patterns of hispanic student achievement in the early ... · pdf filethis report describes...

Patterns of Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores in the Early Elementary Grades

A Report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics

Prepared by

Sean F. Reardon Stanford University

Claudia Galindo

Johns Hopkins University

October, 2006 This report was funded by the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, which is funded in turn by a grant from the Foundation for Child Development and additional support from the A.L. Mailman Family Foundation, the Marguerite Casey Foundation, the Peppercorn Foundation, and the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. Additional research support was provided to the first author by the Carnegie Scholars Program of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and to the second author by the AERA Research Grants Program. We thank Eugene García, L. Scott Miller, and members of the Task Force’s Technical Advisory Committee for very helpful feedback and suggestions, and we thank Joe Robinson and Tara Beteille for exceedingly good research assistance. All errors remain our own.

http://www.mailman.org/

http://www.caseygrants.org/

http://www.caseygrants.org/

http://www.wrfoundation.org/


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Given the rapid growth of the U.S. Hispanic school-age population (currently comprising one-fifth of the U.S. elementary school population), the educational achievement patterns of Hispanic students hold considerable importance. Prior research has demonstrated that the educational success of Hispanic students lags behind that of native-born non-Hispanic White students, but we still have relatively little detailed evidence regarding the patterns and trends in Hispanic-White achievement disparities.

This report describes patterns of math and English reading skills of Hispanic students in elementary school in the period from 1998-2004. The report relies on data from a nationally-representative longitudinal study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)—the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). The ECLS-K contains scores on standardized math and English reading tests administered from kindergarten through fifth grade to a nationally-representative sample of more than 21,000 children who were enrolled in kindergarten in the fall of 1998, 4,000 of whom were of Hispanic origin. This large sample enables us to examine detailed achievement patterns of Hispanic students, disaggregated by national/regional origin, immigrant generation, socioeconomic status, home language use, and English proficiency as children progress through school.

Among the most significant findings described in this report are the following:

1. Hispanic students enter kindergarten with average math and English literacy skills significantly lower than those of native-born, non-Hispanic White students. In the fall of their kindergarten year, Hispanic students’ average math scores are three-quarters of a standard deviation below the average scores of non-Hispanic White students. Among the 70% of Hispanic students who are proficient in oral English in the fall of kindergarten (and whose English reading skills were therefore assessed at that time), average reading scores are one-half a standard deviation below those of White students. These gaps are equal in magnitude to the Black-White test score gaps measured at the same time.

2. Hispanic-White test score gaps narrow by roughly one-third from the start of

kindergarten to the end of first grade, but remain relatively stable from first through fifth grade. Unlike the Black-White test score gaps measured in ECLS-K, which widen steadily from kindergarten through fifth grade, the Hispanic-White achievement gaps narrow during kindergarten and first grade (form 0.77 to 0.56 standard deviations in math and from 0.52 to 0.29 standard deviations in reading). By fifth grade, however, the math gap is still one-half a standard deviation, and the reading gap has widened slightly to three-eighths of standard deviation. These trends differ substantially from those that of the Black-White achievement gap, which widens steadily during elementary school, suggesting that the processes that influence

1

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy

Hispanic-White achievement gaps differ in important ways from those shaping Black-White achievement gaps.

3. There is considerable variation in average math and reading skills among Hispanic

population subgroups. Students of Mexican and Central American origins, particularly students whose parents are immigrants to the U.S., enter school with lower math and reading scores than children of Cuban, South American, and other national origins and children of U.S.-born Hispanic parents (third-plus generation students). First- and second-generation Mexican-origin students and Central American students start kindergarten with math scores more than one standard deviation below those of White students, for example. These gaps narrow over time, particularly during the first two years, of school, but remain large into fifth grade (especially for students of Mexican origin, for whom the gaps remain roughly three-quarters of a standard deviation in size).

4. Hispanic students’ family socioeconomic status is an important predictor of

subsequent math and reading achievement; socioeconomic factors explain most of the Hispanic-White achievement gaps by fifth grade. Hispanic students in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status score over a full standard deviation below those in the highest quintile, a gap that remains steady throughout the K-5 period. The gaps between Hispanic students and non-Hispanic White students of similar socioeconomic status are one-quarter to one-half a standard deviation at the start of kindergarten, and much smaller—or non-existent—by fifth grade.

5. Hispanic students’ English ability at the start of kindergarten is an important

predictor of their subsequent math and reading skill trajectory. Hispanic students from non-English speaking homes, as well as those students who are not proficient in spoken English at the start of kindergarten, have considerably lower average math and reading scores at the start of kindergarten than English-proficient Hispanic students and students from homes where English is spoken. However, students from non-English speaking homes and students who are not proficient in spoken English at the start of kindergarten also exhibit much steeper average gains in both math and reading achievement during kindergarten and first grade than do English-proficient Hispanic students and students from homes where English is spoken.

6. Hispanic students who are not proficient in English in the fall of kindergarten make

very large average gains in both math and reading skills from kindergarten to fifth grade. Nonetheless, these students, on average, perform very far below non-Hispanic Whites through fifth grade. The 30% of Hispanic students who are not proficient in English at the start of kindergarten (primarily first- and second-generation Mexican and Central American students in the ECLS-K sample) enter kindergarten with average math scores 1.4 standard deviations below those of non-Hispanic White students (and 0.9 standard deviations below those of English-proficient Hispanics), a gap that narrows by half a standard deviation, but is still quite large (0.9 standard deviations), by the spring of fifth grade. In reading, Hispanic students who were not proficient in English in kindergarten are 1.1 standard deviations below non-Hispanic White students by fifth grade. The magnitude of the fifth grade gaps for the non-English proficient Hispanic students is

2


comparable to the Black-White gap measured in ECLS-K in fifth grade. Some caution is warranted in interpreting the large fifth-grade gaps between Hispanic students who were not proficient in English in kindergarten and White students, however: the non-English-proficient Hispanic students are, on average, from families with very low socioeconomic status, and have reading scores only modestly lower than English-proficient students of similarly low socioeconomic status.

One of the most consistent patterns in the ECLS-K data reported here is the finding

that Hispanic-White test score gaps narrow sharply in the first two years of schooling, particularly for subgroups with lower levels of English proficiency at the start of school—recent immigrants, those from non-English speaking homes, and those who did not pass the ECLS-K oral English screening assessment. The pattern of findings in the report strongly suggests that at least part of the substantial gains made by Hispanic students in the early grades is due to processes of increased English acquisition (both oral and written)—which likely both improves test performance on tests given in English (such as the reading test), and increases the opportunity for students to learn in schools where at least some, if not all, of the instruction is in English. In addition, some of the rapid progress of Hispanic students in the first two years of schooling may also be due to the use of instructional practices that are particularly effective with English language learners in the first years of schooling.

In this report, however, we do not attempt to determine the extent to which either, or both, of these factors accounts for the patterns of achievement gains evident among Hispanic kindergarteners and first-graders (in part because the ECLS-K data are not well-suited to such an analysis). Future research should certainly explore these two potential explanations, since they each imply different policies and practices for further reducing Hispanic-White achievement disparities.

3



INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of the United States Hispanic population is perhaps the most significant current demographic trend in the U.S. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. Hispanic population grew by 58%, to a total of 35 million. Hispanics accounted for 12.5% of the total U.S population in 2000, and more than half of the foreign-born population in 2002. By 2025, Hispanics will account for one-quarter of the U.S. population, while Whites and Blacks will account for 52% and 13% respectively (Guzman & McConnell, 2002; Martin & Midgley, 1999, 2003; Ramirez, 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

Although the growth of the total Hispanic population has been very rapid, the growth of the Hispanic school-age population has been even more dramatic. In the past 20 years, the Hispanic school-age population has grown by 150%, and Hispanics now account for one-sixth of the school-age population, and over one-fifth of the public elementary school enrollments (Inter-University Program for Latino Research, 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2002a). Half of the Hispanic school-age population consists of foreign-born students (Larsen, 2004).

The educational outcomes of Hispanic students in U.S. schools lag, on average, well behind those of non-Hispanic Whites and Asians, and in some cases, behind those of non-Hispanic Black students as well (Fry, 2003; Hirschman, 2001; Kao & Thompson, 2003; Lee & Burkham, 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003; Reardon, 2003; Rumberger & Arellano, 2004; Van Hook & Balistreri, 2002). For example, Hispanic children have lower levels of school readiness at the start of kindergarten than White and Black children (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Reardon, 2003; Rumberger & Arellano, 2004; Zill, Collins, West, & Hausken, 1995). High school completion rates for Hispanic students are substantially lower than either White or Black students (Kaufman, Alt, & Chapman, 2001; Padron, Waxman, & Rivera, 2002). Likewise, Hispanic students are less likely than White students to attend and graduate from college (Van Hook & Balistreri, 2002), and more likely to be enrolled in two-year colleges than four-year colleges (Pew Hispanic Center, 2004).

Diversity of the Hispanic Population

The Hispanic population in the U.S. is not only large, but also diverse—in their family immigration histories (including immigrant generation, national and regional origins, length of time in the U.S., etc), socioeconomic characteristics, and their linguistic and cultural characteristics. Mexicans are by far the most predominant Hispanic group in the U.S., representing 59% of the Hispanic population. Next in size are Puerto Ricans (10%), Central Americans (including Dominicans) (7%), Cubans (5%), and South Americans (4%) (Guzman, 2001; Larsen, 2004). Two-thirds of U.S. Hispanics are first- or second-generation immigrants, meaning they have foreign-born parents, while one-third have parents born in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

While the Hispanic population is, in general, economically disadvantaged in

4


comparison to the non-Hispanic U.S. population, there is considerable heterogeneity among and within these Hispanic subgroups. Overall, Hispanic median family income in 2000 was $33,000, only 69% of White median family income (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Mills, 2004). Over one-fifth (22%) of U.S. Hispanics live below the poverty line, compared to only 8% of non-Hispanic Whites (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Poverty levels are even higher among first-generation Hispanic immigrants and their children, however: 27% of Hispanic children (and 34% of Hispanic immigrant children) lived below the poverty line in 2000, compared to 9% and 32% for White and Black children (Lichter, Qian, & Crowley, 2005). Moreover, Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be poor than immigrants from Asia, Europe or Africa (Tienda, 2002). Economic conditions vary substantially across Hispanic groups as well. Poverty rates among Dominicans (28%), Mexicans (25%), and Puerto Ricans (24%) are particularly high, but are much lower for Cubans (15%) and South Americans (15%) (Larsen, 2004; Ramirez, 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).

The diversity of the Hispanic population is also evident in the varying levels of English ability among Hispanic subgroups. Hispanic children are over-represented among students with English difficulties, in bilingual education classes, and Limited English Proficiency programs. Almost one-third of Hispanic students are learning English as a second language, accounting for 75% of the Limited English proficient (LEP) students in schools. This proportion is highest in states with greater concentration of Hispanics. In California, for instance, 40% of kindergarten and first-grade students are English language learners (Gándara, 1999). Evidence Regarding H spanic Students’ Achievement Patterns i

We have little systematic knowledge regarding achievement patterns among Hispanic students. The long history of slavery’s legacy and the civil rights movement have focused the attention of educators and scholars on providing evidence of the patterns and trends of Black and White student achievement (see, for example, Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Fryer & Levitt, 2005; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Neal, 2005). We have little in the way of comparable evidence regarding overall Hispanic achievement patterns and trends, and even less evidence regarding variations in achievement patterns among Hispanic subgroups.

In part, this is due to data limitations—with the exception of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), nationally representative educational data sets have not until recently included sufficiently large Hispanic samples to provide reliable population estimates of Hispanic students’ achievement patterns, nor to break these patterns down by Hispanic subgroups. Moreover, even those datasets that do have sizeable Hispanic samples do not include data on the early elementary grades: the two largest national education studies conducted by NCES in the 1980s and 1990s—the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) and the High School and Beyond Study (HS&B)—began with cohorts of 8th and 10th grade students; NAEP provides nationally representative estimates of Hispanic achievement levels of 4th, 8th, and 12th-graders, but does not provide information on early school patterns. Finally, most of the nationally representative data sets are relatively old—the HS&B cohorts were born in the mid-1960’s; the NELS cohort was born in roughly 1974.

5


AIMS OF THIS REPORT

Given the lack of existing evidence describing national patterns of Hispanic students’ achievement in the elementary grades, this report aims to provide detailed descriptive data on national patterns of math and reading achievement among Hispanic students, with particular attention to variation in these patterns among Hispanic subgroups. We use kindergarten through fifth grade test score data from a nationally-representative sample of students who were in kindergarten the fall of 1998. Specifically, we report math and reading achievement patterns in kindergarten through fifth grade for Hispanics, native White non-Hispanics, native Black non-Hispanics, and Asians. We then report these achievement patterns for a variety of Hispanic subgroups, including subgroups defined by national/regional origin, immigrant generational status, socioeconomic status, home language use, and English proficiency. Throughout the report, our aim is to provide detailed descriptive analyses of the patterns of Hispanic students’ achievement, rather than to attempt to explain the primary causes of these patterns. DATA AND METHODS Data The data for this study come from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K), sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The ECLS-K contains data on a nationally-representative sample of roughly 21,400 students from the kindergarten class of 1998-99 (thus, representing a cohort born in roughly 1992-93). Students in the sample were assessed in reading, mathematics, and general knowledge/science skills at six time points during the years 1998-2004 (fall 1998, spring 1999, fall 1999, spring 2000, spring 2002, and spring 2004). In addition to these cognitive developmental measures, the ECLS-K data include information gathered from parents, teachers, and school administrators regarding family, school, community, and student characteristics. In this report, we focus primarily on the reading and mathematics cognitive assessments in order to describe patterns and trends in cognitive development among Hispanic subgroups. Definitions Throughout this report, we use the following definitions: Race/Ethnicity. Students are classified at each round of the ECLS-K data collection as White, not Hispanic; Black, not Hispanic; Hispanic, any race; Asian, and other race.1 The full sample breakdown by race/ethnicity is shown in Table 1. Immigrant Generation. ECLS-K students are defined as first, second, or third-plus generation based on a set of questions in the kindergarten, first-grade, and third-grade parent 1 A small number of students have contradictory information across waves; in these cases we prioritize the Hispanic classification, so students classified as Hispanic at any wave are coded as Hispanic for this report. In addition, we reclassify as Hispanic a small number of students classified as White or Black but who were born (or whose parents were born) in Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, or in any Spanish speaking country in South America or Central America. According to this coding, the full ECLS-K sample includes 4,006 Hispanic students.

6


survey that indicate where they and their parents2 were born. Students born outside of the U.S. whose responding parent was born outside of the U.S. are classified as first-generation students (island-born Puerto-Rican students are also defined as first-generation students). Students born in the U.S. and whose responding parent was born outside of the U.S. are classified as second-generation students. Finally, students born to a U.S.-born parent (regardless of where the student was born) are classified as third-plus generation students. Although 26% of Hispanic students in the sample are missing complete information on immigrant generation, in this report we tabulate achievement levels by immigrant generation only among those identified as in the Mexican Hispanic subgroup, among whom 98% have complete immigrant generation information. Hispanics’ National/Regional Origin. We use information on the student and parents’ countries of birth not only to categorize students by immigrant generation, but also to identify the country or region of national origin for each Hispanic student.3 Based on parent responses to these questions, we classify students as having national origins in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, South America, Central America,4 or elsewhere. “Other Hispanic” origin includes a small and heterogeneous group of students with ancestries in Spain, Brazil, Guyana, or Dominica, for example. It also includes students for whom country of birth information is missing and whose parents defined them as members of an “other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group” in the question about Hispanic group membership.

Roughly a third of the Hispanic students in the sample are missing information on national origin. Most of these cases occur because a) the child was born in the U.S. and parent country of birth and Hispanic subgroup information is missing from the first- and third-grade parent surveys (mostly because the student left the sample prior to first grade); or b) both the child and parent were born in the U.S. and the Hispanic subgroup information is 2 Parents were not asked their country of birth in the kindergarten parent survey. In the first-grade parent survey, only the parent responding to the survey (usually the mother) was asked. In the third-grade parent survey, the respondent was asked to report country of birth for both parents. For students who left the ECLS-K sample prior to third grade (roughly 25% of the total sample), then, we lack information on the country of birth for one or both parents. If information is available for neither parent, we classify students as ‘second/third-generation’ if the student was born in the U.S., and first generation if born outside the U.S. If information is available for only one parent, we use that as the parents’ place of birth (realizing that we cannot be sure both parents were born in the same place). If information is available for both parents’ country of birth, we use the mother’s place of birth to classify students’ immigrant generation. Finally, if the student’s country of birth is not reported, but the parent(s) were foreign-born, we classify the student as first-generation.

Roughly 23% of the total ECLS-K sample (roughly 26% of Hispanic students) cannot be unambiguously categorized as first, second, or third-plus generation. Most of this missing data (17% of the total sample) is a result of the fact that the kindergarten parent survey did not ask about the parent’s country of birth (it was asked in the first- and third-grade surveys), so we cannot distinguish second- from third-plus generation students among those who left the sample prior to the spring of first grade (about a fifth of the total sample). See Table 1 for more detail. 3 In addition to being asked where they and the student were born, parents were asked in the first grade survey whether the student was a member of a Hispanic group, and if so, “which Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group best describes [the child’s] origin?” Response options were: a) Mexican, Mexican-American or Chicano; b) Puerto Rican; c) Cuban; and d) other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group. In order to categorize Hispanic students by their national origins, we first use information on the student’s, mother’s, and father’s country of birth (in that order), and then, if these are unavailable, we use the parent response to the Hispanic group membership question 4 Only students with origins in Spanish-speaking countries are categorized as South American (Brazil, French Guiana, Guyana and Suriname are excluded) or Central American (Belize is excluded). The Dominican Republic is categorized for our purposes here in the Central American category.

7


missing (because birthplace questions were asked only asked in the first-grade survey). However, we focus our analysis on the subsample of Hispanic students who were assessed through fifth grade, almost all of whom have non-missing data on immigrant generation and national/regional origin. Socioeconomic Status. For the ECLS-K, a continuous measure of socioeconomic status was created based on a composite of the student’s mother’s and father’s educational attainment, mother’s and father’s occupation, and family income (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002b). The measure was constructed for kindergarten, first, and third grade. In this report, we use the average of the kindergarten and first grade composite measures, divided into quintiles. Language Used at Home. Although it would be informative to have some measure of Hispanic students’ oral and written proficiency in both Spanish and English, ECLS-K does not contain ideal measures of oralcy and literacy. Students from non-English-speaking homes were given the English Oral Language Development Scale (OLDS) assessment to determine whether they could be administered the reading and math assessments in English, but because not all students were given the OLDS, we cannot use it to categorize students’ English fluency unless we make some assumptions about the English skills of the students not administered the OLDS. In addition, students who did not meet the proficiency criterion of the English OLDS were also administered the Spanish OLDS assessment, but again, only a subset of the Hispanic sample was given the test, so it is not useful for categorizing students by Spanish fluency. Instead, we use here a measure of the language(s) spoken by the student and his or her parent(s) in their home. Parents were asked what language each of the mother and father speak to the child, and what language the child speaks to each of the mother and father. Possible responses for each question were 1) only English, 2) primarily English, 3) primarily Spanish, and 4) only Spanish. We averaged the parent responses to these four questions (coded 1-4; alpha reliability=0.96) and then categorized the resulting continuous variable into the same four categories by rounding it to the nearest whole number. See Table 4 for descriptive statistics. Achievement Measures

We report patterns and trends in achievement test scores derived from the ECLS-K direct cognitive assessments in math and reading. The ECLS-K direct assessments are individually-administered, oral, untimed, adaptive tests of math and reading skills. The content area of the tests is based on the NAEP 4th grade content areas, adapted to be age appropriate at each assessment. The assessments were administered by trained ECLS-K assessors, and were scored using an IRT model. Details of the assessments are provided in the ECLS-K psychometric reports (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005; Pollack et al., 2005; Rock & Pollack, 2002). We report two types of achievement measures in this report. First we report test scores using a continuous test score metric, the t-score metric reported by ECLS-K. This metric is useful for describing the gaps between population subgroups in terms of standard deviation units. The disadvantage of this metric is that it does not make clear how test score differences correspond to interpretable differences in specific math and reading skills. In order to make the test score differences more concretely interpretable, we report detailed tables in Appendix C of proportions of subgroups proficient at a range of math and reading skills using the estimated proficiency probabilities reported by ECLS-K. These are derived

8


from the same direct math and reading assessments, but are based on IRT estimates of the probability that each student is proficient at a variety of ordered math and reading skills. Details of the construction of these proficiency levels are provided in the ECLS-K psychometric reports (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005; Pollack et al., 2005; Rock & Pollack, 2002). Tables C1 and C2 describe the skills corresponding to each of the proficiency levels in math and reading. Language o the Math and Reading Assessments f

Students were only administered the ECLS-K math assessment if they were proficient in oral English or oral Spanish, and were only administered the ECLS-K reading assessment if they were proficient in oral English. This has implications for our ability to estimate trends in math and reading test scores. In the early waves of the ECLS-K data collection, many Hispanic students (29% of all Hispanic students; including 42% of Mexican-origin students; and 77% of first-generation Mexican-origin students) were not fluent enough in oral English to be assessed in reading (in English). As a result, the mean reading scores for Hispanic students at each wave will be based only on the subsample of students proficient in oral English at that wave, and so will be a biased estimate of the true mean reading score of all Hispanic students (since students not proficient in English certainly have lower average reading skills in English than students proficient in oral English). Moreover, because the proportion of English-proficient Hispanic students grows over time (to 80% by the spring of kindergarten, 90% by the spring of first grade, and 99% by the spring of third grade), trends in the mean reading scores of those Hispanic students with reading scores are further confounded by changes in the population of Hispanic students represented in the sample of students with test scores. There is no such confounding for math score trends (except for Asian students, 22% of whom were not proficient in English at wave 1 and for whom no home language version of the tests were available), since non-English proficient Hispanic students could take the math test in Spanish.

In order to avoid these confounding patterns, we focus in this report on estimating reading achievement trends only for the subpopulation of students who were proficient in spoken English at the start of kindergarten, though we later include some additional analyses to examine the differences between these students and those not proficient in oral English at the start of schooling. Thus, the Hispanic-White reading gaps reported here almost certainly understate the magnitude of the true Hispanic-White reading gaps, since they are based only on the 71% of Hispanic students proficient in English in kindergarten. We caution readers to keep this in mind throughout this report. Sample and Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 describes the distribution of the complete ECLS-K sample by race/ethnicity, Hispanic national/regional origin, and immigrant generational status. Of note for our purposes here is the large sample of Hispanic students. There are 4,006 Hispanic students in the sample, of whom roughly 2,600 can be categorized by national origin and generational status. Mexican-origin Hispanics are by far the largest group of Hispanics, and the only group for whom we have adequate sample sizes to disaggregate achievement patterns by immigrant generation.5

5 Note also that the absence of third-generation South and Central American-origin Hispanics in the sample is an artifact of the way national origin and immigrant generation data were collected. Students whose parent(s)

9


Table 1: ECLS-K Sample Sizes, by Race & Hispanic Country/Region of National Origin, and Immigrant Generation

Immigrant Generation Race / National Origin 1st 2nd 3rd+ 2nd/3rd Unknown TotalWhite, Not Hispanic 87 511 8,675 1,784 602 11,659Hispanic, any Race 279 1,574 1,106 679 368 4,006 Mexican Origin 174 991 518 22 10 1,715 Cuban Origin 11 58 25 2 1 97 Puerto Rican Origin 19 97 120 1 6 243 Central American Origin 27 234 0 0 9 270 South American Origin 29 115 0 0 3 147 Other Hispanic Origin 10 63 99 10 0 182 National Origin Unknown 9 16 344 644 339 1,352Black, Not Hispanic 30 149 1,921 746 359 3,205Asian 150 642 104 260 195 1,351Other Race 25 191 667 180 73 1,136Race/Ethnicity Unknown 0 8 7 4 33 52Total 571 3,075 12,480 3,653 1,262 21,409

In order to ensure that the trend data we report is not affected by attrition from the ECLS-K sample, we restrict our analyses of achievement gaps to a subsample of the ECLS-K students who were present in the ECLS-K sample at each wave of the study.6 In addition, we restrict the analyses of reading trends to students who have valid math and reading scores in wave 1 (fall of kindergarten). In the case of the math assessment, these restrictions do not substantially change our conclusions about the trends compared to an analysis that uses all available students at each wave.7 In the case of the reading assessment, however, the second restriction limits our analyses to students who were proficient in oral English in the fall of kindergarten (roughly 70% of all Hispanic students), so that the magnitude and trends in the gaps we report generalize only to Hispanic students proficient in spoken English in the fall of kindergarten. Later in this report we examine the differences between the achievement patterns of these students and Hispanic students who were not proficient in English in the fall of kindergarten. Table 2 reports the total number of students, by subgroup, used in the main math and reading gap analyses. We do not report gap estimates for subgroups smaller than 40 students.

reported being born in the U.S. were identified as third+ generation students. For these students, national origin was determined by the question regarding group membership (see above), for which South and Central American were not available responses (only Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Other were available options). Thus, third-generation students with origins in South or Central American would be coded as Other or Unknown national origin. 6 We include students not assessed in the fall of first grade, since only a 30% random subsample were assessed in spring of first grade. 7 In other words, sample attrition does not appear to be systematically related to achievement, once the appropriate ECLS-K weights are applied. However, for some small subgroups, attrition of a small number of non-representative students does appear to affect our gap estimates. We report the gap trends for a constant sample in order to avoid confounding the gap trends with attrition noise.

10


Table 2: ECLS-K Sample Sizes, by Race & Hispanic Country/Region of National Origin, and Immigrant Generation (Full & Final Analytic)

Sample Race / National Origin Total Math ReadingWhite, Not Hispanic, 3rd generation 8,675 5,119 5,115Hispanic, any Race 4,006 1,871 1,303 Mexican Origin 1,715 1,045 612 Mexican, 1st generation 174 77 14 Mexican, 2nd generation 991 662 308 Mexican, 3rd generation 518 295 284 Mexican, 2nd/3rd generation 22 7 5 Mexican, Unknown generation 10 4 1 Cuban Origin 97 58 47 Puerto Rican Origin 243 119 109 Central American Origin 270 174 100 South American Origin 147 87 73 Other Hispanic Origin 182 101 97 National Origin Unknown 1,352 287 265Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd generation 1,921 894 894Asian 1,351 489 489Other Race 1,136 538 538Race/Ethnicity Unknown 52 -- --Total 17,141 8,911 8,339 Methods

We report student achievement patterns for different subgroups in two ways in this report. First, we report average achievement levels for each subgroup in a standardized test metric. Because the IRT test scale used by ECLS-K is arbitrary (in the sense that one unit on the test metric has no directly interpretable meaning), we standardize it at each test wave. In this standardized metric, a student’s score is measured in pooled standard deviation units and a score of 0 corresponds to the average score for a non-immigrant (third-plus generation) non-Hispanic White student. The average score for any other group, then, can be interpreted as the population gap between that group and non-immigrant, non-Hispanic White students, expressed in terms of pooled standard deviations. A one-standard deviation gap between Hispanic and White students, for instance, would imply that the average Hispanic student has the same score as a White student at the 16th percentile of the White students’ score distribution. See Appendix A for details on the estimation of the standardized gaps.

Second—in Appendix C—we report estimates of the proportion of students meeting proficiency criteria for each of the nine reading proficiency levels and the nine math proficiency levels. These proportions allow us to interpret differences in math and reading skill groups at a given point in time in concrete terms more readily than we can using the standardized IRT scores, since the proficiency levels can be linked to specific skills. However, the standardized scores allow for easier interpretation of trends in the achievement disparities among groups. Because the trends are of primary interest in this report, we focus on the standardized achievement gap results in the body of the report. Appendix C includes detailed tables describing proficiency proportions, by subgroup.

11


In addition to reporting achievement patterns of Hispanic students disaggregated by national/regional origin and immigrant generation, we also report patterns disaggregated by socioeconomic status (SES) and home language for Hispanic students. Tables 3 and 4 report the sample SES and home language category distributions of students of each race/ethnic/immigrant subgroup group. Among Hispanics, Central American origin students and Mexican students—particularly first- and second-generation Mexican students—have the lowest average socioeconomic status. Roughly half of these students (and over three-quarters of first-generation Mexican origin students) come from families in the lowest SES quintile. Hispanic students of Cuban and South American origin have, on average, the highest SES among Hispanic subgroups, in contrast.

The patterns of home language use also show sharp differences among Hispanic subgroups. Most students of Mexican and Central American origins, particularly the most recent Mexican immigrants, come from families where Spanish is the predominant or only language spoken in the home. Puerto Rican students and students of Other national/regional origin, in contrast come primarily from homes where English is the predominant or only language spoken in the home.

Table 3: Proportion in Each Socioeconomic Quintile, By Race, Hispanic National Origin, and Immigrant Generation

SES Quintile

Race / National Origin / Generation 1 (low) 2 3 4 5 (high)White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 8.2 16.5 22.4 22.9 30.0Hispanic, any Race 35.8 24.5 17.7 13.4 8.6 Mexican Origin 42.6 26.2 14.6 10.3 6.2 Mexican, 1st generation 66.9 26.3 4.9 0.0 1.9 Mexican, 2nd generation 53.0 28.4 9.4 6.6 2.6 Mexican, 3rd generation 17.6 22.5 26.5 19.4 14.0 Mexican, 2nd/3rd generation 81.5 16.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 Mexican, Unknown generation 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cuban Origin 14.1 4.8 36.6 17.6 27.0 Puerto Rican Origin 17.5 24.4 27.5 21.7 8.8 Central American Origin 45.8 23.4 12.7 7.7 10.4 South American Origin 9.9 41.1 14.2 15.3 19.5 Other Hispanic Origin 35.7 15.2 25.0 13.4 10.8 National Origin Unknown 17.0 19.3 25.7 27.1 10.9Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 33.1 23.3 24.4 14.8 4.4Asian, Any Generation 18.5 12.9 16.5 17.7 34.4Other Race, Any Generation 18.0 21.6 29.3 14.1 17.0Total 18.3 19.3 21.9 19.2 21.4Note: percentages are weighted by ECLS-K longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and include only students in the longitudinal sample and with valid math scores in wave 1.

12


Table 4: Proportions by Home Language Use Categories, By Hispanic National Origin, and Immigrant Generation, Hispanics

Language Spoken in Home

National Origin / Generation English Only Predominantly

English Predominantly

Spanish Spanish Only Mexican Origin 24.0 19.2 20.7 36.0 Mexican, 1st generation 4.7 0.0 15.0 80.4 Mexican, 2nd generation 11.9 13.3 25.1 49.7 Mexican, 3rd generation 51.0 34.2 10.7 4.1 Mexican, 2nd/3rd generation 7.1 0.0 71.4 21.5 Mexican, Unknown generation 0.0 47.3 0.0 52.7 Cuban Origin 7.8 26.3 30.6 35.3 Puerto Rican Origin 38.5 26.4 20.6 14.5 Central American Origin 23.5 11.2 21.2 44.1 South American Origin 10.2 28.8 34.0 27.0 Other Hispanic Origin 59.7 18.4 8.9 13.0 National Origin Unknown 61.7 21.0 10.5 6.9 Total Hispanic, any Race 31.8 19.8 19.3 29.1 Note: percentages are weighted by ECLS-K longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and include only students in the longitudinal sample and with valid math scores in wave 1.

13


FINDINGS: PATTERNS OF HISPANIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

In this section, we report average math and reading score gaps in standard deviation units 1) by race/ethnic group; 2) for Hispanics, broken down by country/region of national origin; 3) for Mexican-origin students, broken down by immigrant generation; 4) for Hispanics, broken down by the extent to which oral English and Spanish are used in students’ homes; and 5) for Hispanics, broken down by socioeconomic quintile. In each case, we illustrate the patterns with figures of the type shown in Figure 1A and report the underlying estimated gaps and their standard errors in detailed tables in Appendix B. Appendix C contains tables that parallel the analyses presented here, but that use the ECLS-K math and reading proficiency levels rather than the test scores.

It is important to note that the figures describe the magnitude of the test score gaps over time, not the patterns of learning of each group. In general, all students learn math and reading skills throughout the kindergarten-fifth grade period. Even when test scores gaps are widening, this does not mean that the subgroup of interest is losing math or reading skills, but only that the difference between their average skills and those of the reference group (non-immigrant, non-Hispanic White students) is growing. In Figure 1A (and subsequent figures), the vertical axis indicates the size of the achievement gap (the difference in standard deviation units between the average score of students in a given subgroup and the average score of non-immigrant (third-plus generation), non-Hispanic White students). The solid horizontal line thus represents the achievement of the reference group of White students. For each comparison subgroup (e.g., Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other race students in this figure), the figure shows six estimates of the achievement gap, corresponding to the six waves of ECLS-K assessment in fall kindergarten (FK), spring kindergarten (SK), fall first grade (F1), spring first grade (S1), spring third grade (S3) and spring fifth grade (S5). For each estimate, the vertical error bars indicate the 95% confidence interval around the estimate (these are typically much larger in fall first grade than in other waves, since only a subsample of the ECLS-K sample was tested then).

Finally, for each group, the figure includes a fitted trend line, indicated by the thick solid line. These trends are fitted piecewise linear trend lines, with a change in slope at the end of first grade,8 so that they indicate the average linear trend in the achievement gap during kindergarten and first grade, and the average linear trend in the achievement gap from first to fifth grade. The fitted trend lines do not correspond exactly to the point estimates of the gaps at each assessment wave, but rather they summarize the general trends in the magnitude of the gaps during the two time periods (kindergarten to first grade and first to fifth grade).

8 We examined a variety of alternative ways of summarizing the trends, including linear, quadratic and cubic trends; among these, the two-part piecewise linear trend with a change in slope at the end of first grade appeared to fit the trends most parsimoniously. In fitting the trend lines, each wave’s estimated gap is weighted by the inverse of its estimated sampling variance.

14


Figure 1A

Trends in Estimated Population Math Gaps,thnic Groupby Race/E

-1.5

-1.0

-.5

0.0

0ns

Bel

ow W

hite

s0

.5io

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

t

FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5

Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend

Black Hispanic Asian Other

Achievement Gap Trends by Race/Ethnicity

Figures 1A and 1B show kindergarten through fifth grade trends in the differences inaverage math (Figure 1A) and reading (Figure 1B) test scores of Black, Hispanic, Asian, andOther Race students, relative to White students (for detail, see also Tables B1 and B2 in Appendix B and Tables C3 and C4 in Appendix C). Most notable here

are 1) the steadily creasing Black-White gaps (particularly in math) during the kindergarten through fifth-

rade period; and 2) the rapid narrowing of the White-Hispanic gaps during kindergarten de, followed by only slight changes in the gaps from the end of first grade

through fifth grade. At the start of kindergarten, Hispanic and Black students have math and reading

scores substantially lower than those of White students (but roughly equal to one another). The average Hispanic and Black students begin kindergarten with math scores three-quarters of a standard deviation lower than those of White students and with reading scores half a standard deviation lower than those of White students. Six years later, however, Hispanic-White gaps have narrowed (by roughly a third), while Black-White gaps have widened (also by roughly a third). Despite this narrowing, the Hispanic-White gap is one-half a standard deviation in math and three-eighths of a standard deviation in reading at the end of fifth grade.

The trend in the Hispanic-White gap is notable for its rapid narrowing in kindergarten and first grade—the estimated math gap declines from 0.77 to 0.56 standard deviations and the estimated reading gap declines from 0.52 to 0.29 standard deviations in the roughly 18 months between the fall kindergarten and spring first-grade assessments. In the four years from the spring of first grade through the spring of fifth grade, however, the gaps change very little—narrowing slightly to 0.50 in math and widening slightly to 0.38 in

ingand first gra

15


reading. As we will see, this pattern of rapid narrowing at the start of formal schooling followed by relative stability is common to most Hispanic subgroups. Figure 1B

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s


Black Hispanic Asian Other


Trends in Estimated Population Reading Gaps,by Race/Ethnic Group

16


Achievement Gap Trends by Hispanic National Origin Of primary interest for this report are the trends in achievement disparities between

Hispanic students and non-Hispanic White students. Hispanic students are not, of course, a monolithic group, so the next set of descriptive analyses report Hispanic-White achievement gaps disaggregated by Hispanic students’ country/region of origin (Figures 2A and 2B; for detail, see also Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B and Tables C3 and C4 in Appendix C).

Several key findings are evident in Figures 2A and 2B. First, there is considerable heterogeneity among Hispanic national origin groups in the magnitude of math and reading achievement disparities, particularly with regard to math achievement. In math, students of Mexican and Central American origins enter kindergarten with average achievement scores roughly one standard deviation below those of third-generation non-Hispanic White students, while students of Cuban, Puerto Rican, and South American origins enter kindergarten with scores roughly half a standard deviation below such White students. In reading, the patterns are similar, though the gaps are only about half the size as in math and vary less among national/regional origin groups (though it is important to recall that the reading gaps reported here are based only on the sample of Hispanic students proficient in oral English at the start of kindergarten, so the gap estimates are smaller here than they would be if we could include all Hispanic students).

Second, there is some heterogeneity among Hispanic national origin groups in the patterns of change in the size of achievement gaps from kindergarten to fifth grade. In general, the math and achievement gaps narrow for most groups in kindergarten and first grade (though not for Puerto Rican students in math or Cuban-origin students in reading). From first through third grade, however, the patterns are more varied. In math, there is little or no change in the size of the achievement gap for Mexican and Cuban origin students, a gradual narrowing of the gap for Puerto Rican and South American origin students, and a substantial narrowing of the gap for Central American origin students. In reading, the gaps generally change little for most groups from first through fifth grade, and actually appear to widen slightly for Mexican origin students.

17


Figure 2A

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

ns B

elow

Whi

tes

FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5

MexicanCuban

Puerto RicanCentral American

South AmericanOther/Unknown


Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,by Hispanic Country of Origin

Figure 2B

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

ns B

elow

Whi

tes

FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5

MexicanCuban

Puerto RicanCentral American

South AmericanOther/Unknown


Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,by Hispanic Country of Origin

18


Achievement Gap Trends by Immigrant Generation In order to examine differences in achievement patterns by Hispanic immigrant generation, we focus on Mexican origin students, since they are the only national origin group with sizeable samples of first-, second-, and third-plus-generation students. While we would obtain larger sample sizes within each immigrant generation group if we combined all national origin groups in this analysis, an analysis that combined students of similar immigrant generations but of different national origins would potentially confound generational status with the different immigration histories and contexts of different national origin groups.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the patterns of math and reading scores for first- (in math only), second-, and third-plus-generation Mexican students, with patterns of Black students shown for comparison (for detail, see also Tables B5 and B6 in Appendix B and Tables C3 and C4 in Appendix C). In math, both first- and second-generation Mexican origin students enter kindergarten with average achievement scores roughly 1.1 standard deviations below those of White students. Third-plus-generation Mexican students enter kindergarten with math scores 0.46 standard deviations below those of non-Hispanic White students. By the spring of first grade, these gaps have narrowed considerably, particularly for first- and second-generation students, who are roughly 0.75 standard deviations below White students at this point. There is relatively little change in the magnitude of the gaps after first grade for any of the groups. Because our reading gap estimates are based only on the sample of students who were proficient in oral English in the fall of kindergarten, and because very few Mexican first-generation students were proficient, we are able to estimate reading gaps only for second- and third-plus-generation Mexican origin students. The patterns for these students are similar in reading as in math, though the magnitudes of the gaps are smaller. As in math, the gaps are larger for second-generation students than for third-plus-generation students, they narrow sharply in kindergarten and first grade, and they are relatively stable (widening slightly, in fact) from first to fifth grade. It is worth noting that first- and second-generation Mexican students are the most socioeconomically disadvantaged of the Hispanic subgroups we examine, with average socioeconomic levels far below those of native-born Black students—93% of first-generation Mexican students and 81% of second-generation Mexican students are in the bottom two SES quintiles, compared to 53% of Black students (see Table 3 above). Nonetheless, despite starting kindergarten with math and reading scores far below those of Black students and even farther below those of White students, first- and second-generation Mexican students make substantial test score gains, relative to Whites and Blacks during elementary school. At the same time, Black students’ scores fall, on average, relative to White students’ scores, so that by fifth grade, first- and second- generation Mexican students—the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group of Hispanic students—have average scores considerably higher than those of Black students. It appears that schooling and/or developmental processes operate quite differently on Hispanic students than on Black students—schooling and/or developmental processes (such as English language acquisition) reduce Hispanic-White achievement gaps, but widen Black-White disparities during the same period.

19


Figure 3A

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s

FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5

Mexican Mex Gen 1 Mex Gen 2 Mex Gen 3 Black


Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,Mexicans, by Immigrant Generation

Figure 3B

-1


Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,Mexicans, by Immigrant Generation

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s.5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1S1 S3 S5

Mexican Mex Gen 1 Mex Gen 2 Mex Gen 3 Black

20


The general patterns of achievement gap trends described so far indicates that achievement is lowest for Mexican and Central American origin students, and lower for firstand second-generation students than third-plus-generation students. Moreover, Hispanic students make substantial gains in achievement

-

, relative to White students, in kindergarten and firs

-

to English

t grade, but this progress slows or stops from first to fifth grade. Because students ofMexican and Central American origins are, on average, more socioeconomically disadvantaged and less likely to come from homes where English is spoken than other Hispanic students, it is possible that these patterns can be largely explained by socioeconomic and language differences among Hispanic subgroups. The lower socioeconomic status of Mexican and Central American students, and of first- and secondgeneration Mexican students, may account for the lower math and reading skills of these students when they enter kindergarten. The rapid progress in both math and reading of these groups of students in the first two years of schooling may be attributable acquisition during the first few years of schooling and/or to instructional practices tailored to the needs of English language learners. Achievement Gap Trends by Language Use in the Home Figures 4A and 4B show Hispanic-White achievement gap trends, disaggregated by

nguage use in the students’ homes (for detail, see also Tables B7 and B8 in Appendix B and Tables C5 and C6 in Appendix C). Two clear patterns are evident. First, students from homes where Spanish is the only or predominant language used enter kindergarten with lower math and reading skills than students from homes where English is the dominant language. Second, the pattern of rapid achievement gains in kindergarten and first grade is most evident for students from homes where Spanish is the only language spoken at home. This pattern is particularly evident in reading.

On the one hand, these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis that much of the rapid progress of Hispanic students in the first two years of schooling are due to processes of increased English acquisition (both oral and written)—which likely both improves test performance on tests given in English (such as the reading test), and increases the opportunity for students to learn in schools where at least some, if not all, of the instruction is in English. On the other hand, some of the rapid progress of Hispanic students in the first two years of schooling may also be due to the use of instructional practices that are particularly effective with English language learners in the first years of schooling. The ECLS-K data are not well-suited to investigate these two hypotheses in detail. Despite the rapid gains in math and reading of students from homes where Spanish is the predominant language, these students still score well below those of White students and Hispanic students from English-speaking homes by fifth grade. This suggests that the processes that produce the rapid gains evident in kindergarten and first grade are not sufficient on their own to eliminate the Hispanic-White achievement disparities.

la

21


Figure 4A

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

ns B

elow

Whi

tes


English OnlyBilingual, Primarily English

Bilingual, Primarily SpanishSpanish Only


Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,by Language Used in Home

Figure 4B

Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,n Homeby Language Used i

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0rd

Dev

iatio

ns B

elow

Whi

tes

.5a

Stan

d


English OnlyBilingual, Primarily English

Bilingual, Primarily SpanishSpanish Only


22


Achievement Gap Trends by Socioeconomic Status Figures 5A and 5B indicate Hispanic-White achievement gaps, with Hispanic students disaggregated by socioeconomic quintile (for detail, see also Tables B9 and B10 Appendix B and Tables C5 and C6 in Appendix C). Note that the gaps reported here are the gaps between the average Hispanic student in a given SES quint

in

ile and the average non-Hispanic White student in the population. In other words, these are not within-SES-quintile gaps (those are shown in Figures 6A and 6B, below). The key patterns evident in Figures 5A and 5B are that a) there is a clear socioeconomic gradient in achievement patterns of Hispanic students; Hispanic students in the lowest SES quintile start kindergarten with math and reading scores an average of 1.2 and 0.9 standard deviations, respectively, below those of the average non-Hispanic White student; b) the growth in achievement in kindergarten and first grade is steepest for Hispanic students of the lowest SES quintile. While Figures 5A and 5B indicate the overall SES gradient for achievement, it is informative as well to examine achievement gaps among students of similar socioeconomic status. Figures 6A and 6B describe the within-SES quintile Hispanic-White achievement gaps; Black-White achievement gaps are included here for comparison as well (for detail, see also Tables B11 and B12 in Appendix B and Tables C5 through C8 in Appendix C). These figures show the average difference in math and reading scores between Hispanic (or Black) and non-Hispanic White students who are in the same socioeconomic quintile. Notably, at the start of kindergarten, Hispanic students score roughly a quarter to a third of a standard deviation lower in both math and reading than do non-Hispanic White students of the same SES quintile. By the spring of fifth grade, however, the gaps are typically smaller. In some cases—particularly among students in the lowest SES quintile—Hispanic and non-Hispanic White students average scores are no different from one another. At higher SES levels, Hispanic students still score slightly below White students, though the gaps are typically 0.1 to 0.2 standard deviations smaller than at the start of kindergarten.

23


Figure 5A

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s


SES Q1 (Low) SES Q2 SES Q3 SES Q4 SES Q5 (High)


Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,by Hispanic SES Quintile

Figure 5B

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s




Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,by Hispanic SES Quintile

24


Figure 6A

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s



Hispanic Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend

Black Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend

Trends in Estimated Within-SES Quintile Math Gaps,by SES Quintile and Race/Ethnic Group

Figure 6B

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tions

Bel

ow W

hite

s

FKSK F1 S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1 S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1 S1 S3 S5 FKSK F1 S1 S3 S5 FKSKF1 S1 S3 S5


Hispanic Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend

Black Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend

Trends in Estimated Within-SES Quintile Reading Gaps,by SES Quintile and Race/Ethnic Group

25


Achievement Gap Trends by Students’ Initial English Proficiency Recall that the reading achievement gap patterns and trends reported above are based on the sample of Hispanic students who were proficient in oral English at the start of kindergarten (about 70% of the total Hispanic sample). In general, the reading gaps between Hispanic and White students are smaller than the math gaps. However, the true reading gap (based on the entire population of Hispanic students, not just the ones proficient in English in kindergarten) is likely larger than that which we describe, since the omitted students would almost certainly have lower reading scores, on average, than those included in the estimates. In Table 5, we examine this hypothesis by comparing the K-5 math score gaps for Hispanic students proficient and not proficient in English in kindergarten (for detail, see also Tables C11 and C12 in Appendix C). Table 5 clearly indicates that the non-English proficient Hispanic students score considerably worse than the English-proficient students at each wave, though the non-English proficient students gain more in math skills (half a standard deviation), relative to White students, from kindergarten to fifth grade. These gains, however, are not sufficient to make up the substantial initial gaps. In reading, although we cannot observe reading scores for non-English proficient students in kindergarten and first grade, it is clear that by fifth grade, these students still lag over a standard deviation behind non-Hispanic White students and behind Hispanic students who were proficient in English in kindergarten. The large gaps between Hispanic students who are not proficient in oral English at the start of kindergarten and non-Hispanic White students are likely not due entirely to differences in English proficiency at the start of schooling. In fact, the non-English-proficient students are disproportionately form low-SES homes—72% of those not proficient in English at the start of schooling are in the lowest SES quintile, and 15% are in the second-lowest SES quintile. When we compare the fifth-grade reading scores of the non-English-proficient Hispanic students (1.09 standard deviations below those of non-Hispanic White students; see Table 5) with those of English-proficient Hispanic students from the lowest SES quintile (0.78 standard deviations below those of non-Hispanic White students; see Figure 5b and Table B10), it appears that two-thirds to three-quarters of the gap between non-English-proficient Hispanic students and White students is associated with the low socioeconomic status of the non-English-proficient students, rather than their language skills alone.9

9 We cannot make exactly the same comparison in math, since the estimate of the fifth-grade gap between the lowest-SES quintile Hispanic students and White students (0.81 standard deviations; see Table B9) is based on both Hispanic students who were and were not proficient in English in kindergarten. It is likely that the fifth-grade math gap between the lowest-SES quintile Hispanic students and White students would be smaller, if restricted to only students who were proficient in English in kindergarten.

26


Table 5: ECLS-K Standardized Math and Reading Achievement Gaps, By Hispanic Subgroup, Sample, and Wave

Assessment Content Area / Wave Math Reading

Subgroup / Sample FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 S3 S5 Hispanic English Proficient, Fall K -0.518 -0.450 -0.350 -0.403 -0.403 -0.349 -0.359 -0.372

(0.060) (0.060) (0.102) (0.054) (0.057) (0.056) (0.064) (0.062) Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.394 -1.239 -1.143 -0.964 -0.991 -0.884 -1.140 -1.088

(0.067) (0.067) (0.104) (0.062) (0.062) (0.063) (0.061) (0.055)

Mexican English Proficient, Fall K -0.607 -0.504 -0.347 -0.392 -0.442 -0.418 -0.370 -0.400


(0.074) (0.076) (0.109) (0.069) (0.069) (0.066) (0.068) (0.059)

Mexican, 1st Generation English Proficient, Fall K -0.834 -0.850 0.069 -0.710 -0.432 -0.492 -0.692 -0.677


(0.149) (0.145) (0.144) (0.144) (0.180) (0.156) (0.193) (0.163)

Mexican, 2nd Generation English Proficient, Fall K -0.780 -0.692 -0.607 -0.518 -0.594 -0.532 -0.470 -0.518


(0.080) (0.084) (0.117) (0.075) (0.075) (0.070) (0.070) (0.062)

Mexican, 3rd Generation English Proficient, Fall K -0.432 -0.319 -0.152 -0.260 -0.298 -0.311 -0.264 -0.279


(0.160) (0.209) (0.292) (0.244) (0.292) (0.268) (0.319) (0.276)

Central American English Proficient, Fall K -0.704 -0.591 -1.188 -0.704 -0.320 -0.163 -0.173 -0.290


(0.179) (0.111) (0.318) (0.140) (0.163) (0.183) (0.149) (0.106)Notes: “Not English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student does not have a valid reading score at wave 1, but the student has a valid longitudinal weight (c1_6fc0). “English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student has both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight. Assessment waves are: FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment. Achievement gaps are relative to 3rd-generation non-Hispanic White students in the sample at each assessment wave. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.

27


References DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., & Mills, R. (2004). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage

in the United States: 2003 (No. p60-226). Washington D.C.: US-Census-Bureau. Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2005). Can Family Socioeconomic Resources Account

for Racial and Ethnic Test Score Gaps? The Future of Children, 15(1), 35-54. Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic Youth Dropping Out of the U.S. Schools: Measuring the Challenge.

Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding the black-white test score gap in the first

two years of school. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 447-464. Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2005). The black-white test score gap through third grade (Working

paper No. w11049). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Gándara, P. (1999). Telling stories of success: Cultural capital and the educational mobility of

Chicano students. Latino Studies Journal, 10, 38-54. Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief (Current Population Reports

C2KBR/01-3 http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Guzman, B., & McConnell, E. (2002). The Hispanic Population: 1990-2000 growth and change. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(1-2), 109-128.

Hirschman, C. (2001). The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: A test of the segmented assimilation hypothesis. Demography, 38(3), 317-336.

Inter-University Program for Latino Research. (2002). The Latino Population: 1990-2000: Inter-University Program for Latino Research.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Kao, G., & Thompson, J. (2003). Race and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417-442.

Kaufman, P., Alt, M. N., & Chapman, C. D. (2001). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000 (No. 2002-114). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; National Center for Educational Statistics

Larsen, L. (2004). The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003 (Current Population Reports P20-551 http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in Achievement as Children Begin School. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Crowley, M. L. (2005). Poverty and Economic Polarization among America's Minority and Immigrant Children (Working Paper #05-6). Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Poverty Center.

Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (1999). Immigration to the United States. Population Bulletin, 54(2). Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (2003). Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America. Population

Bulletin, 58(2). National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Common Core of Data (CCD) Public

Elementary and Secondary School Universe Data. from http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.html

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002b). User's manual for the ECLS-K First Grade Public-Use Data Files and Electronic Codebook (No. NCES 2002-135). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics

28

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf)

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf)

http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.html


Highlights. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Neal, D. (2005). Why has Black-White skill convergence stopped? : University of Chicago. Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., & Rivera, H. H. (2002). Educating Hispanic Students: Obstacles

and Avenues to Improve Academic Achievement (No. epr08). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz; Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Hispanic College Enrollment: Less Intensive and Less Heavily Subsidized (Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Pollack, J. M., Narajian, M., Rock, D. A., Atkins-Burnett, S., & Hausken, E. G. (2005). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric Report for the Fifth Grade (NCES Report No. 2006-036). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Pollack, J. M., Rock, D. A., Weiss, M. J., Atkins-Burnett, S., Tourangeau, K., West, J., et al. (2005). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric Report for the Third Grade (NCES Report No. 2005-062). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Ramirez, R. (2004). We the People: Hispanics in the United States. (Census 2000 Special Reports CENSR-18 http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Reardon, S. F. (2003). Sources of educational inequality: The growth of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic test score gaps in kindergarten and first grade (Working Paper No. 03-05R): Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University.

Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric Report for Kindergarten Through First Grade (NCES Working Paper No. 2002-05). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Rock, D. A., & Stenner, A. J. (2005). Assessment Issues in the Testing of Children at School Entry. The Future of Children, 15(1), 15-34.

Rumberger, R., & Arellano, B. (2004). Understanding and Addressing the California Latino Achievement Gap in Early Elementary School (No. 2004-01). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Stata Corporation. (2005). Stata (Version 9.1). College Station, TX: Stata Corporation. Tienda, M. (2002). Demography and the Social Contract. Demography, 39(4), 587-616. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). The Hispanic Population in the United States (Population

Characteristics). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Current Population Survey, March 2000: Ethnic and Hispanic

Statistic Brach, Population Division. Van Hook, J., & Balistreri, K. S. (2002). Diversity and Change in the Institutional Context of

Immigrant Adaptation: California Schools 1985-2000. Demography, 39(4), 639-654. Zill, N., Collins, M., West, J., & Hausken, E. G. (1995). Approaching Kindergarten: A Look at

preschoolers in the United States (No. NCES 95-280). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

29

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf)


Appendix A: Estimation of Achievement Gaps

ECLS-K reports math and reading scores in several metrics. For this report, we rely on the test scores reported in the t-score metric.10 These scores are standardized version of the IRT theta scores, standardized to have a sample mean of 50 and sample standard deviation of 10 at each wave. To compute the pooled within-race/ethnic group standard deviation of test scores at each wave, and in order to account for the additional variance in test scores that results from variation across the sample in assessment dates, we fit via weighted least squares a set of models (for both math and reading, and at each of the six waves) of the form twiwitwi εTY ++= βXi0β , where Ytwi is the t-score in subject t at wave w for student i, Tiw is the assessment date at wave w for student i, Xi is a vector of race/ethnic dummy variables (White, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, any race; Asian or Pacific Islander, Other), and where the model is weighted by the appropriate ECLS-K child longitudinal weight (ECLS-K variable c1_6fc0). This model yields an estimate of σtw, the assessment-date-adjusted pooled standard deviation of test score t at wave w.11

We next re-standardize the test scores by de-meaning them and dividing by the estimated pooled standard deviation:

( )tw

twtwitwi

YYYσ̂−

=′ .

The re-standardized test score Y′twi is used in all subsequent models, so that all between-group differences in test scores are expressed in terms of pooled standard deviations. Between-group differences are estimated by fitting models of the form

twiwitwi εTY ++ +=′ βXi10 αα ,

where X is a vector of race or Hispanic subgroup dummy variables (typically with third-generation non-Hispanic White students as the omitted category). These models are fit via weighted least squares using the appropriate ECLS-K child longitudinal weight (ECLS-K variable c1_6fc0). We report standard errors adjusted for the complex sampling design of ECLS-K, using the –svy– commands in the Stata statistical software package (Stata

orporation, 2005). C

10 Results are virtually unchanged if we use the ECLS-K IRT estimated scale scores rather than the t-scores. 11 Note that the estimated pooled standard deviation is an estimate of the within-group standard deviation in observed test scores; because this includes measurement error; this will typically overestimate the within-group standard deviation in true scores. Given that the estimated item-level reliabilities of the ECLS-K scores are roughly 0.89-0.96 (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005), and that the test-retest reliability of the ECLS-K tests is likely somewhere between 0.75 and 0.95 (based on estimates of test-retest reliability of IQ and school readiness tests for children ages 5-10; see Rock & Stenner, 2005), the overall reliability of the tests is probably between 0.70 and 0.90, which means that the estimated standard deviation of true scores is likely 5-15% smaller than the estimated standard deviation of the observed scores. Thus, our estimates of the between-group gaps likely underestimate the magnitude of the true gaps by 5-15%.

30


Appendix B: Detailed Achievement Tables Table B1: ECLS-K Standardized Math Achievement Gap, By Race and Wave Wave Race FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Hispanic -0.768 -0.675 -0.606 -0.564 -0.571 -0.502 (0.057) (0.056) (0.094) (0.048) (0.049) (0.049)Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation -0.733 -0.802 -0.830 -0.788 -0.925 -1.005 (0.064) (0.069) (0.105) (0.068) (0.066) (0.060)Asian 0.118 0.141 -0.173 0.049 0.077 0.289 (0.097) (0.109) (0.232) (0.103) (0.111) (0.095)Other -0.622 -0.464 -0.408 -0.471 -0.552 -0.493 (0.096) (0.085) (0.171) (0.090) (0.093) (0.106)Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses. Table B2: ECLS-K Standardized Reading Achievement Gap, By Race and Wave Wave Race FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Hispanic -0.515 -0.336 -0.212 -0.293 -0.364 -0.377 (0.062) (0.060) (0.099) (0.063) (0.064) (0.062)Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation -0.525 -0.562 -0.503 -0.526 -0.756 -0.801 (0.071) (0.078) (0.115) (0.071) (0.072) (0.064)Asian 0.188 0.251 0.111 0.264 0.108 0.097 (0.104) (0.097) (0.258) (0.086) (0.092) (0.078)Other -0.567 -0.414 -0.388 -0.422 -0.499 -0.445 (0.095) (0.093) (0.158) (0.096) (0.101) (0.113)Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.

31


Table B3: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, By Hispanic National/Regional Origin and Wave

Wave Hispanic National Origin FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Mexican -0.905 -0.793 -0.685 -0.597 -0.653 -0.607 (0.063) (0.066) (0.104) (0.057) (0.055) (0.054)Cuban -0.463 -0.098 -0.213 -0.146 -0.086 -0.108 (0.153) (0.163) (0.281) (0.200) (0.152) (0.197)Puerto Rican -0.448 -0.461 -0.259 -0.464 -0.338 -0.259 (0.160) (0.149) (0.203) (0.130) (0.146) (0.145)Central American -1.050 -0.850 -1.019 -0.865 -0.609 -0.371 (0.160) (0.148) (0.385) (0.114) (0.148) (0.147)South American -0.525 -0.378 -0.210 -0.229 -0.149 -0.093 (0.208) (0.151) (0.198) (0.160) (0.162) (0.184)Hispanic origin unknown -0.477 -0.481 -0.427 -0.499 -0.524 -0.440 (0.088) (0.081) (0.167) (0.082) (0.105) (0.099)

Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses. Table B4: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, By Hispanic National/Regional Origin and Wave

Wave Hispanic National Origin FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Mexican -0.560 -0.367 -0.224 -0.340 -0.374 -0.403 (0.079) (0.074) (0.109) (0.079) (0.080) (0.085)Cuban -0.247 0.094 -0.086 -0.151 -0.158 -0.142 (0.129) (0.104) (0.184) (0.102) (0.130) (0.133)Puerto Rican -0.355 -0.266 0.088 -0.093 -0.180 -0.118 (0.154) (0.153) (0.252) (0.102) (0.128) (0.123)Central American -0.582 -0.393 -0.754 -0.444 -0.176 -0.293 (0.195) (0.257) (0.635) (0.223) (0.163) (0.118)South American -0.259 -0.170 0.706 -0.029 -0.026 0.003 (0.193) (0.169) (0.447) (0.172) (0.147) (0.165)Hispanic origin unknown -0.525 -0.355 -0.351 -0.287 -0.497 -0.485 (0.091) (0.097) (0.155) (0.107) (0.125) (0.103)

Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.

32


Table B5: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, Mexican, By Immigrant Generation and Wave

Wave Mexican Generational Status FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Mexican, 1st Generation -1.122 -0.976 -1.124 -0.773 -0.783 -0.706 (0.142) (0.138) (0.171) (0.130) (0.157) (0.134)Mexican, 2nd Generation -1.091 -0.997 -0.918 -0.726 -0.808 -0.735 (0.072) (0.072) (0.112) (0.066) (0.063) (0.061)Mexican, 3rd Generation -0.463 -0.347 -0.158 -0.291 -0.318 -0.325 (0.085) (0.083) (0.158) (0.080) (0.079) (0.080)Mexican, 2nd/3rd Generation -1.751 -1.209 1.146 -1.138 -0.912 -1.152 (0.299) (0.273) (0.066) (0.166) (0.157) (0.287)Mexican, Generation unknown -0.675 -0.753 0.553 -0.622 -0.832 -1.033 (0.421) (0.347) (0.053) (0.052) (0.236) (0.107)

Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses. Table B6: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, Mexican, By Immigrant Generation and Wave

Wave Mexican Generational Status FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Mexican, 1st Generation -0.890 -0.927 -0.293 -0.683 -0.698 -0.681 (0.330) (0.255) (0.150) (0.226) (0.234) (0.162)Mexican, 2nd Generation -0.757 -0.561 -0.531 -0.467 -0.475 -0.521 (0.105) (0.092) (0.125) (0.115) (0.121) (0.145)Mexican, 3rd Generation -0.356 -0.167 0.023 -0.210 -0.269 -0.283 (0.093) (0.104) (0.146) (0.102) (0.099) (0.088)Mexican, 2nd/3rd Generation -0.542 -0.233 2.033 -0.280 -0.482 -0.752 (0.320) (0.253) (0.077) (0.226) (0.259) (0.207)Mexican, Generation unknown -0.822 0.003 -0.483 0.062 -0.043 0.564 (0.033) (0.064) (0.054) (0.043) (0.034) (0.065)


33


Table B7: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, By Language Used in Home and Wave Wave Language Used in Home FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 English -0.375 -0.376 -0.211 -0.352 -0.388 -0.327 (0.084) (0.084) (0.161) (0.083) (0.093) (0.086)Mostly English -0.483 -0.313 -0.234 -0.278 -0.223 -0.231 (0.083) (0.074) (0.142) (0.069) (0.081) (0.085)Mostly Spanish -0.892 -0.807 -0.836 -0.649 -0.603 -0.586 (0.085) (0.095) (0.155) (0.081) (0.076) (0.084)Spanish -1.148 -1.014 -1.027 -0.791 -0.851 -0.689 (0.074) (0.072) (0.119) (0.072) (0.070) (0.070)Notes: Sample includes students with a valid math score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and valid information about the language spoken at home. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses. Table B8: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, By Language Used in Home and Wave Wave Language Used in Home FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 English -0.344 -0.223 -0.188 -0.194 -0.306 -0.279 (0.097) (0.100) (0.145) (0.101) (0.121) (0.113)Mostly English -0.326 -0.115 0.079 -0.114 -0.164 -0.184 (0.092) (0.083) (0.138) (0.083) (0.076) (0.077)Mostly Spanish -0.685 -0.482 -0.484 -0.475 -0.563 -0.555 (0.075) (0.094) (0.199) (0.091) (0.091) (0.086)Spanish -0.848 -0.632 -0.440 -0.377 -0.347 -0.465 (0.088) (0.099) (0.265) (0.111) (0.085) (0.103)Notes: Sample includes students with a valid reading score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and valid information about the language spoken at home. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.

34


Table B9: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, By Hispanic Students’ SES Quintile and Wave

Wave Socioeconomic Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) -1.176 -1.077 -1.034 -0.866 -0.902 -0.809 (0.059) (0.059) (0.108) (0.055) (0.058) (0.061)SES Quintile 2 -0.687 -0.623 -0.613 -0.551 -0.507 -0.491 (0.084) (0.087) (0.134) (0.071) (0.074) (0.073)SES Quintile 3 -0.529 -0.381 -0.251 -0.383 -0.484 -0.335 (0.111) (0.098) (0.194) (0.123) (0.124) (0.096)SES Quintile 4 -0.047 -0.004 0.115 0.041 0.097 0.071 (0.082) (0.084) (0.148) (0.085) (0.083) (0.093)SES Quintile 5 (high) 0.078 0.123 0.337 0.098 0.212 0.317 (0.156) (0.146) (0.118) (0.105) (0.170) (0.163)

Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses. Table B10: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, By Hispanic Students’ SES Quintile and Wave

Wave Socioeconomic Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) -0.941 -0.762 -0.757 -0.693 -0.784 -0.782 (0.068) (0.083) (0.173) (0.108) (0.088) (0.089)SES Quintile 2 -0.488 -0.343 -0.325 -0.238 -0.285 -0.341 (0.088) (0.091) (0.164) (0.093) (0.106) (0.115)SES Quintile 3 -0.462 -0.264 -0.064 -0.269 -0.387 -0.366 (0.127) (0.113) (0.169) (0.121) (0.165) (0.122)SES Quintile 4 -0.005 0.101 0.212 0.180 0.111 0.105 (0.095) (0.133) (0.170) (0.100) (0.082) (0.097)SES Quintile 5 (high) 0.066 0.365 0.525 0.166 0.146 0.204 (0.187) (0.171) (0.156) (0.129) (0.131) (0.118)


35


Table B11: ECLS-K Standardized Within-SES Quintiles Math Achievement Gap, By Race and Wave

Wave Race/Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Asian

Asian/SES Quintile 1 (low) 0.568 0.486 0.334 0.541 0.503 0.796 (0.171) (0.196) (0.341) (0.165) (0.234) (0.176)Asian/SES Quintile 2 -0.235 -0.077 0.056 -0.088 -0.052 0.048 (0.178) (0.228) (0.285) (0.222) (0.262) (0.275)Asian/SES Quintile 3 -0.185 -0.165 -0.671 -0.416 -0.477 -0.041 (0.213) (0.319) (0.441) (0.272) (0.277) (0.219)Asian/SES Quintile 4 0.097 -0.013 0.078 -0.012 0.068 0.063 (0.174) (0.166) (0.378) (0.137) (0.207) (0.230)Asian/SES Quintile 5 (high) 0.208 0.220 -0.082 0.132 0.180 0.338 (0.152) (0.168) (0.400) (0.174) (0.133) (0.126)

Black Black/SES Quintile 1 -0.169 -0.365 -0.362 -0.377 -0.384 -0.529 (0.122) (0.134) (0.204) (0.166) (0.124) (0.119)Black/SES Quintile 2 -0.425 -0.480 -0.618 -0.448 -0.574 -0.555 (0.107) (0.114) (0.155) (0.112) (0.128) (0.112)Black/SES Quintile 3 -0.475 -0.446 -0.431 -0.527 -0.669 -0.749 (0.121) (0.146) (0.246) (0.148) (0.141) (0.113)Black/SES Quintile 4 -0.612 -0.770 -0.800 -0.586 -0.906 -0.924 (0.147) (0.136) (0.163) (0.119) (0.136) (0.129)Black/SES Quintile 5 -0.361 -0.458 -0.656 -0.418 -0.432 -0.581 (0.212) (0.315) (0.344) (0.254) (0.282) (0.163)

Hispanic Hispanic/SES Quintile 1 -0.327 -0.304 -0.170 -0.090 -0.031 0.050 (0.095) (0.109) (0.156) (0.129) (0.090) (0.097)Hispanic/SES Quintile 2 -0.455 -0.373 -0.504 -0.286 -0.246 -0.169 (0.098) (0.109) (0.146) (0.098) (0.092) (0.089)Hispanic/SES Quintile 3 -0.450 -0.332 -0.235 -0.395 -0.490 -0.320 (0.119) (0.106) (0.204) (0.129) (0.129) (0.107)Hispanic/SES Quintile 4 -0.273 -0.246 -0.203 -0.161 -0.104 -0.186 (0.095) (0.103) (0.150) (0.094) (0.096) (0.106)Hispanic/SES Quintile 5 -0.387 -0.287 -0.112 -0.292 -0.248 -0.159 (0.155) (0.150) (0.159) (0.114) (0.171) (0.175)

Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading math at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students of the same socioeconomic quintile. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.

36


Table B12: ECLS-K Standardized Within-SES Quintiles Reading Achievement Gap, By Race and Wave

Wave Race/Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 Asian

Asian/SES Quintile 1 (low) 0.185 0.497 0.133 0.587 0.420 0.455 (0.184) (0.181) (0.318) (0.192) (0.135) (0.133)Asian/SES Quintile 2 -0.257 -0.063 -0.378 0.215 0.051 0.111 (0.146) (0.154) (0.233) (0.140) (0.156) (0.149)Asian/SES Quintile 3 -0.128 -0.061 -0.458 -0.213 -0.310 -0.121 (0.208) (0.240) (0.365) (0.180) (0.201) (0.155)Asian/SES Quintile 4 0.193 0.211 0.914 0.222 0.050 -0.109 (0.199) (0.210) (0.464) (0.183) (0.212) (0.204)Asian/SES Quintile 5 (high) 0.468 0.387 0.551 0.415 0.195 0.060 (0.160) (0.157) (0.448) (0.142) (0.136) (0.135)

Black Black/SES Quintile 1 -0.258 -0.342 -0.269 -0.208 -0.363 -0.293 (0.123) (0.126) (0.241) (0.170) (0.145) (0.143)Black/SES Quintile 2 -0.204 -0.277 -0.418 -0.108 -0.293 -0.449 (0.091) (0.121) (0.161) (0.138) (0.122) (0.119)Black/SES Quintile 3 -0.074 -0.185 -0.077 -0.388 -0.483 -0.542 (0.165) (0.143) (0.245) (0.130) (0.174) (0.119)Black/SES Quintile 4 -0.155 -0.190 0.004 -0.244 -0.547 -0.550 (0.159) (0.196) (0.246) (0.151) (0.153) (0.176)Black/SES Quintile 5 -0.029 -0.051 0.103 -0.085 -0.466 -0.426 (0.272) (0.161) (0.306) (0.164) (0.114) (0.175)

Hispanic Hispanic/SES Quintile 1 -0.283 -0.101 -0.058 0.025 0.014 0.041 (0.093) (0.118) (0.241) (0.162) (0.131) (0.134)Hispanic/SES Quintile 2 -0.123 -0.081 -0.186 0.043 0.052 0.005 (0.102) (0.112) (0.177) (0.125) (0.122) (0.129)Hispanic/SES Quintile 3 -0.361 -0.213 -0.059 -0.296 -0.383 -0.331 (0.134) (0.118) (0.184) (0.126) (0.167) (0.127)Hispanic/SES Quintile 4 -0.241 -0.091 -0.064 -0.039 -0.084 -0.134 (0.105) (0.147) (0.171) (0.109) (0.093) (0.105)Hispanic/SES Quintile 5 -0.429 -0.040 0.211 -0.184 -0.320 -0.298 (0.189) (0.175) (0.184) (0.140) (0.130) (0.130)

Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students of the same socioeconomic quintile. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.

37


38

Appendix C: Detailed Proficiency Tables

Table C1: ECLS-K Math Proficiency Level Definitions

Level 1: Number and shape: identifying some one-digit numerals, recognizing geometric shapes, and one-to-one counting of up to 10 objects.

Level 2: Relative size: reading all single-digit numerals, counting beyond 10, recognizing a sequence of patterns, and using nonstandard units of length to compare objects.

Level 3: Ordinality, sequence: reading two-digit numerals, recognizing the next number in a sequence, identifying the ordinal position of an object, and solving a simple word problem.

Level 4: Addition/subtraction: solving simple addition and subtraction problems. Level 5: Multiplication/division: solving simple multiplication and division

problems and recognizing more complex number patterns. Level 6: Place value: demonstrating understanding of place value in integers to the

hundreds place. Level 7: Rate and measurement: using knowledge of measurement and rate to

solve word problems. Level 8: Fractions: demonstrating understanding of the concept of fractional parts. Level 9: Area and volume: solving word problems involving area and volume,

including change of units of measurement. Source: ECLS-K K-5 Psychometric Report (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005)

Table C2: ECLS-K Reading Proficiency Level Definitions

Level 1: Letter recognition: identifying upper- and lower-case letters by name. Level 2: Beginning sounds: associating letters with sounds at the beginning of

words. Level 3: Ending sounds: associating letters with sounds at the end of words. Level 4: Sight words: recognizing common words by sight. Level 5: Comprehension of words in context: reading words in context. Level 6: Literal inference: making inferences using cues that are directly stated with

key words in text (for example, recognizing the comparison being made in a simile).

Level 7: Extrapolation: identifying clues used to make inferences, and using background knowledge combined with cues in a sentence to understand use of homonyms.

Level 8: Evaluation: demonstrating understanding of author’s craft (how does the author let you know…), and making connections between a problem in the narrative and similar life problems.

Level 9: Evaluating nonfiction: critically evaluating, comparing and contrasting, and understanding the effect of features of expository and biographical texts.

Source: ECLS-K K-5 Psychometric Report (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005)

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Table C3: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Mexican Immigrant Generation Math Level 1 Math Level 2

Math Level 3

Race / National Origin / Generation FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Hispanic, any Race 84 98 99 100 100 100 38 76 88 99 100 100 10 39 62 93 100 100 Mexican Origin 81 98 99 100 100 100 34 73 86 99 100 100 8 35 60 93 100 100 Mexican, 1st generation 76 98 99 100 100 100 28 67 85 99 100 100 3 28 43 94 100 100 Mexican, 2nd generation 77 97 99 100 100 100 28 67 83 98 100 100 6 27 51 91 100 100 Mexican, 3rd generation 91 99 100 100 100 100 47 84 94 99 100 100 13 54 79 96 100 100 Cuban Origin 91 100 100 100 100 100 48 90 93 100 100 100 13 60 70 98 100 100 Puerto Rican Origin 89 98 100 100 100 100 49 82 93 98 100 100 17 49 73 94 100 100 Central American Origin 77 97 98 100 100 100 30 72 75 97 100 100 7 32 47 88 100 100 South American Origin 89 100 100 100 100 100 46 86 98 100 100 100 16 47 82 97 100 100 Other Hispanic Origin 95 100 100 100 100 100 52 87 97 99 100 100 12 51 82 97 100 100 Unknown Hispanic Origin 90 99 100 100 100 100 47 80 89

99 100 100 13 44 62 94 100 100White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 95 99 100 100 100 100 63 89 96 99 100 100 26 63 81 97 100 100Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 88 98 99 100 100 100 39 74 87 98 100 100 8 35 57 91 100 100Asian, Any Generation 96 100 100 100 100 100 66 89 93 100 100 100 31 67 71 98 100 100Other Race, Any Generation 87 99 99 100 100 100 43 81 88 99 100 100 14 45 65 94 100 100 (cont.) Math Level 4 Math Level 5

Math Level 6


14 69 90 0 0 0 1 33 65White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 5 22 38 78 98 100 0 2 6 30 84 95 0 0 0 4 52 82Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 1 6 14 57 94 99 0 0 1 8 58 84 0 0 0 0 20 51Asian, Any Generation 8 27 37 78 98 100 0 3 8 31 82 97 0 0 0 6 57 87Other Race, Any Generation 3 13 26 64 95 99 0 1 6 17 69 88 0 0 0 2 33 65

39

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy (cont.) Math Level 7 Math Level 8

Math Level 9

Race / National Origin / Generation FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Hispanic, any Race 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 8 Mexican Orig in 0 0 0 0 7 30 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 7 34 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mexican, 1st generation 0 0 0 0 6 26 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mexican, 2nd generation 0 0 0 0 6 26 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mexican, 3rd generation 0 0 0 0 10 39 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cuban Origin 0 0 0 0 14 52 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 Puerto Rican Origin 0 0 0 0 12 42 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 Central American Origin 0 0 0 0 8 37 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 South American Origin 0 0 0 0 15 50 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 Other Hispanic Origin 0 0 0 0 11 50 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 2 Unknown Hispanic Origin White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 0 0 0 0 18 53 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 3Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation Asian, Any Generation 0 0 0 1 22 64 0 0 0 0 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 5Other Race, Any Generation 0 0 0 0 10 36 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in either oral English or Spanish in fall kindergarten are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

40

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Table C4: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Mexican Immigrant Generation Reading Level 1 Reading Level 2

Reading Level 3


97 100 100 9 44 56 91 100 100White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 73 95 98 100 100 100 34 75 87 98 100 100 20 55 72 95 100 100Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 56 88 94 99 100 100 20 56 74 95 100 100 10 37 56 88 100 100Asian, Any Generation 75 96 98 100 100 100 42 79 82 99 100 100 27 61 65 96 100 100Other Race, Any Generation 52 89 92 100 100 100 22 62 75 96 100 100 12 43 58 89 100 100 (cont.) Reading Level 4 Reading Level 5

Reading Level 6


42 87 96 0 0 1 12 62 83White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 4 18 30 81 99 100 2 7 13 53 94 98 0 2 3 20 76 91Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 1 9 18 65 97 100 0 3 6 36 85 95 0 0 1 10 55 78Asian, Any Generation 8 27 34 86 100 100 4 13 23 62 95 98 1 4 10 28 79 93Other Race, Any Generation 2 11 23 67 97 100 1 4 10 39 87 96 0 1 2 13 62 82

41

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy (cont.) Reading Level 7 Reading Level 8

Reading Level 9


2 20 38 0 0 0 0 0 2White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 0 0 0 5 52 79 0 0 1 4 29 52 0 0 0 0 1 10Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation 0 0 0 1 25 53 0 0 0 2 15 31 0 0 0 0 0 2Asian, Any Generation 0 1 4 7 54 84 0 1 2 6 31 54 0 0 0 0 1 10Other Race, Any Generation 0 0 0 3 36 65 0 0 0 3 21 41 0 0 0 0 1 7Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in oral English in fall kindergarten are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

42

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Table C5: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave and Selected Family Characteristics, all Hispanic Students Math Level 1 Math Level 2

Math Level 3

FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic Socioeconomic Quintile

SES Quintile 1 (low) 75 97 99 100 100 100 25 66 81 98 100 100 3 24 45 90 100 100 SES Quintile 2 86 99 100 100 100 100 39 76 89 99 100 100 11 40 65 95 100 100 SES Quintile 3 90 99 99 100 100 100 42 82 92 99 100 100 10 45 72 95 100 100 SES Quintile 4 94 99 100 100 100 100 61 90 96 99 100 100 21 63 79 96 100 100 SES Quintile 5 (high) 95

100

100

100

100

100

65

92

99

100

100

100

27

67

90

99

100

100

Language Used at Home English Only 93 100 100

100 100 100 50 84 94 99 100 100 16 49 73 96 100 100 Primarily English 89 99 99 100 100 100 47 85 91 99 100 100 15 53 75 97 100 100 Primarily Spanish 82 98 99 100 100 100 34 72 85 99 100 100 6 34 53 93 100 100 Spanish Only 76 97 99 100 100 100 27 67 81 98 100 100 5 27 48 90 100 100Hispanic, any Race (Total) 84 98 99 100 100 100 38 76 88 99 100 100 10 39 62 93 100 100 (cont.) Math Level 4 Math Level 5

Math Level 6

Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Socioeconomic Quintile SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 3 12 53 94 99 0 0 0 7 59 87 0 0 0 0 18 57 SES Quintile 2 1 10 23 64 97 99 0 0 2 13 72 92 0 0 0 1 32 70 SES Quintile 3 1 9 22 64 97 100 0 1 3 14 72 96 0 0 0 1 31 75 SES Quintile 4 3 18 38 77 98 100 0 1 4 29 82 94 0 0 0 3 50 79 SES Quintile 5 (high) 4 22

41

83

99

100

0 2 5 32

87

98

0 0 0 3 62

88

Language Used at Home

English Only 2 12 30 69 97 100 0 1 3 17 75 94 0 0 0 1 38 75 Primarily English 2 14 32 70 98 100 0 1 4 21 78 94 0 0 0 2 42 75 Primarily Spanish 1 8 13 60 96 99 0 0 1 12 69 91 0 0 0 1 29 66 Spanish Only 1 5 13 55 94 99 0 0 0 10 61 90 0 0 0 1 20 61Hispanic, any Race (Total) 1 9 22 62 96 99 0 0 2 14 69 91 0 0 0 1 31 68

43

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy (cont.) Math Level 7 Math Level 8

Math Level 9

Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Socioeconomic Quintile SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 0 0 0 3 22 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SES Quintile 2 0 0 0 0 8 35 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 SES Quintile 3 0 0 0 0 7 37 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 SES Quintile 4 0 0 0 0 15 49 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 SES Quintile 5 (high) 0 0 0 0 24

67

0 0 0 0 2 28

0 0 0 0 0 5

Language Used at Home

0 0 0 0 5 27 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 8 34 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1

English Only 0 0 0 0 9 40 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Primarily English 0 0 0 0 14 43 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 Primarily Spanish

ly0 0 0 0 6 32 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1

Spanish On Hispanic, any Race (Total) Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proporti ed group meeting prof cy lev l at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in either oral English or Spanish in fall kindergarten are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

on of specifi icien e

44

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Table C6: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave and Selected Family Characteristics, all Hispanic Students Reading Level 1 Reading Level 2 Reading Level 3 Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Socioeconomic Quintile SES Quintile 1 (low) 37 86 91 99 100 100 8 51 64 94 100 100 3 30 44 85 100 100 SES Quintile 2 54 93 98 100 100 100 17 64 80 99 100 100 8 42 62 94 100 100 SES Quintile 3 54 89 95 100 100 100 20 64 80 97 100 100 11 45 62 92 100 100 SES Quintile 4 72 96 99 100 100 100 33 79 90 99 100 100 17 60 75 96 100 100 SES Quintile 5 (high) 73 97 99 100 100 100 41 82 93 99 100 100 25 67 83 97 100 100Language Used at Home English Only 61 93 99 100 100 100 24 68 82 98 100 100 12 48 65 93 100 100 Primarily English 58 93 97 100 100 100 26 71 86 98 100 100 15 52 72 94 100 100 Primarily Spanish 50 90 97 100 100 100 15 60 75 97 100 100 7 40 53 91 100 100 Spanish Only 43 88 90 99 100 100 12 55 71 96 100 100 5 33 55 91 100 100Hispanic, any Race (Total) 54 90 95 100 100 100 20 62 76 96 100 100 10 42 59 90 100 100 (cont.) Reading Level 4 Reading Level 5 Reading Level 6 Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Socioeconomic Quintile SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 4 10 58 98 100 0 1 3 30 84 95 0 0 0 7 53 77 SES Quintile 2 1 10 25 73 99 100 1 4 11 44 92 98 0 0 2 13 70 89 SES Quintile 3 3 11 20 72 99 100 1 4 7 42 89 97 0 0 1 12 65 86 SES Quintile 4 2 15 34 84 100 100 1 5 14 56 93 99 0 1 4 19 75 92 SES Quintile 5 (high) 5 31 44 85 100 100 3 16 22 61 96 99 1 3 10 27 81 95Language Used at Home English Only 2 13 24 74 99 100 1 5 9 46 89 98 0 1 1 16 68 87 Primarily English 4 16 34 77 99 100 2 7 15 50 93 98 0 1 5 18 72 89 Primarily Spanish 0 8 14 66 99 100 0 3 6 35 89 97 0 0 1 9 60 85 Spanish Only 0 7 23 71 99 100 0 3 12 41 91 96 0 1 6 11 68 86Hispanic, any Race (Total) 2 11 22 67 98 100 1 4 9 39 87 96 0 1 2 12 59 82

45

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy (cont.) Reading Level 7 Reading Level 8 Reading Level 9 Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5Socioeconomic Quintile SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 0 0 1 23 51 0 0 0 1 13 29 0 0 0 0 0 1 SES Quintile 2 0 0 0 1 43 74 0 0 0 2 23 44 0 0 0 0 0 6 SES Quintile 3 0 0 0 1 37 66 0 0 0 2 20 38 0 0 0 0 0 2 SES Quintile 4 0 0 1 3 53 81 0 0 1 4 30 51 0 0 0 0 1 9 SES Quintile 5 (high) 0 0 5 7 59 87 0 1 3 6 34 59 0 0 0 0 1 13Language Used at Home English Only 0 0 0 2 44 71 0 0 0 3 24 44 0 0 0 0 0 6 Primarily English 0 0 2 3 46 74 0 0 1 3 25 46 0 0 0 0 0 7 Primarily Spanish 0 0 0 2 26 64 0 0 0 2 17 36 0 0 0 0 0 3 Spanish Only 0 0 2 1 38 69 0 0 1 2 21 39 0 0 0 0 0 3Hispanic, any Race (Total) 0 0 1 2 32 61 0 0 1 2 18 36 0 0 0 0 0 4Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in oral English in fall kindergarten are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

46

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Table C7: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic White Students Math Level 1 Math Level 2 Math Level 3 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 84 97 99 100 100 100 37 72 81 95 100 100 6 36 49 85 100 100 SES Quintile 2 91 99 100 100 100 100 51 85 95 99 100 100 16 51 76 96 100 100 SES Quintile 3 96 100 100 100 100 100 61 90 96 99 100 100 21 60 82 97 100 100 SES Quintile 4 98 100 100 100 100 100 69 93 98 100 100 100 28 68 87 98 100 100 SES Quintile 5 (high) 99 100 100 100 100 100 78 96 99 100 100 100 39 77 91 99 100 100White, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 95 99 100 100 100 100 63 89 96 99 100 100 26 63 81 97 100 100 (cont.) Math Level 4 Math Level 5 Math Level 6 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 8 10 57 95 99 0 0 0 15 59 84 0 0 0 1 24 53 SES Quintile 2 2 15 26 71 98 100 0 1 3 18 76 93 0 0 0 2 35 72 SES Quintile 3 3 17 35 77 99 100 0 1 3 26 84 96 0 0 0 3 48 83 SES Quintile 4 5 24 45 83 99 100 0 3 6 33 88 97 0 0 0 5 58 87 SES Quintile 5 (high) 10 32 51 86 99 100 1 4 11 43 92 99 0 0 1 7 69 92White, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 5 22 38 78 98 100 0 2 6 30 84 95 0 0 0 4 52 82 (cont.) Math Level 7 Math Level 8 Math Level 9 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 0 0 0 5 25 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 SES Quintile 2 0 0 0 0 8 36 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 SES Quintile 3 0 0 0 0 15 50 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 SES Quintile 4 0 0 0 1 19 59 0 0 0 0 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 3 SES Quintile 5 (high) 0 0 0 1 29 70 0 0 0 0 2 32 0 0 0 0 0 4White, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 0 0 0 0 18 53 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 3Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic White students with a valid math score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e., students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

47

Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Table C8: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic White Students Reading Level 1 Reading Level 2 Reading Level 3 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 48 82 88 95 100 100 13 50 62 85 100 100 5 31 44 78 99 100 SES Quintile 2 60 94 98 100 100 100 20 67 83 97 100 100 10 45 63 93 100 100 SES Quintile 3 69 95 98 100 100 100 29 74 86 99 100 100 16 53 70 96 100 100 SES Quintile 4 80 97 99 100 100 100 38 80 92 99 100 100 21 60 79 97 100 100 SES Quintile 5 (high) 86 98 100 100 100 100 50 84 93 100 100 100 33 68 82 98 100 100White, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 73 95 98 100 100 100 34 75 87 98 100 100 20 55 72 95 100 100 (cont.) Reading Level 4 Reading Level 5 Reading Level 6 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 5 12 58 96 99 0 1 4 33 80 92 0 0 1 11 52 73 SES Quintile 2 1 11 20 75 99 100 0 4 7 42 91 97 0 1 1 11 66 86 SES Quintile 3 3 14 27 80 100 100 1 6 12 50 94 98 0 1 2 17 73 91 SES Quintile 4 3 19 35 85 100 100 2 7 13 57 96 99 0 1 2 22 81 94 SES Quintile 5 (high) 8 28 41 88 100 100 4 13 18 64 97 99 1 3 5 29 87 96White, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 4 18 30 81 99 100 2 7 13 53 94 98 0 2 3 20 76 91 (cont.) Reading Level 7 Reading Level 8 Reading Level 9 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 0 0 1 24 51 0 0 0 2 15 30 0 0 0 0 1 3 SES Quintile 2 0 0 0 2 35 68 0 0 0 2 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 4 SES Quintile 3 0 0 0 4 47 77 0 0 0 4 26 48 0 0 0 0 1 7 SES Quintile 4 0 0 0 4 58 86 0 0 0 4 31 55 0 0 0 0 1 9 SES Quintile 5 (high) 0 1 1 9 69 91 0 1 1 7 39 64 0 0 0 0 3 20White, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 0 0 0 5 52 79 0 0 1 4 29 52 0 0 0 0 1 10Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic White students with a valid reading score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e., students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

48


Table C9: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic Black Students Math Level 1 Math Level 2 Math Level 3 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 83 96 96 100 100 100 28 64 76 96 100 100 3 23 37 86 100 100 SES Quintile 2 88 99 100 100 100 100 39 72 92 98 100 100 6 31 61 90 100 100 SES Quintile 3 93 99 99 100 100 100 42 82 87 99 100 100 8 46 60 94 100 100 SES Quintile 4 91 99 100 100 100 100 54 84 95 100 100 100 16 47 72 98 100 100 SES Quintile 5 (high) 97 99 100 100 100 100 53 83 96 99 100 100 16 48 75 96 100 100Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 88 98 99 100 100 100 39 74 87 98 100 100 8 35 57 91 100 100 (cont.) Math Level 4 Math Level 5 Math Level 6 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 3 7 45 91 97 0 0 0 4 49 73 0 0 0 0 14 35 SES Quintile 2 0 4 12 56 93 98 0 0 0 8 59 84 0 0 0 0 19 55 SES Quintile 3 1 9 18 62 96 99 0 0 1 11 59 90 0 0 0 0 22 55 SES Quintile 4 2 10 17 73 96 100 0 0 0 12 71 93 0 0 0 0 25 66 SES Quintile 5 (high) 3 13 37 66 97 99 0 2 5 19 76 91 0 0 1 2 34 61Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 1 6 14 57 94 99 0 0 1 8 58 84 0 0 0 0 20 51 (cont.) Math Level 7 Math Level 8 Math Level 9 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SES Quintile 2 0 0 0 0 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SES Quintile 3 0 0 0 0 5 18 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 SES Quintile 4 0 0 0 0 5 27 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 SES Quintile 5 (high) 0 0 0 0 12 28 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 0 0 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic Black students with a valid math score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e., students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

49


Table C10: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic Black Students Reading Level 1 Reading Level 2 Reading Level 3 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 43 83 91 98 100 100 9 44 63 91 100 100 3 23 41 82 99 100 SES Quintile 2 52 85 95 100 100 100 12 51 73 95 100 100 5 33 52 87 100 100 SES Quintile 3 63 92 94 100 100 100 26 64 73 98 100 100 13 43 59 93 100 100 SES Quintile 4 79 96 100 100 100 100 43 74 93 98 100 100 26 58 80 95 100 100 SES Quintile 5 (high) 64 97 100 100 100 100 31 76 93 99 100 100 20 53 76 97 100 100Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 56 88 94 99 100 100 20 56 74 95 100 100 10 37 56 88 100 100 (cont.) Reading Level 4 Reading Level 5 Reading Level 6 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 3 6 54 96 99 0 1 2 28 78 93 0 0 0 6 40 70 SES Quintile 2 1 6 11 62 99 100 0 2 3 35 88 94 0 0 0 10 60 76 SES Quintile 3 1 11 22 70 98 100 0 3 6 38 88 96 0 0 0 9 60 83 SES Quintile 4 4 25 41 80 98 100 1 10 20 52 92 97 0 1 3 19 70 88 SES Quintile 5 (high) 3 16 26 84 100 100 1 6 13 50 94 98 0 1 3 15 71 85Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 1 9 18 65 97 100 0 3 6 36 85 95 0 0 1 10 55 78 (cont.) Reading Level 7 Reading Level 8 Reading Level 9 Socioeconomic Quintile FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 SES Quintile 1 (low) 0 0 0 0 13 39 0 0 0 1 9 23 0 0 0 0 0 2 SES Quintile 2 0 0 0 1 29 52 0 0 0 2 16 30 0 0 0 0 0 2 SES Quintile 3 0 0 0 1 28 59 0 0 0 2 17 33 0 0 0 0 0 2 SES Quintile 4 0 0 0 4 40 72 0 0 1 4 22 44 0 0 0 0 1 7 SES Quintile 5 (high) 0 0 0 3 34 66 0 0 1 3 19 39 0 0 0 0 0 4Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total) 0 0 0 1 25 53 0 0 0 2 15 31 0 0 0 0 0 2Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic Black students with a valid reading score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e., students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.

50


Table C11: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave, Hispanic Subgroup, and Fall Kindergarten English Proficiency, Hispanic Students Math Level 1 Math Level 2 Math Level 3 Sample of Hispanic Students FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5All Hispanic English Proficient, Fall K 90 99 100 100 100 100 46 82 91 99 100 100 13 47 71 95 100 100 Not English Proficient, Fall K 70 96 99 100 100 100 19 61 80 97 100 100 2 20 44 88 100 100All Mexican English Proficient, Fall K 88 99 99 100 100 100 43 81 91 99 100 100 12 46 72 95 100 100 Not English Proficient, Fall K 70 96 99 100 100 100 20 59 80 98 100 100 2 19 44 89 100 100Mexican (Generation 1) English Proficient, Fall K 81 98 100 100 100 100 42 68 100 99 100 100 5 37 98 96 100 100 Not English Proficient, Fall K 75 98 99 100 100 100 25 67 83 99 100 100 3 27 37 94 100 100Mexican (Generation 2) English Proficient, Fall K 85 98 99 100 100 100 37 77 88 99 100 100 10 36 62 93 100 100 Not English Proficient, Fall K 70 96 99 100 100 100 20 58 79 97 100 100 2 18 44 88 100 100Mexican (Generation 3) English Proficient, Fall K 92 99 100 100 100 100 49 85 94 99 100 100 14 55 79 96 100 100 Not English Proficient, Fall K 73 98 100 100 100 100 9 60 94 98 100 100 0 16 64 83 100 100Central American English Proficient, Fall K 86 97 97 100 100 100 39 77 70 97 100 100 12 42 48 89 100 100 Not English Proficient, Fall K 66 97 99 100 100 100 18 65 80 97 100 100 1 19 46 86 100 100

51


(cont.) Math Level 4 Math Level 5 Math Level 6 Sample of Hispanic Students FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5All Hispanic English Proficient, Fall K 2 12 28 68 97 100 0 1 3 17 74 93 0 0 0 1 37 74 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 3 10 49 93 99 0 0 0 7 57 86 0 0 0 0 17 54All Mexican English Proficient, Fall K 1 11 28 68 97 99 0 1 2 17 73 93 0 0 0 1 35 73 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 3 10 50 93 99 0 0 0 7 56 86 0 0 0 0 16 53Mexican (Generation 1) English Proficient, Fall K 0 9 36 55 99 100 0 0 1 8 77 97 0 0 0 0 28 71 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 6 4 54 95 99 0 0 0 8 60 88 0 0 0 1 19 56Mexican (Generation 2) English Proficient, Fall K 1 9 22 66 96 99 0 1 1 14 68 91 0 0 0 1 30 68 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 3 11 51 93 99 0 0 0 7 56 86 0 0 0 0 16 53Mexican (Generation 3) English Proficient, Fall K 2 12 33 71 98 100 0 1 4 21 78 95 0 0 0 2 41 77 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 1 7 30 93 98 0 0 0 5 58 87 0 0 0 0 12 69Central American English Proficient, Fall K 1 13 12 61 98 100 0 1 1 11 77 96 0 0 0 1 34 79 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 2 15 46 92 99 0 0 0 6 55 88 0 0 0 0 22 60

52


(cont.) Math Level 7 Math Level 8 Math Level 9 Sample of Hispanic Students FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5 FK SK F1 S1 S3 S5All Hispanic English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 10 40 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 3 21 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0All Mexican English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 9 36 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0Mexican (Generation 1) English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 8 30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 6 24 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1Mexican (Generation 2) English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 8 33 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0Mexican (Generation 3) English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 10 40 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Central American English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 13 42 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 4 Not English Proficient, Fall K 0 0 0 0 2 31 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1Notes: “Not English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student does not have a valid reading score at wave 1, but the student has a valid longitudinal weight (c1_6fc0). “English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student has both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight. Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Proficiency levels are described in text.

53


Table C12: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave, Hispanic Subgroup, and Fall Kindergarten English Proficiency, Hispanic Students

Reading Level 1

Reading Level 2

Reading Level 3

Reading Level 4

Reading Level 5

Reading Level 6

Reading Level 7

Reading Level 8

Reading Level 9

Sample of Hispanic Students S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5 S3 S5All Hispanic

English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 97 90 97 66 86 39 69 22 41 0 5 Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 99 100 79 94 79 94 42 72 13 41 9 23 0 1All Mexican

English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 90 97 66 86 38 67 22 40 0 5 Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 99 100 96 100 78 94 39 71 10 37 8 21 0 1Mexican (Generation 1)



English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 92 98 69 89 41 72 23 43 1 5 Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 99 100 96 100 83 94 48 69 18 41 12 23 0 0Central American

English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 92 98 72 90 45 76 25 43 1 3 Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 100 84 96 52 80 22 54 13 28 0 1

Notes: “Not English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student does not have a valid reading score at wave 1, but the student has a valid longitudinal weight (c1_6fc0). “English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student has both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight. Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Proficiency levels are described in text.

54

patterns of hispanic student achievement in the early ... · pdf filethis report describes...

Documents