Cuba. He faced many setbacks when trying to enroll in school yet took the time to start learning English on his own. After finally enrolling in Hialeah High School, Andy took advantage of a variety of programs available to help with his transition. He was an active member in the National Honor Society, Humane Honor Society, Key Club International, Biomedical and Art, and Culture Clubs. He also contributed countless hours to community service. He ranked in the top 7 percent in his senior class and has taken advantage of a number of AP courses at his school. LUIS PEREZ-MATOS, BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS When Luis started school at McKinley High School four years ago, he was frustrated and angry. Dealing with a new culture, language, and friends wasn’t easy. Although he started out as a beginner ESL student, he worked hard seeking help by attending the Saturday Jump Start Program. He attained a public library card so that he could study there after school. His efforts paid off a year later when he was able to skip intermediate ESL and moved into Advanced ESL. Encouraged by this, he helped others to study hard. He attended Shea’s Performing Art Educational Program where students were directed to write and

The Council of the Great City Schools

perform their works. He also channeled his talent by creating video projects for City Voices, City Visions (run by the University at Buffalo) where he won numerous awards making Hispanic students at McKinley High School proud. LEYANIS PEREZ, BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Leyanis is an example of an outstanding Hispanic student. Leyanis, her parents and her younger brother moved to Western New York from Cuba. Leyanis always gave 110% in her academic endeavors and even went a step further to assist other students who were not as proficient. She helped at home as well by assisting the family at doctor appointments as their translator since her parents did not speak English. When Leyanis graduated from middle school she received award after award. She is currently attending Hutch Tech High School. JESUS BARRIOS, SACRAMENTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Jesus Barrios came from Mexico with 4 other siblings. His father had left the family at an earlier age and his mother has been raising 5 children by herself. He has been told by many people that he wasn’t going to go very far however, he wanted to prove to them that he can still succeed. Jesus has taken the advanced and AP courses as well as IB classes at his high school earning a G.P.A. of 3.4. He was an active member in the mentor program mentoring 5 freshmen assigned to him. His love of learning has motivated him to be a very successful student. He enjoys being a teacher assistant helping the limited English speaking newcomers in the class. Jesus plans to apply to college and has been looking into scholarships to finance his education. LISETH BARRIOS, SACRAMENTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Liseth Barrios came from Guatemala. Her father is on disability with frequent visits to the hospital. She is the oldest of 4 children and her parents weren’t aware that the school was non-accredited, therefore, Liseth has to take all the classes required for graduation. She is hoping to graduate from high school in 3 years. She is currently enrolled in the AP English class and has a 3.9 GPA. She is on the school volleyball team and she hopes to be a Zoologist.

and has already become fluent in English. Maria has distinguished herself by earning the cumulative average in her school of 99.29, the highest in the school. She interned as a summer researcher and lab technician with Cornell University Extension Hydroponics and continues to volunteer there. She is currently attending a workshop at Citi Wealth Management to explore an interest in business and is working towards Cisco certification. She shares her academic enthusiasm as she enjoys tutoring and mentoring students in the College For Every Student program. TANNYA LUNA, NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Tannya is an extremely motivated and hardworking former ESL student from Ecuador who is in her senior year at Lehman High School. After only her second year in the United States, Tannya achieved a proficient score on the NYSESLAT. She is extremely well-rounded, taking a range of courses from AP Spanish to guitar, all the while maintaining a high grade point average. Tannya also participates in school sports, playing on the girls’ varsity soccer team. She serves as a role model for younger students and always has a positive attitude. With her intrinsic motivation and outgoing personality, Tannya will certainly excel in college and beyond. CHELSEA VARGAS, NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS As a freshman at the University of Rochester, Chelsea aspires to be a leading Hispanic female electrical engineer. After attending middle school at MS 319, she graduated from A. Philip Randolph High School in 2011 with a 3.7 GPA, ranking sixth in her graduating class. Chelsea was a member of CFES (College for Every Student), the Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers, the Union Settlement College Readiness Program, and ARISTA, an elite society for students who were on the honor roll all four years of high school. Chelsea also played various sports, worked on her high school yearbook, was a member of the art club, CFES web team, and computer club. She completed her AP classes, physics and chemistry, which has put her at an advantage in college. Chelsea’s determined spirit is infectious, and she inspires other Hispanic females to follow the trail she has blazed.

MARIA CALDERAS, NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Maria Calderas, junior in the Academy of Information Technology arrived to the United States only a year and four months ago from the Dominican Republic

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

CHAPTER 1

The Council of the Great City Schools

INTRODUCTION Many individuals and organizations—education, civic, business, and others—have been working tirelessly to close the achievement gap between racial and ethnic groups for some time. But only modest progress has been made and the achievement gaps remain wide. The Council of the Great City Schools is stepping forward on this issue because so many of the nation’s Hispanic and ELL Hispanic students are enrolled in our schools. In 2010, approximately 14 percent of all students in the nation were enrolled in the organization’s 65 urban school districts out of approximately 15,000 school districts nationwide. In addition, 21 percent of the nation’s students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 26 percent of English language learner (ELL) students and 24 percent of the Hispanic students were enrolled in a Great City School district. The purpose of this report is to focus on a critical element of the nation’s achievement gap— Hispanic students and Hispanic students who are English language learners. The academic performance of these students continues to fall markedly behind their White peers on every major assessment in the nation– ACT, SAT, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). And the goal of this report is to help galvanize the energies and resources of a nation that has, for too long, chosen to ignore the issue. This report also aims to keep the challenges that Hispanic students and ELL Hispanic students face in a broader social context while emphasizing the critical educational dimensions of the issues. The data in this report are drawn from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2009-10; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics; ACT; SAT; and other national databases. Particular attention is given to data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), districts participating in the Trial Urban

District Assessment6 (TUDA) of NAEP, and schools that comprise the large city (LC)7 variable of NAEP. Because NAEP scales are developed independently for each subject, scores cannot be compared across subjects or across grades. Wherever possible, differences in the NAEP data were analyzed to determine whether or not they were statistically significant. Tests of significance could only be conducted with variables within the same jurisdictions (districts, large cities, or national public schools) or between years. Tests of significance could not be conducted with different variables across different jurisdictions. These analyses were conducted using the NAEP Data Explorer. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ naepdata/report.aspx. The large cities in the nation are those with populations of 250,000 or more. In this paper, large city schools are the combined public school student populations of the nation’s large cities as defined by the Census Bureau. Where possible, we compare NAEP results among Hispanic, ELL Hispanic students, and formerly-ELL students attending schools in large cities against White students attending national public schools (NP).8 Finally, we also report results for students with disabilities (SD), students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), and students comprising the broader national sample (NP). This report begins with the presentation of student demographics in big city school districts and across the nation. We follow that with data on six areas – readiness to learn, achievement on NAEP, achievement on NAEP for selected big city districts, college and career preparedness, school experiences, and postsecondary experiences. We present a number of indicators in each area. Today’s Promise, Tomorrow’s Future also contains “Profiles of Excellence”, which highlights some of the individual successes of Hispanic students attending Great City School districts.

6 Representative samples of between 900 and 2,400 fourth-grade and between 800 and 2,100 eighth-grade public school students from 18 urban districts participated in the TUDA project in 2009. Eleven of the districts participated in 2007 and 2005, ten in 2003, and 6 in 2002. 7 Large city” is the subset of those public schools located in the urbanized areas of cities with populations of 250,000 or more. Large city is not synonymous with “inner city.” Schools in participating TUDA districts are also included in the large city results, even though some districts (Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Cleveland, Fresno, Houston, Jefferson County, Los Angeles, and Miami-Dade) include some schools not classified as large city schools. IES, The Nation’s Report Card, Trial Urban District Assessment, Reading, 2009. 8

NP includes students attending public schools across the nation.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

This report does not contain recommendations; however, the Council will move to convene a panel of esteemed schools district, state, national, and university leaders and policy makers who are concerned about the education of Hispanic children and youth. This panel of leaders would provide guidance to the Council in its continued work to address the challenges in improving achievement for Hispanic children in our urban schools and help develop targeted strategies to accelerate their learning.

The Council of the Great City Schools

DEMOGRAPHICS DEMOGRAPHICS The Council of the Great City School represents 65 of the largest urban school districts in the country. These Great City School districts are either the largest school district in their states or have enrollments of at least 35,000 students in cities that typically have more than 250,000 residents. Most of these students, as the subsequent data will show, are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program, English language learners, and students of color. The study begins with a summary of the demographics of the nation’s Great City Schools and the portion of their enrollments that are Hispanic or English language learner students.

•

In 2009, 37 percent of students in the Great City Schools were Hispanic, 35 percent were Black and 20 percent were White.

•

In 2009, 65 percent of all Great City School students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (FRPL), 16 percent were English language learners (ELL), and 15 percent were identified as students with disabilities (SD).

•

In 2009, the percentage of Hispanic students enrolled in Great City School districts ranged from a low of one percent to a high of 73 percent. The percentage of English language learners enrolled ranged from zero to 40 percent.

•

In 2009, approximately 24 percent of Hispanic students in the nation were enrolled in the Great City Schools, and 26 percent of the nation’s English language learner students (ELL) attended a Great City School.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE D1. CGCS DEMOGRAPHIC ENROLLMENT BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2009

American Indian/Alaskan NaĆ&#x;ve 1%

Asian 7%

White 20%

Black 35%

In 2009, 37 percent of students in the Great City Schools were Hispanic, 35 percent were Black and 20 percent were White.

Hispanic

37%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2009-10

FIGURE D2. PERCENTAGE OF ELL, FRPL AND SD STUDENTS IN CGCS SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 2009 70%

65%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

16%

15%

10% 0% ELL

FRPL

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2009-10

The Council of the Great City Schools

DEMOGRAPHICS FIGURE D3. PERCENTAGE OF CGCS STUDENTS BY RANGE OF SELECTED GROUPS, 2009

100%

36%

FRPL 7%

25%

SD 0%

40%

ELL White Hispanic

56%

73%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2009-10

FIGURE D4. CGCS STUDENT ENROLLMENT AS PERCENTAGE OF NATION BY GROUP, 2009

Total CGCS Enrollment

14%

FRPL

21%

ELL

26%

Hispanic

24%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Common Core of Data, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2009-10

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

CHAPTER 2

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN HIGHLIGHTS

•

Since 2000, approximately 90 percent of Hispanic children under the age of 18 were born within the United States.

•

In 2007, at least 75 percent of each of the reported Hispanic ethnicity groups was born within the United States.

•

In 2007 and 2008, the infant mortality rate for children with a Hispanic mother was less than the national average.

•

In 2008, Hispanic children were almost twice as likely not to be covered by health insurance as White children.

•

In 2007, six out of ten Hispanic children lived in households with married adults; three out of ten lived with a female parent only.

•

In 2008, Hispanic children were less likely to live in single parent households than Black or American Indian children but more likely to live in single parent households than White or Asian children.

•

In 2007, 27 percent of Hispanic children lived in poverty compared with 10 percent of White children.

•

In 2006, nearly half of all four-year-old Hispanic children participated in homebased care programs or had no regular nonparental care.

•

In 2008, at least 39 percent of Hispanic children had a parent with less than a high school diploma; 29 percent had a parent with a high school diploma, and at least 12 percent had a parent with some college experience.

•

In 2008, 33 percent of Hispanic children lived in families where no parent had fulltime, year-round employment compared with 21 percent of White children.

•

In 2007, Hispanic children between the ages of 3 to 5 years -old were less likely to have parents involved in home literacy activities than White or Black children.

•

In 2007, Hispanic children between the ages of 3 to 5 years old, were least likely to have school readiness skills than White or Black children

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 1.1. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC CHILDREN AGES 18 AND UNDER BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, 2007

Year

2007

89%

2005

Since 2000, approximately 90 percent of Hispanic children under the age of 18 were born within the United States.

87%

2000

85%

100

Percent Born Within the United States

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics

FIGURE 1.2. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC CHILDREN AGES 18 AND UNDER BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY GROUP, 2007 Other Hispanic or LĂƟno

96%

South American

74%

Hispanic Origin

Other Central American

81%

Salvadoran

87%

Dominican

82%

Cuban

In 2007, at least 75 percent of each of the reported Hispanic ethnicity groups was born within the United States.

86%

Puerto Rican

90%

Mexican

89% 0

100

120

Percent of Born within the United States

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN Infant Mortality Rates per 1,000 live births

FIGURE 1.3. INFANT MORTALITY RATE PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS FOR HISPANIC MOTHERS, 2007 AND 2008

In 2007 and 2008, the infant mortality rate for children with a Hispanic mother was less than the national average.

6.75

6.59

5.71

5.67

2007

2008 Year

All races

Hispanic Mother

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statisitcs, 2008

FIGURE 1.4. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN NOT COVERED BY PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2008

Percent Without Health Insurance

18%

17%

In 2008, Hispanic children were almost twice as likely not to be covered by health insurance as White children.

16% 14% 12%

12% 10%

10%

All Races

White

10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Black

Hispanic

Race/Ethnicity of Children

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 1.5. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC CHILDREN UNDER AGE 18 BY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, 2007

Male parent, no spouse present 9%

Other 3%

In 2007, six out of ten Hispanic children lived in households with married adults; three out of ten lived with a female parent only.

Female parent, no spouse present 28%

Married 61%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

FIGURE 1.6. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN AGES 18 AND UNDER LIVING IN SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2008

Percent of Children

65% 50% 38% 23%

16%

White

Black

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Race/Ethnicity of Children

Source: KIDSCOUNT; Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN FIGURE 1.7. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE 18 LIVING IN POVERTY BY RACE/ ETHNICITY, 2007

In 2007, 27 percent of Hispanic children lived in poverty compared with 10 percent of White children.

Percent of Children

34% 27%

11%

10%

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Race/Ethnicity of Children

Source: KIDSCOUNT; Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey

FIGURE 1.8. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIMARY CARE ARRANGEMENTS OF FOURYEAR-OLD HISPANIC CHILDREN, 2005-2006

MuůƟple arrangements 1%

No regular nonparental arrangements 27%

In 2006, nearly half of all four-yearold Hispanic children participated in home-based care programs or had no regular nonparental care.

Center-based care 31%

Head Start 19%

Home-based care 22%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 1.9. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC CHILDREN AGES 6 TO 18 BY PARENTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, 2008

39% 41%

Type of Certificate\ Degree Earned by Parent

Less than high school 29% 29%

High school 14% 12%

Some college 7% 6%

Associates Degree

8% 9%

Bachelor's Degree

Master's' Degree Doctorate degree or professional degree

2% 3% 1% 1% Percent of Hispanic Children Hispanic Mother Hispanic Father

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN FIGURE 1.10. CHILDREN AGES 18 AND UNDER LIVING IN FAMILIES WHERE NO PARENT HAS FULL-TIME, YEAR-ROUND EMPLOYMENT BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2008

50%

Percent of Children

43%

44%

40% 33% 30% 21%

In 2008, 33 percent of Hispanic children lived in families where no parent had full-time, year-round employment compared with 21 percent of White children.

20%

20% 10% 0% White

Black

American Indian

Asian

Hispanic

Race/Ethnicity of Children

Source: KIDSCOUNT; Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 1.11. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 3 TO 5 YEARS -OLD WITH PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN HOME LITERACY ACTIVITIES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2007

91% Read to

78% 68%

In 2007, Hispanic children between the ages of 3 to 5 years -old were less likely to have parents involved in home literacy activities than White or Black children.

53% Told a story

54% 50%

76% Taught leĆŠer, words, or numbers

81% 74%

41% Visited a library

25% 27%

White

Black

Hispanic

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 1: READINESS TO LEARN FIGURE 1.12. PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 3 TO 5 YEARS OLD WITH SCHOOL READINESS SKILLS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2007

36% Recognizes all leƩers

37% 15%

69% Counts to 20 or higher

69% 41%

64% Writes name

58% 49%

75% Reads or pretends to read storybooks

67% 55%

47% Has 3 to 4 skills

44% 26%

White

Black

Hispanic

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

In 2007, Hispanic children between the ages of 3 to 5 years-old, were least likely to have school readiness skills than White or Black children.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2A: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 4 HIGHLIGHTS The National Assessment of Educational progress (NAEP) reading results for grade 4 are reported as average scores on a 0-500 scale. The results are reported as achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced9) Reading Grade 4 •

Average reading scores of fourth-grade Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White (NP) students increased significantly from 2003 to 2009. Furthermore, in 2009, average scores of Hispanic (LC) and Black (LC) students were not statistically different.

•

Between 2003 to 2009, the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in reading increased from 13 to 14 points and was consistently at least 26 points lower than White students (NP).

•

In 2009, the average reading score of fourth-grade Hispanic males (LC) was significantly lower than Hispanic females (LC) and Black females (LC).

•

The average grade 4 reading score for non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly from 2003 to 2009. However, the gap between ELL Hispanic (LC) and non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased from 27 to 31 points during that period.

•

In 2009, average grade 4 reading scores for formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) were significantly higher than ELL students (LC).

•

In 2009, 22 percent of fourth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in reading compared with 23 percent nonELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

In 2009, the average reading score for fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly from 2003, but was 28 points lower than White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

•

In 2009, average reading scores of fourth- grade Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) increased significantly from 2003 but was only 1 point higher than White males (NP) eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

The cut score for reading grade 4 indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is: Basic (208) Proficient (238) Advanced (268)

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.1. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES BY RACE/ ETHNICITY, 2003-2009

240

230

228

227***

230

229 Average reading scores of fourth-grade Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White (NP) students increased significantly from 2003 to 2009. Furthermore, in 2009, average scores of Hispanic (LC) and Black (LC) students were not statistically different.

220 210 200 190

196

193***

180

202

199

198

197***

199

201

2007

2009

170 2003

2005

White (NP)

Black (LC)

Hispanic (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

FIGURE 2.2. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 HISPANIC STUDENTS (LC) AND WHITE STUDENTS (NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING, 2003-2009 14%

2009

41%

14%

2007

42%

13%

2005

39%

Between 2003 and 2009, the percentage of fourthgrade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in reading increased from 13 to 14 points and was consistently at least 26 points lower than White students (NP).

13%

2003

39%

20 Hispanic (LC)

White (NP)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2A: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 4 FIGURE 2.3. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES OF HISPANIC MALES (LC), HISPANIC FEMALES (LC), BLACK MALES (LC), AND BLACK FEMALES (LC), 2003-2009

205*

Hispanic Female (LC)

2009

199

Hispanic Male (LC) Black Female (LC)

205* 198

Black Male (LC)

203 3

Hispanic Female (LC)

2007

In 2009, the average reading score of fourth203 3 grade Hispanic males (LC) was significantly lower than Hispanic females (LC) and Black females (LC).

196

Hispanic Male (LC) Black Female (LC) Black Male (LC)

195 201

Hispanic Female (LC)

2005

195

Hispanic Male (LC)

201

Black Female (LC)

191

Black Male (LC) Hispanic Female (LC)

2003

201*** 194***

Hispanic Male (LC)

198***

Black Female (LC)

188***

Black Male (LC)

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic males students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.4. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS (LC) AND NONELL HISPANIC STUDENTS (NP), 2003-2009

220 209***

215

211

214

210 200

190 180

182

180

2003

2005

2007

183

170 160

ELL (LC)

2009

Non ELL (NP)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

FIGURE 2.5. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLY-ELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS, 2005-2009

230 220

220 212

210 200 190

211***

215

182

180

2005

2007

216* 214 183

In 2009, average grade 4 reading scores for formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) were significantly higher than ELL students (LC).

180 170 160 150

ELL (LC)

Non ELL (NP)

2009 Formerly-ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from ELL students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2A: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 4 FIGURE 2.6. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLY-ELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NONELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING, 2005-2009

23% 22%

2009 3%

23% 2007

26%

In 2009, 22 percent of fourthgrade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in reading compared with 23 percent nonELL Hispanic students (NP).

4% 21% 2005

16% 4% 0

Non-ELL (NP)

15 Formerly-ELL (LC)

ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.7. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES FOR SD HISPANIC (LC), NON-SD HISPANIC (LC), SD WHITE (NP), AND NON-SD WHITE STUDENTS (NP), 2003-2009

205

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

166

SD Hispanic (LC)

2009

233

Non-SD White (NP) SD White (NP)

200

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

202 166

SD Hispanic (LC)

2007

233

Non-SD White (NP) SD White (NP)

200

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

200 172

SD Hispanic (LC)

2005

231

Non-SD White (NP) SD White (NP)

199

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

200*** 172

SD Hispanic (LC)

2003

Non-SD White (NP)

231*** 194***

SD White (NP)

100

150

200

250

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2A: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 4 FIGURE 2.8. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES FOR FRPL HISPANIC (LC) NON-FRPL HISPANIC (LC), FRPL WHITE (NP), AND NON-FRPL WHITE STUDENTS (NP), 2003-2009

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

216 199

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2009 Non-FRPL White (NP)

235

FRPL White (NP)

215

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

214

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2007

197

Non-FRPL White (NP)

235

FRPL White (NP)

215

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

218 195

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2005

Non-FRPL White (NP)

233 214

FRPL White (NP)

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

206***

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2003

196***

Non-FRPL White (NP)

232***

FRPL White (NP)

212*** 100

150

200

250

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic males students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2B: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 8 HIGHLIGHTS The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading results for grade 8 are reported as average scores on a 0-500 scale. The results are reported as achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced10) that show what students should know and be able to do. Reading Grade 8 •

Average reading scores of eighth-grade Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White students (NP) increased significantly from 2003 to 2009. However, in 2009 the average score of Hispanic students (LC) was not significantly different from Black students (LC).

•

Between 2003 and 2009 the percentage of eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in reading increased from 12 to 14 points, but remained at least 24 points lower than White students (NP).

•

In 2009, the average reading score for eighth-grade Hispanic males (LC) was significantly lower than Hispanic females (LC) and Black females (LC) but not significantly different from Black males (LC).

•

From 2003 to 2009, average grade 8 reading scores of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly while scores for ELL (LC) remained unchanged.

•

Average reading scores of eighth-grade non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly from 2005 to 2009. However, in 2009, average scores of formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) were significantly higher than ELL Hispanic students (LC) and six points lower than non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

In 2009, 11 percent of eighth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in reading compared with 21 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

In 2009, the average reading score for eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly from 2003, and was 26 points lower than White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

•

In 2009, the average reading score of eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) remained unchanged from 2003 and was 1 point lower than White students (NP) eligible for free and reduced price lunch (FRPL).

The cut score for reading grade 8 indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is: Basic (243), Proficient (281), and Advanced (323).

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.9. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2003-2009

280

270***

269

270

271

241***

243

245

241***

240

2003

2005

2007

Average reading scores of eighthgrade Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White students (NP) increased significantly from 2003 to 2009. However, in 2009 the average score of Hispanic students (LC) was not significantly different from Black students (LC).

270 260 250 240 230

243

220

Black (LC)

White (NP)

2009 Hispanic (LC)

FIGURE 2.10. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 HISPANIC (LC) AND WHITE (NP) STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING, 2003- 2009 39%

2009 14%

38%

2007 12%

37%

2005

13%

39%

2003 12%

White (NP)

Hispanic (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2B: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 8 FIGURE 2.11. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES OF HISPANIC MALES (LC), HISPANIC FEMALES (LC), BLACK MALES (LC), AND BLACK FEMALES (LC), 2003-2009

Hispanic Female (LC)

250*

Hispanic Male (LC)

2009

240

Black Female (LC)

248*

Black Male (LC)

238

Hispanic Female (LC)

247

Hispanic Male (LC)

2007

238

Black Female (LC)

246

Black Male (LC)

234

Hispanic Female (LC)

248

Hispanic Male (LC)

2005

239

Black Female (LC)

246

Black Male (LC)

233

Hispanic Female (LC)

245

Hispanic Male (LC)

2003

237

Black Female (LC)

246

Black Male (LC)

220

225

235 230

235

240

245

250

255

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic male students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.12. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS (LC) AND NON-ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS (NP), 2003-2009 270

252***

256

254

253

250 44

230 210 212

217

213

2005

2007

2009

From 2003 to 2009, average grade 8 reading scores of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly while scores for ELL (LC) remained unchanged.

190 170 150 2003

ELL (LC)

Non ELL (NP)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

FIGURE 2.13. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLYELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS (NP), 2005-2009

260

253***

254

256

Average reading scores of eighthgrade non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly from 2005 to 2009. However, in 2009, average scores of formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) were significantly higher than ELL Hispanic students (LC) and six points lower than non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

250 252 240

250

250*

213

2007

2009

230 220

217

210 200 190 2005 ELL (LC)

Non ELL (NP)

Formerly-ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from ELL students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2B: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 8 FIGURE 2.14. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLY-ELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP READING, 2005-2009

21% 2009

11% 2% 19%

2007

11% 1% 18%

2005

16%

In 2009, 11 percent of eighthgrade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in reading compared with 21 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

2% 0

5 Non ELL (NP)

Formerly-ELL (LC)

ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.15. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES FOR SD HISPANIC (LC), NON-SD HISPANIC (LC), SD WHITE (NP), AND NON-SD WHITE (NP) STUDENTS, 2003-2009

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

249

SD Hispanic (LC)

2009

209

Non-SD White (NP)

275

SD White (NP)

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

246

SD Hispanic (LC)

2007

209

Non-SD White (NP)

274

SD White (NP)

237

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

247

SD Hispanic (LC)

2005

208

Non-SD White (NP)

273

SD White (NP)

236

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

245***

SD Hispanic (LC)

2003

205

Non-SD White (NP)

274

SD White (NP)

In 2009, the average reading score for eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly from 2003, but was 26 points lower than White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

240

234*** 100

150

200

250

300

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2B: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPREADING GRADE 8 FIGURE 2.16. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES FOR FRPL HISPANIC (LC), NON-FRPL HISPANIC (LC), FRPL HISPANIC (NP), AND NON-FRPL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS, 2003-2009

257

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2009

242

FRPL Hispanic (LC) Non-FRPL White (NP)

276

FRPL White (NP)

258 253

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC) FRPL Hispanic (LC)

240

2007

274

Non-FRPL White (NP) FRPL White (NP)

258

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2005

254 241

FRPL Hispanic (LC) Non-FRPL White (NP)

273

FRPL White (NP)

257

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

257 238***

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2003

274***

Non-FRPL White (NP) FRPL White (NP)

210

220

257 230

240

250

260

270

280

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2C: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 4 HIGHLIGHTS The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics results for grade 4 are reported as average scores on a 0-500 scale. The results are reported as achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced11) that show what students should know and be able to do. Mathematics Grade 4 •

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of grade 4 Hispanic students (LC) increased significantly and the 2009 average score for Hispanic students was significantly higher than average scores of Black students (LC) but was lower than white students (NP).

•

From 2003 to 2009 the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in mathematics increased from 13 to 21 but remained at least 29 percentage points lower than White students (NP) for each of those years.

•

In 2009, the average mathematics score of fourth-grade Hispanic males (LC) was significantly higher than Black males (LC) and Black females (LC). However, the average score for Hispanic males (LC) was not significantly different from Hispanic females (LC).

•

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of grade 4 ELL Hispanic students (LC) and non-ELL Hispanic (NP) increased significantly. However, the gap between ELL Hispanic (LC) and non-ELL Hispanic (NP) students remain unchanged.

•

Average mathematics scores of fourth-grade non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2009; however, in 2009, average scores for formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) was statistically higher than ELL Hispanic students (LC).

•

In 2009, 30 percent of fourth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in mathematics compared with 28 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

From 2003 to 2009, the average mathematics score of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly. However, the 2009 average score for Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) was 22 points lower than the average score of White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

•

From 2003 to 2009, the average mathematics score of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) increased significantly. However, the 2009 average score of Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) was three points higher than the average score of White students (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

The cut score for mathematics grade 4 indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is Basic (214), Proficient (249) and Advanced (282)

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.17. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2003-2009

260 250

243***

246

248

223

224

226

217

219

219*

2005

2007

2009

240 230

219***

220 210 212*** 200 190 2003 White (NP)

Black (LC)

Hispanic (LC)

FIGURE 2.18. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 HISPANIC (LC) AND WHITE STUDENTS (NP) PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009

From 2003 to 2009, the percentage of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in mathematics increased from 13 to 21 but remained at least 29 percentage points lower than White students (NP) for each of those years.

50%

2009

21%

51%

2007

21%

47%

2005

17%

42%

2003

13% 0

20 White (NP)

Hispanic (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2C: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 4 FIGURE 2.19. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF HISPANIC MALES (LC), HISPANIC FEMALES (LC), BLACK MALES (LC), AND BLACK FEMALES (LC), 2003-2009

2009

Hispanic Female (LC)

226

Hispanic Male (LC)

226 In 2009, the average mathematics score of fourth-grade Hispanic males (LC) was significantly higher than Black males (LC) and Black females (LC). However, the average score for Hispanic males (LC) was not significantly different from Hispanic 226 females (LC).

220*

Black Female (LC)

219*

Black Male (LC) Hispanic Female (LC)

223

Hispanic Male (LC)

2007

Black Female (LC)

219 218

Black Male (LC)

221

Hispanic Female (LC)

225

Hispanic Male (LC)

2005

217

Black Female (LC)

216

Black Male (LC)

217***

Hispanic Female (LC)

221***

Hispanic Male (LC)

2003

205

Black Female (LC)

212***

Black Male (LC)

212***

210

215

220

225

230

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic male students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.20. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC (LC) AND NONELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS, 2003-2009

250 240 235

240 230

228***

234 19

220 210 200

214

212

2005

2007

ELL (LC)

Non ELL (NP)

209***

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of grade 4 ELL Hispanic students (LC) and non-ELL Hispanics (NP) increased significantly. However, the gap between ELL Hispanic (LC) and non-ELL Hispanic (NP) students remain unchanged.

215

190 2003

2009

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

FIGURE 2.21. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLYELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS, 2005-2009

250 240***

242 236*

240 234 230 220

235 214

212

2005

2007

234 215

210 200 190

ELL (LC)

Non ELL (NP)

Average mathematics scores of fourth-grade non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2009; but, in 2009, average scores for formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) was statistically higher than ELL Hispanic students (LC).

2009 Formerly-ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from ELL students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2C: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 4 FIGURE 2.22. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLY-ELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL (NP) HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009

28% 30%

2009

In 2009, 30 percent of fourthgrade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in mathematics compared with 28 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

10% 29% 2007

39% 9% 26% 25%

2005 8% 0

10 Non-ELL (NP)

Formerly-ELL (LC)

ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.23. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF SD HISPANIC (LC), NON-SD HISPANIC STUDENTS (LC), SD WHITE (NP), AND NON-SD WHITE STUDENTS (NP), 2003-2009

229

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

204

SD Hispanic (LC)

2009

Non-SD White (NP)

251 229

SD White (NP)

227

Non-SD Hispanic (LC) SD Hispanic (LC)

2007

204 250

Non-SD White (NP) SD White (NP)

229 224

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

206

SD Hispanic (LC)

2005

248

Non-SD White (NP)

226

SD White (NP)

221***

Non-SD Hispanic (LC) SD Hispanic (LC)

2003

202

Non-SD White (NP)

245***

SD White (NP)

From 2003 to 2009, the average mathematics score of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly. However, the 2009 average score for Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (nonSD) was 22 points lower than the average score of White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

222*** 100

150

200

250

300

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2C: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 4 FIGURE 2.24. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF FRPL HISPANIC (LC), NONFRPL HISPANIC (LC), FRPL WHITE (NP), AND NON-FRPL WHITE (NP) STUDENTS, 2003-2009

239

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC) FRPL Hispanic (LC)

224

2009

253

Non-FRPL White (NP)

236

FRPL White (NP)

234

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC) FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2007

223

Non-FRPL White (NP)

252

FRPL White (NP)

236 235

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC) FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2005

221

Non-FRPL White (NP)

250 234

FRPL White (NP)

228***

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC) FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2003

217***

Non-FRPL White (NP)

247*** 231***

FRPL White (NP)

190

200

From 2003 to 2009, the average mathematics score of fourth-grade Hispanic students (LC) who were not eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (non-FRPL) increased significantly. However, the 2009 average score of Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (non-FRPL) was only three points higher than the average score of White students (NP) who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

210

220

230

240

250

260

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2D: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 8 HIGHLIGHTS The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics results for grade 4 are reported as average scores on a 0-500 scale. The results are reported as achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced12) that show what students should know and be able to do. Grade 8 Mathematics •

Average mathematics scores for grade 8 Hispanic (LC), Black (LC), and White students (NP) increased significantly from 2003 to 2009. Furthermore, in 2009, average scores for Hispanic students (LC) were significantly higher than Black students (LC) but lower than White students (NP).

•

From 2003 and 2009 the percentage of eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in mathematics increased from 10 to 16 points, but remained at least 26 points lower than White students (NP).

•

In 2009, the average mathematics score of eighth-grade Hispanic males (LC) was significantly higher than Black females (LC) and Black males (LC). However, the average score of Hispanic males (LC) was not significantly different from Hispanic females (LC).

•

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of eighth-grade non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly, but average scores of ELL Hispanic (LC) students in 2009 were not significantly different from scores in 2003.

•

In 2009, average mathematics scores of eighth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) were statistically higher than ELL Hispanic students (LC).

•

In 2009, 13 percent of eighth-grade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in mathematics compared with two percent of ELL Hispanic (LC) and 22 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

•

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) increased significantly.Yet, the 2009 average score for Hispanic students (LC) without disabilities (non-SD) was 28 points lower than White students (NP) without disabilities (non-SD).

•

In 2009, average grade 8 mathematics scores of Hispanic students (LC) not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (non-FRPL) increased significantly from 2003 but was not different from average scores of White students (NP) eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

The cut score for mathematics grade 8 indicating the lower end of the score range for each level is Basic (262), Proficient (299) and Advanced (333)

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.25. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2003-2009

300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220

287***

288

290

292

258

261

264

256***

254

256*

247***

250

2003

2005

2007

2009

White (NP)

Black (LC)

Hispanic (LC)

FIGURE 2.26. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC (LC) STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009

From 2003 to 2009, the percentage of eighth-grade Hispanic students (LC) performing at or above Proficient in mathematics increased from 10 to 16 points; but remained at least 26 points lower than White students (NP).

16%

2009

43%

13%

2007

41%

11%

2005

37%

10%

2003

36%

20 Hispanic(LC)

White (NP)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2D: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 8 FIGURE 2.27. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF HISPANIC MALES (LC), HISPANIC FEMALES (LC), BLACK MALES (LC), AND BLACK FEMALES (LC), 2003-2009

262

Hispanic Female (LC)

266

Hispanic Male (LC)

2009

257*

Black Female (LC)

255*

Black Male (LC)

260

Hispanic Female (LC)

262

Hispanic Male (LC)

2007

255

Black Female (LC)

253

Black Male (LC)

257

Hispanic Female (LC)

259

Hispanic Male (LC)

2005

250

Black Female (LC)

249

Black Male (LC)

254***

Hispanic Female (LC)

257***

Hispanic Male (LC)

2003

248***

Black Female (LC)

247***

Black Male (LC)

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic male students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.28. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES FOR ELL HISPANIC (LC) AND NONELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS, 2003-2009

280 270

273

272

269 265***

260

250 240 230

234

236

234

2005

2007

2009

233

From 2003 to 2009, average mathematics scores of eighthgrade non-ELL Hispanic students (NP) increased significantly, but average scores of ELL Hispanic (LC) students in 2009 were not significantly different from scores in 2003.

220 210 2003

ELL (LC)

Non ELL (NP)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

FIGURE 2.29. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES FOR ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLY-ELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL HISPANIC (LC) STUDENTS, 2005-2009 280 269***

272

273

267

267*

270 268 260 250 240

234

236

In 2009, average mathematics scores of eighth-grade formerlyELL Hispanic students (LC) were statistically higher than ELL Hispanic students (LC).

234

230 220 210 2005 ELL (LC)

2007 Non ELL (NP)

2009 Formerly-ELL (LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. *Significantly different from Hispanic male students in large cities at p <.05 ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2D: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 8

FIGURE 2.30. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 ELL HISPANIC (LC), FORMERLY-ELL HISPANIC (LC), AND NON-ELL HISPANIC (NP) STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT IN NAEP MATHEMATICS, 2003-2009

22% 2009

13% 2% 20%

2007

12% 2%

In 2009, 13 percent of eighthgrade formerly-ELL Hispanic students (LC) performed at or above Proficient in mathematics compared with two percent of ELL Hispanic (LC) and 22 percent of non-ELL Hispanic students (NP).

17% 2005

13% 2% 0

5 Non-ELL (NP)

Formerly-ELL (LC)

ELL(LC)

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 2.31. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES FOR SD HISPANIC (LC), NON- SD HISPANIC (LC), SD WHITE (NP), AND NON-SD WHITE STUDENTS, 2003-2009

268

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

235

SD Hispanic (LC)

2009

296

Non-SD White (NP)

260

SD White (NP)

264

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

228

SD Hispanic (LC)

2007

294

Non-SD White (NP)

257

SD White (NP)

261

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

226

SD Hispanic (LC)

2005

292

Non-SD White (NP)

255

SD White (NP)

259***

Non-SD Hispanic (LC)

227***

SD Hispanic (LC)

2003

291***

Non-SD White (NP)

253***

SD White (NP)

100

200

300

400

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 2D: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEPMATHEMATICS GRADE 8 FIGURE 2.32. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES FOR FRPL HISPANIC (LC), NONFRPL HISPANIC (LC), FRPL WHITE (NP), AND NON-FRPL WHITE STUDENTS, 2003-2009

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

276 261

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2009

297

Non-FRPL White (NP)

276

FRPL White (NP)

270

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

259

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2007

295

Non-FRPL White (NP)

275

FRPL White (NP)

268

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC) FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2005

255 292

Non-FRPL White (NP)

273

FRPL White (NP)

272***

Non-FRPL Hispanic (LC)

252***

FRPL Hispanic (LC)

2003

291***

Non-FRPL White (NP)

271***

FRPL White (NP)

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

Note: Large city (LC) includes students from all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more including the participating TUDA districts. NP includes students attending public schools across the nation. ***Significantly different from 2009 at p <.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Mathematics Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS HIGHLIGHTS

•

In 2009, less than 30 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Miami-Dade County performed at below Basic levels in reading compared with 52 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, at least 60 percent of fourth-grade ELL Hispanic students in every TUDA district (with the exception of districts who had too few cases for a reliable estimate) performed at below Basic levels in reading compared with 74 percent of ELL Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, average reading scale scores of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Boston, Charlotte, Miami-Dade County, were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP). Average scores for Hispanic students in Austin and New York City were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC).

•

In 2009, the average reading scores of fourth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin, Boston, and Houston were significantly higher than scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP).

•

In 2009, approximately 30 percent of eighth-grade Hispanic students in MiamiDade County performed at or above Proficient in reading compared with 16 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, at least 68 percent of eighth-grade ELL Hispanic students in every TUDA district (with the exception of districts who had too few cases for a reliable estimate) performed at below Basic levels in reading.

•

In 2009, the average reading score of eighth-grade Hispanic students in MiamiDade County were significantly greater than scores of Hispanic students in large cites (LC) and the nation (NP).

•

In 2009, average reading scores of eighth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin were significantly higher than scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC).

•

In 2009, less than 20 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County performed at or below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 30 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, less than 30 percent of fourth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin, Charlotte and Houston performed at or below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 45 percent of ELL Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, average mathematics scores of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Houston, Miami-Dade County, and New York City were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP).

•

In 2009, average mathematics scores of fourth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and Milwaukee were significantly higher than the scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP).

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

•

In 2009, less than 40 percent of eighth-grade Hispanic students in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County performed at below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 44 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, at least 55 percent of eighth-grade ELL Hispanic students in every TUDA district (with the exception of districts who had too few cases for a reliable estimate) performed at below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 77 percent of ELL Hispanic students nationally.

•

In 2009, the average mathematics score of eighth-grade Hispanic students in Austin, Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP).

•

In 2009, average mathematics scores of eighth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin and Houston were significantly higher than scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP).

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.1. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP READING IN LC, NP AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

Below basic NaƟonal Public

Large City Atlanta

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

CharloƩe

Chicago

23 53

Cleveland

Detroit

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

65 28

8 34

Milwaukee

San Diego

Los Angeles

Philadelphia

17 64

Houston

New York City

Fresno

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

11 69

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

Jeīerson County (KY)

In 2009, less than 30 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Miami-Dade County performed at below Basic levels in reading compared with 52 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽre City

At or above proĮcient

20 67 62

5 11

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.2. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP READING, IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

Below basic

At or above proĮcient

NaƟonal Public Large City Atlanta AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City Boston CharloƩe

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

63 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

86 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

Fresno Houston Jeīerson County (KY)

Milwaukee New York City Philadelphia San Diego

87 7

65 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

Chicago Cleveland

85 7

69 75

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.3. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES OF HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

204*

Large City

202**

Atlanta

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

208* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

209**,*

CharloƩe

212**,*

Chicago

203

Cleveland

200

Detroit

190**,*

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

207

Fresno

194**,*

Houston

206

Jeīerson County (KY)

In 2009, average reading scores of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Boston, Charlotte, Miami-Dade County, were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP). Hispanic students in Austin and New York City were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC).

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles

193**,*

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade Milwaukee New York City Philadelphia San Diego

224**,* 198** 208* 187**,* 193**,*

* Significantly different from large city at p<.05 ** Significantly different from nation at p<.05 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 Reading Assessments.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.4. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP READING SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

185

Large City Atlanta

183 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

195**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

197**,**

CharloƩe Chicago Cleveland

187 172**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

186

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS) Fresno

188 174**,*

Houston Jeīerson County (KY) Los Angeles

196**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

175**,*

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

189

Milwaukee

190

New York City Philadelphia San Diego

186 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

181

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.5. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP READING IN LC , NP AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

Below basic

At or above proĮcient

NaƟonal Public Large City Atlanta

38 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

CharloƩe

Chicago

13 18 17

Cleveland

Fresno

Houston

37 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles

Milwaukee

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

Detroit

Jeīerson County (KY)

In 2009, approximately 30 percent of eighth-grade Hispanic students in Miami-Dade County performed at or above Proficient in reading compared with 16 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

50 29

New York City

Philadelphia

San Diego

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.6. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC NAEP READING IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

Below basic NaƟonal Public

Large City Atlanta

At or above proĮcient 2

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ

ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

CharloƩe

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Chicago

Cleveland

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Fresno

Houston Jeīerson County (KY)

Milwaukee New York City Philadelphia San Diego

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

91 68

1 4

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.7. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES OF HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

248*

Large City

245**

Atlanta

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

251* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

251*

CharloƩe

254

Chicago

249

Cleveland

237**

Detroit

232

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

249

Fresno

235**,*

Houston

250*

Jeīerson County (KY)

In 2009, the average reading score of eighth-grade Hispanic students in Miami-Dade County and District of Columbia were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cites (LC) and the nation (NP).

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles DŝĂŵŝ-Dade Milwaukee

239**,* 261**,* 249

New York City

243

Philadelphia

241

San Diego

242

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.8. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP READING SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

217

Large City Atlanta

213 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ

223*

ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

CharloƩe

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Chicago

216

Cleveland

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Fresno

207

Houston Jeīerson County (KY) Los Angeles

217 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

205**,*

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade Milwaukee New York City

In 2009, average reading scores of eighth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin were significantly higher than scores of ELL Hispanic students in large cities (LC).

220 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

207 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Philadelphia San Diego

208

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.9. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP MATHEMATICS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009 Below basic NaƟonal Public

Large City

Atlanta AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City Boston CharloƩe

At or above proĮcient 21 21

34 21

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Chicago

27 30

Cleveland

Detroit

25 45

17 35

Los Angeles

New York City Philadelphia San Diego

10 28

Jeīerson County (KY)

Milwaukee

Fresno

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

13 61

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

Houston

In 2009, less than 20 percent of fourth-grade Hispanic students in Charlotte, Houston, and MiamiDade County performed below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 30 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

23 42

14 35

24 40 34

15 19

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.10. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 4 ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP MATHEMATICS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

Below basic NaƟonal Public

Large City Atlanta AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Chicago

Cleveland

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

11 61

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

New York City Philadelphia San Diego

Jeīerson County (KY)

Milwaukee

Fresno Houston

In 2009, less than 30 percent of fourth-grade ELL Hispanic students in Austin, Charlotte and Houston performed below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 45 percent of ELL Hispanic students nationally.

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston CharloƩe

At or above proĮcient

45 33

13 13

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.11. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

227

Large City

226

Atlanta

222

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

233**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

232**,*

CharloƩe

235**,*

Chicago Cleveland

226 217**,*

Detroit

206**,*

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

227

Fresno Houston Jeīerson County (KY) Los Angeles DŝĂŵŝ-Dade Milwaukee New York City Philadelphia San Diego

216**,* 235**,* 226 218**,* 239**,* 226 230**,* 221**,* 224

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.12. AVERAGE GRADE 4 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

216

Large City

215

Atlanta

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

228**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

221**,*

CharloƩe

226**,*

Chicago

206**,*

Cleveland

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

213

Fresno

206**,*

Houston Jeīerson County (KY)

231**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles

204**,*

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

217

Milwaukee

224**,*

New York City Philadelphia San Diego

216 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

213

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.13. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP MATHEMATICS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

Below basic NĂƟonal Public

AusƟn BalƟmore City

Large City Atlanta

At or above proĮcient

35 * Too few cases for reliable esƟmate

Boston

CharloƩe

Chicago

Cleveland

Fresno

30 * Too few cases for reliable esƟmate

57 14

Philadelphia San Diego

Milwaukee New York City

Los Angeles Miami-Dade

District of Columbia (DCPS)

Jeīerson County (KY)

Detroit

Houston

In 2009, less than 40 percent of eighth-grade Hispanic students in Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Houston, and Miami-Dade County performed below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 44 percent of Hispanic students nationally.

* Too few cases for reliable esƟmate

52 46

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.14. PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 8 ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS PERFORMING AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT AND BELOW BASIC IN NAEP MATHEMATICS IN LC, NP AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009 Below basic

NaƟonal Public

At or above proĮcient

Large City Atlanta AusƟŶ

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

CharloƩe

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Chicago

Cleveland

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Detroit

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Fresno Houston Jeīerson County (KY)

Milwaukee

69 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

San Diego

91 1

77 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

New York City Philadelphia

Los Angeles DŝĂŵŝ-Dade

In 2009, at least 55 percent of eighth-grade ELL Hispanic students in every TUDA district (with the exception of districts who had too few cases for a reliable estimate) performed below Basic levels in mathematics compared with 77 percent of ELL Hispanic students nationally.

89 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 3: HISPANIC ACHIEVEMENT ON NAEP IN SELECTED BIG CITY DISTRICTS FIGURE 3.15. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS, 2009

NaƟonal Public

266

Large City

264

Atlanta

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

274**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

269*

CharloƩe

272**,*

Chicago

268

Cleveland

250**,*

Detroit

255

District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

263

Fresno

253**,*

Houston Jeīerson County (KY)

In 2009, the average eighthgrade mathematics score of grade 8 Hispanic students in Austin, Charlotte, Houston, and MiamiDade County were significantly higher than scores of Hispanic students in large cities (LC) and the nation (NP).

275**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles DŝĂŵŝ-Dade Milwaukee

254**,* 274**,* 256**

New York City

261**

Philadelphia

258**

San Diego

265

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 3.16. AVERAGE GRADE 8 NAEP MATHEMATICS SCORES OF ELL HISPANIC STUDENTS IN LC, NP, AND TUDA DISTRICTS

NaƟonal Public

239*

Large City Atlanta

234** * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

AusƟŶ

248**,*

ĂůƟŵŽƌe City

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Boston

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

CharloƩe

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Chicago Cleveland Detroit District of Coluŵbia (DCPS)

239 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

* Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Fresno

229**

Houston Jeīerson County (KY)

247**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

Los Angeles

226**,*

DŝĂŵŝ-Dade Milwaukee New York City Philadelphia San Diego

236 * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

222**,* * Too few cases for reliable esƟŵate

240

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS

HIGHLIGHTS

•

In 2008, Hispanic students were two and a half times more likely to drop out of high school as White students; and almost twice as likely as Black students.

•

In 2007, six out of ten Hispanic students graduated from high school on time compared with eight out of ten White students completing grades 9 through 12 in four years.

•

In 2010, fewer than two out of ten Hispanic students took an Advanced Placement exam compared with six out of ten White students.

•

In 2010, average SAT scores for students of Hispanic origins were below scores for White students in critical reading, mathematics, and writing.

•

In 2010, average ACT scores for Hispanic students were at least two points below students nationally and at least three points below scores for White students in English, mathematics and reading.

•

In 2010, less than 50 percent of Hispanic students met the ACT college readiness benchmarks in reading mathematics, or English.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 4.1 HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2008

22%

In 2008, Hispanic students were two and a half times more likely to drop out of high school as White students; and almost twice as likely as Black students.

20 15 10

Average dropout rate 9%

12% 9%

5 0 White

Black

Hispanic

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 1967 through October 2008

FIGURE 4.2 AVERAGE FRESHMAN GRADUATION RATE FOR PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND NUMBER OF GRADUATES, BY RACE/ETHNICITY: 2006-2007 90 80% 80

Average 74%

70 60%

62%

In 2007, six out of ten Hispanic students graduated from high school on time compared with eight out of ten White students completing grades 9 through 12 in four years.

50 40 30 20 10 0 White

Black

Hispanic

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 1986-87 through 2006-07;

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER PREPAREDNESS FIGURE 4.3. PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS TAKING AP EXAMS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2010

Black

Asian

10%

Hispanic

American Indian

In 2010, fewer than two out of ten Hispanic students took an Advanced Placement exam compared with six out of ten White students.

16%

White

60%

Source: The College Board, Total Group Profile Report, 2009 www.collegeboard.com

FIGURE 4.4 AVERAGE SAT SCORES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2010

447 462 454

Other Hispanic, LaƟno or LaƟn American

443 452 454

Puerto Rican

448 467 454

Mexican or Mexican American

516 536 528

White

WriƟng

MathemaƟcs

CriƟĐĂů Reading

Source: The College Board, Total Group Profile Report, 2010 www.collegeboard.com

In 2010, average SAT scores for students of Hispanic origins were below scores for White students in critical reading, mathematics, and writing.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 4.5 ACT COMPOSITE SCORE OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2010

In 2010, average ACT scores for Hispanic students were at least two points below students nationally and at least three points below scores for White students in English, mathematics and reading.

English

MathemaƟcs Hispanic

Reading

White

NaƟonal Average

Source: ACT Profile Report—National: Graduating Class 2010, www.act.org

FIGURE 4.6 PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC AND WHITE STUDENTS MEETING ACT COLLEGE READINESS BENCHMARKS, 2010

52% MathemaƟcs (22 benchmark)

In 2010, less than 50 percent of Hispanic students met the ACT college readiness benchmarks in reading mathematics, and English.

27%

77% English (18 benchmark) 46%

62% Reading (21 Benchmark) 34% 0

20 White

100

Hispanic

Source: ACT Profile Report—National: Graduating Class 2010, www.act.org

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 5: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS

•

In 2004, Hispanic high school seniors were less likely to participate in academic clubs, music, or any sport than other student groups.

•

In 2007, about one in ten Hispanic students was retained in a grade during their school career.

•

In 2006, Hispanic students were more likely than White students to be suspended from public elementary and secondary schools.

•

In 2008, 18 percent of Hispanic students ages 16 and older were employed compared with 29 percent of White students.

•

In 2008, 86 percent of the Hispanic students who were employed worked at least ten hours per week and 54 percent worked more than 20 hours per week.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 5.1. PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SCHOOL-SPONSORED EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2004

47%

46%

45% 41%

35%

30 23%

35%

In 2004, Hispanic high school seniors were less likely to participate in academic clubs, music, or any sport than other student groups.

24%

22%

19%

18%

17%

20% 16%

14%

10 0 White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/PaciĮc Islander

American Indian/Alaska NaƟve

Race/ethnicity Academic Clubs

Any Sport

Music

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002/2004

FIGURE 5.2. PERCENTAGE OF KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 8 STUDENTS RETAINED IN A GRADE DURING THEIR SCHOOL CAREER, 2007

In 2007, about one in ten Hispanic students were retained in a grade during their school career.

50 40 30

23% 16%

20 10% 10

11%

11% Average 10%

0 Public

Private

School Type

White

Black

Hispanic

Race/Ethnicity

Other

Poor

Near-poor Non-poor Poverty Status

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002/2004

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 5: SCHOOL EXPERIENCE FIGURE 5.3. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS SUSPENDED FROM PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2006

In 2006, Hispanic students were more likely than White students to be suspended from public elementary and secondary schools.

50 40 30 20

Average 7%

15%

0 White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/PaciĮc Islander

American Indian/ Alaska NaƟve

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2006

FIGURE 5.4. PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AGES 16 YEARS AND OLDER WHO WERE EMPLOYED, 2008

Hispanic

In 2008, 18 percent of Hispanic students ages 16 and older were employed compared with 29 percent of White students.

18%

Black

14%

White

29%

Total

24%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 5.5. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS EMPLOYED, BY HOURS WORKED PER WEEK AND RACE/ETHNICITY, 2008

Hispanic

14%

Black

13%

White

22%

Total

20%

54%

32%

50%

37%

35%

43%

39%

41%

20% Less than 10 hours

In 2008, 86 percent of the Hispanic students who were employed worked at least ten hours per week and 54 percent worked more than 20 hours per week.

40% 10-20 hours

60%

80%

100%

More than 20 hours

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCES

HIGHLIGHTS

•

In the first quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate of the Hispanic population ages 20 and over was 12 percent compared with eight percent of the White population.

•

In 2008, Hispanic students were more likely to receive a Bachelor’s degree in business and social sciences than any other fields of study.

•

In 2009, approximately 13 percent of Hispanic students ages 18 and over had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with 33 percent of White students.

•

In 2008, the Hispanic population was more likely to have an occupation in the service, sales and office, and management fields than other fields.

•

In 2008, the Hispanic population ages 18 and over accounted for 12 percent of the college population and 16 percent of the prison population.

•

In 2008, Hispanic males were more than twice as likely to be imprisoned as White males.

•

In 2008, Hispanic males accounted for 21 percent of the male prison population ages 18-19 compared with 27 percent of White males.

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 6.1. COLLEGE GRADUATION RATES FOR FIRST-TIME POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS IN FULLTIME DEGREE SEEKING FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS, 2001

60%

56%

57% 53% 42%

48%

CompleƟng Within 5 years (2006)

CompleƟng Withing 6 Years (2007)

50 40

39% 36% 26%

20 10 0 CompleƟng Within 4 Years (2005) White

Hispanic

NaƟonal Average

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008

FIGURE 6.2. UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR WHITE AND HISPANIC MALES AND FEMALES AGES 20 AND OVER, FIRST QUARTER 2011

20%

15% 12% 10%

10% 8%

12%

11%

In the first quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate of the Hispanic population ages 20 and over was 12 percent compared with eight percent of the White population.

9% 7%

0% Average

White Total

Male

Hispanic Female

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCES FIGURE 6.3. BACHELOR’S DEGREES CONFERRED ON HISPANIC STUDENTS BY MOST POPULAR FIELD OF STUDY, 2008 Visual and Performing Arts

Social Sciences and History

12%

Psychology

In 2008, Hispanic students were more likely to receive a Bachelor’s degree in business and social sciences than any other fields of study.

Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences

English Language and Literatureͬ>ĞƩĞƌƐ

Engineering and Engineering Technologies

EducaƟon

CommunŝĐĂƟon and CommunŝĐĂƟons Technologies

Business

21%

Biological and Biomedical Sciences

4% 0

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 6.4. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 2009

3% Doctorate or First Professional Degree 1%

11%

Master's Degree

In 2009, approximately 13 percent of Hispanic students ages 18 and over had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher compared with 33 percent of White students.

19% Bachelor's Degree 9%

9% Associates Degree 6%

17% Some College 13%

31% High School CompleƟon 30%

13% Less than High School 38% 0

10 White

Hispanic

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-2008

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCES FIGURE 6.5. INCOME BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF HISPANIC AND WHITE POPULATION AGES 18 AND OVER, 2009

$72,125 Master's Degree $74,122

$59,866 Bachelor's Degree $48,081

$40,317 Associates Degree $36,830

$33,298 Some College $29,610

$32,126 High School Graduate, Including GED $27,020

$21,590 Not a High School Graduate $21,310

White

Hispanic

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 1967 through 2009

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 6.6. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC POPULATION AGES 18 AND OVER IN THE LABOR FORCE BY OCCUPATION, 2008 TransportaƟon and Material Moving OccupaƟons

ProduĐƟon OccupaƟons

ProduĐƟon, TransportaƟon and Material Moving OccupaƟon InstallaƟon, Maintenance and Repair OccupaƟons

17% 4%

ConstruĐƟon and ExtraĐƟon OccupaƟons Farming, Fishing and Forestry OccupaƟons

11% 2%

Natural Resources, ConstruĐƟon and Maintenance OccupaƟons

16%

Oĸce and AdministraƟve Support OccupaƟons Sales and Related OccupaƟons

In 2008, the Hispanic population was more likely to have an occupation in the service, sales and office, and management fields.

12% 10%

Sales and Oĸce OccupaƟons

21%

Service OccupaƟons

26%

Professional and Related OccupaƟons Management, Business and Financial OperaƟons Management, Professional and Related OccupaƟons

11% 8% 19%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 1967 through 2009

The Council of the Great City Schools

FACTOR 6: POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCES FIGURE 6.7. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HISPANIC AND WHITE POPULATION AGES 18 AND OVER IN COLLEGE AND PRISON POPULATION, 2008

70%

63%

In 2008, the Hispanic population ages 18 and over accounted for 12 percent of the college population and 16 percent of the prison population.

60% 50%

42%

40% 30% 20%

16%

12%

10% 0% College PopulaƟon

Prison PopulaƟon

White

Hispanic

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison inmates at Midyear, Current Population Survey 2008

FIGURE 6.8. IMPRISONMENT RATE PER 100,000 PERSONS IN THE U.S. RESIDENT POPULATION OF HISPANIC AND WHITE PERSONS AGES 18 AND OVER, 2008

1400 1,193

1200

In 2008, Hispanic males were more than twice as likely to be imprisoned as White males.

1000 800 600

487

400 200

0 Male

Female White

Hispanic

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison inmates at Midyear, Current Population Survey 2008

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

FIGURE 6.9. PERCENTAGE OF HISPANIC AND WHITE MALE PRISONERS UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION BY AGE, 2008

23%

30-34

30% 25%

25-29

In 2009, Hispanic males accounted for 21 percent of the male prison population ages 18-19 compared with 27 percent of White males.

27% 24%

20-24

28% 21%

18-19

27% 0%

10%

15%

Hispanic Males

20%

25%

30%

35%

White Males

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison inmates at Midyear, Current Population Survey 2008

The Council of the Great City Schools

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

APPENDIX

The Council of the Great City Schools

School District

Nation Albuquerque Public Schools Anchorage School District Atlanta Public Schools Austin ISD Baltimore City Public Schools Birmingham City Boston Public Schools Broward County Public Schools Buffalo City School District Caddo Parish School District Charleston County School District Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Cincinnati Public Schools Chicago Public Schools Clark County School District Cleveland Metropolitan School District Columbus City Schools Dallas ISD Dayton Public Schools Denver Public Schools Des Moines Independent Community School District Detroit Public Schools District Of Columbia Public Schools Duval County Public Schools East Baton Rouge Parish Fort Worth ISD Fresno Unified School District Guilford County Schools Hillsborough County School District Houston ISD Indianapolis Public Schools Jackson Public Schools Jefferson County Public Schools Kansas City School District Little Rock School District Long Beach Unified Los Angeles Unified Memphis City School District Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Miami-Dade County Public Schools

TOTAL # of Students

Black

White

Hispanic

Asian

Amer. Indian/Al askan

ELL

FRPL

49708595 95026 48837 49032 83319 82266 27438 55923 256351 34538 42610 42303 134060 35344 421430 312761 49148 53536 157332 15566 74176 30810

17% 4% 6% 83% 12% 88% 97% 38% 38% 57% 64% 50% 46% 69% 47% 14% 70% 61% 28% 69% 17% 19%

54% 31% 49% 10% 26% 8% 1% 13% 29% 24% 33% 42% 34% 24% 9% 35% 15% 28% 5% 24% 23% 58%

22% 57% 10% 5% 59% 3% 2% 38% 26% 15% 1% 5% 16% 2% 41% 40% 12% 6% 67% 3% 56% 17%

5% 2% 9% 1% 3% 1% 0% 9% 3% 3% 1% 2% 5% 1% 4% 9% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3% 5%

1% 5% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

9% 15% 9% 3% 26% 2% 2% 11% 10% 8% 1% 5% 14% 3% 17% 19% 6% 10% 33% 2% 27% 14%

44% 52% 33% 76% 63% 73% 82% 74% 48% 82% 63% 50% 46% 57% 73% 40% 100% 70% 86% 72% 66% 56%

13% 14% 14% 9% 9% 17% 97% 21% 12% 25% 11% 11% 11% 21% 12% 10% 20% 16% 7% 20% 12% 18%

94497 44331 122606 43869 79285 76617 71525 192007 200225 34050 30587 98774 19788 26146 87311 684143 111954 74312 345525

88% 77% 44% 83% 25% 11% 46% 22% 28% 57% 98% 36% 65% 68% 17% 11% 86% 48% 26%

3% 8% 40% 12% 13% 14% 39% 41% 8% 23% 2% 52% 9% 22% 16% 9% 7% 33% 9%

8% 12% 7% 3% 60% 60% 9% 28% 61% 15% 1% 5% 24% 8% 52% 73% 6% 15% 63%

1% 2% 4% 3% 2% 14% 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 2% 2% 12% 6% 1% 3% 1%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7% 10% 3% 3% 28% 26% 9% 11% 29% 11% 0% 5% 12% 6% 24% 32% 5% 10% 15%

77% 69% 46% 82% 72% 79% 46% 52% 63% 83% 86% 56% 71% 65% 68% 75% 69% 65% 63%

16% 19% 14% 11% 8% 10% 15% 15% 8% 20% 11% 14% 11% 10% 9% 12% 12% 11% 11%

TODAY’S PROMISE, TOMORROW’S FUTURE- FALL 2011

School District

Milwaukee Public Schools Minneapolis Public School Dist. New Orleans Parish New York Public Schools Newark Public Schools Norfolk City Public Schools Oakland Unified School District Oklahoma City Public Schools Omaha Public Schools Orange County Public Schools Palm Beach County Public Schools Philadelphia City Schools Pittsburgh Public Schools Portland Public Schools Providence Public Schools Richmond City Public Schools Rochester City School District Sacramento City Unified San Diego Unified San Francisco Unified Seattle Public Schools St. Louis City Public Schools St. Paul Public School District Toledo Public Schools Wichita Public Schools CGCS As % Of Nation Total Average

TOTAL # of Students

85381 34448 10109 1038741 39991 34431 46516 41089 48014 172257 170757 159867 27945 43064 23450 23177 32973 47784 131890 55183 45968 27421 38255 26516 47260 14%

Black

57% 38% 76% 28% 57% 63% 35% 31% 31% 27% 29% 61% 57% 15% 22% 86% 65% 21% 13% 12% 21% 81% 30% 46% 20% 58% 35%

White

15% 30% 15% 13% 8% 23% 6% 22% 40% 34% 39% 13% 35% 55% 12% 8% 11% 21% 25% 11% 43% 14% 25% 41% 38% 46% 20%

Hispanic

23% 18% 3% 37% 34% 4% 37% 40% 25% 31% 24% 17% 1% 13% 60% 5% 22% 33% 44% 23% 12% 3% 14% 8% 24% 24% 37%

Asian

5% 9% 6% 14% 1% 2% 14% 3% 2% 4% 3% 6% 2% 11% 6% 1% 2% 21% 16% 47% 22% 2% 30% 1% 5% 10% 7%

Amer. Indian/Al askan

1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3% 12% 1%

ELL

9% 22% 5% 13% 8% 2% 31% 13% 13% 20% 10% 8% 1% 12% 0% 3% 9% 26% 29% 31% 12% 5% 40% 2% 14% 26% 16%

FRPL

77% 63% 69% 67% 82% 58% 68% 85% 62% 49% 44% 73% 60% 44% 87% 66% 82% 65% 63% 56% 39% 64% 70% 63% 70% 21% 65%

The Council of the Great City Schools

18% 18% 7% 16% 15% 14% 10% 13% 16% 14% 16% 16% 23% 16% 20% 20% 20% 11% 12% 11% 13% 18% 18% 18% 14% 15% 15%

THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 702 Washington, DC 20004 202-393-2427 202-393-2400 (fax) www.cgcs.org