Status and Trends in the Education

of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018

NCES 2019-038
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
 Status and Trends in the
Education of Racial and Ethnic
Groups 2018

FEBRUARY 2019

Cristobal de Brey
Lauren Musu
Joel McFarland
National Center for Education Statistics

Sidney Wilkinson-Flicker
Melissa Diliberti
Anlan Zhang
Claire Branstetter
Xiaolei Wang
American Institutes for Research

NCES 2019-038
U. S . D E PA R T M E N T O F E D U CAT I O N
U.S. Department of Education
Betsy DeVos
Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Mark Schneider
Director

National Center for Education Statistics

James L. Woodworth
Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting
data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze,
and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and
specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving
their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and
accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department
of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless
specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences.
You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or
suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)
550 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20202

February 2019

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES Publications and Products address is https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/.

This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the NCES
Publications and Products address shown above.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-12-D-0002
with American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation

de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstetter, C., and Wang, X.
(2019). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch/.

Content Contact
Cristobal de Brey
(202) 245-8419
Cristobal.DeBrey@ed.gov
Highlights
Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups examines the educational progress and challenges
students face in the United States by race/ethnicity. Through indicators and spotlights—which examine selected topics
in greater detail—this report shows that over time, increasing numbers of students in the racial/ethnic groups of White,
Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more
races have completed high school and continued their education in college. Despite these gains, the rate of progress has
varied among these racial/ethnic groups and differences by race/ethnicity persist in terms of increases in attainment and
progress on key indicators of educational performance.

Spotlights
Spotlight A. Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity

In 2015–16, public elementary and secondary schools that had more racial/ethnic diversity in their student populations
also tended to have more racial/ethnic diversity among teachers. The percentage of minority teachers was highest
at schools that had 90 percent or more minority students (55 percent) and was lowest at schools that had less than
10 percent minority students (2 percent).

Spotlight B. Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups

In 2016–17, there were 4,360 degree-granting institutions in the United States, including four types of institutions
serving specific minority racial/ethnic communities: 102 historically Black colleges and universities, 290 Hispanic-
serving institutions, 35 tribally controlled colleges and universities, and 113 Asian American and Native American
Pacific Islander-serving institutions.

Demographics
Indicator 1. Population Distribution

Between 2000 and 2017, the percentage of U.S. school-age children who were White decreased from 62 to 51 percent
and the percentage who were Black decreased from 15 to 14 percent. In contrast, the percentages of school-age
children from other racial/ethnic groups increased: Hispanic children, from 16 to 25 percent; Asian children, from 3
to 5 percent; and children of Two or more races, from 2 to 4 percent. The percentage of school-age American Indians/
Alaska Natives remained at 1 percent and the percentage of Pacific Islanders remained at less than 1 percent during this
time.

Indicator 2. Nativity

In 2016, about 97 percent of U.S. children under age 18 were born within the United States. The percentages of Asian
(80 percent), Pacific Islander (93 percent), and Hispanic children (94 percent) born within the United States were below
the average of 97 percent for all children. In contrast, the percentages born within the United States for Black children
(97 percent), White children and children of Two or more races (99 percent each), and American Indian/Alaska Native
children (rounds to 100 percent) were above the average for all children.

Indicator 3. Children’s Living Arrangements

In 2016, the percentage of children living with married parents was highest for Asian children (84 percent), followed
by White children (73 percent); children of Two of more races, Pacific Islander children, and Hispanic children
(57 percent each); and American Indian/Alaska Native children (45 percent). The percentage was lowest for Black
children (33 percent).

Indicator 4. Children Living in Poverty

In 2016, the percentage of children under the age of 18 in families living in poverty was higher for Black children than
Hispanic children (31 and 26 percent, respectively), and the percentages for both of these groups were higher than for
White and Asian children (10 percent each).

Among Hispanic subgroups in 2016, the percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty ranged from 11 to
38 percent. Among Asian subgroups, the percentage of children living in poverty ranged from 6 to 37 percent.
Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 iii 
Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation
Indicator 5. Early Childcare and Education Arrangements

In 2016, about 29 percent of children under 6 years old who were not enrolled in kindergarten regularly received center-
based care as their primary care arrangement. The percentage of children who regularly received center-based care was
lower for Hispanic children (23 percent) than for children of Two or more races (34 percent) and for Black (32 percent),
White (31 percent), and Asian children (31 percent).

Indicator 6. Elementary and Secondary Enrollment

Between fall 2000 and fall 2015, the percentage of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools who
were White decreased from 61 to 49 percent. The percentage of Black students also decreased during this period from
17 to 15 percent. In contrast, there was an increase in the percentage of students enrolled in public schools who were
Hispanic (from 16 to 26 percent) and Asian/Pacific Islander (4 to 5 percent) during this time period.

Indicator 7. Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public Schools

In fall 2015, approximately 30 percent of public students attended public schools in which the combined enrollment of
minority students was at least 75 percent of total enrollment. Over half of Hispanic (60 percent), Black (58 percent), and
Pacific Islander students (53 percent) attended such schools. In contrast, less than half of Asian students (38 percent),
American Indian/Alaska Native students (37 percent), students of Two or more races (19 percent), and White students
(5 percent) attended such schools.

Indicator 8. English Language Learners in Public Schools

In fall 2015, about 4.9 million public school students were identified as English language learners (ELL). Over three-
quarters of ELL students were Hispanic (77.7 percent, or 3.8 million students).

Indicator 9. Students With Disabilities

In school year 2015–16, the percentage of students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) was highest for those who were American Indian/Alaska Native (17 percent), followed by those who were Black
(16 percent), White (14 percent), of Two or more races (13 percent), Hispanic and Pacific Islander (12 percent each), and
Asian (7 percent).

Achievement
Indicator 10. Reading Achievement

At grade 4, the White-Black gap in reading achievement scores narrowed from 32 points in 1992 to 26 points in 2017;
the White-Hispanic gap in 2017 (23 points) was not measurably different from the gap in 1992. At grade 8, the White-
Hispanic gap narrowed from 26 points in 1992 to 19 points in 2017; the White-Black gap in 2017 (25 points) was not
measurably different from the gap in 1992.

Indicator 11. Mathematics Achievement

At grade 4, the White-Black achievement gap in mathematics achievement scores narrowed from 32 points in 1990 to
25 points in 2017; the White-Hispanic gap in 2017 (19 points) was not measurably different from the gap in 1990. At
grade 8, there was no measurable difference in the White-Black achievement gap in 2017 (32 points) and 1990. Similarly,
the White-Hispanic achievement gap at grade 8 in 2017 (24 points) was not measurably different from the gap in 1990.

Indicator 12. Absenteeism and Achievement

Students with fewer absences from school scored higher in reading and mathematics assessments than their peers with
more absences. In 2017, the percentage of 8th-graders who reported that they had zero absences from school in the last
month was higher for Asian students (62 percent) than for students who were Black (42 percent), White, Hispanic, of
Two or more races (40 percent each), Pacific Islander (38 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (35 percent).

iv Highlights
Indicator 13. High School Coursetaking

The percentage of students who were 9th-graders in fall 2009 earning their highest math course credit in calculus by
2013 was higher for Asian students (45 percent) than students of every other racial/ethnic group. The percentage earning
their highest math course credit in calculus was also higher for White students (18 percent) than students of Two or more
races (11 percent), Hispanic students (10 percent), and Black students (6 percent).

Indicator 14. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate

The percentage of students who were 9th-graders in fall 2009 earning any Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate (AP/IB) credits by 2013 was higher for Asian students (72 percent) than for White students
(40 percent). The percentages for Asian and White students were higher than the percentages for students of any other
racial/ethnic group.

Student Behaviors and Persistence

Indicator 15. Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion

Between 2000 and 2016, the percentage of students retained in a grade decreased from 3.1 to 1.9 percent. This pattern
was observed among White, Black, and Hispanic students.

In 2013–14, about 2.6 million public school students (5.3 percent) received one or more out-of-school suspensions.
A higher percentage of Black students (13.7 percent) than of students from any other racial/ethnic group received an
out-of-school suspension, followed by 6.7 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, 5.3 percent of students
of Two or more races, 4.5 percent each of Hispanic and Pacific Islander students, 3.4 percent of White students, and
1.1 percent of Asian students.

Indicator 16. Safety at School

In 2015, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported they had been in a physical fight on school property
during the previous 12 months was 6 percent for White students; this was lower than the percentages of Hispanic
students and students of Two or more races (9 percent each) and Black and American Indian/Alaska Native students
(13 percent each).

Indicator 17. High School Status Dropout Rates

From 2000 to 2016, the Hispanic status dropout rate among 16- to 24-year-olds decreased from 28 to 9 percent,
while the Black rate decreased from 13 to 6 percent, and the White rate decreased from 7 to 5 percent. Nevertheless,
the Hispanic status dropout rate in 2016 remained higher than the Black and White rates. There was no measurable
difference between the Black and White status dropout rates in 2016.

In 2016, among Hispanic 16- to 24-year-olds in the United States, the high school status dropout rate ranged from
2.4 percent for individuals of Peruvian descent to 22.9 percent for those of Guatemalan descent. Among Asian 16- to
24-year-olds, status dropout rates ranged from 0.7 percent for individuals of Korean descent to 29.7 percent for those
of Burmese descent.

Indicator 18. High School Status Completion Rates

From 2000 to 2016, the high school status completion rate for Hispanic 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 64 to
89 percent, while the Black and White status completion rates increased from 84 to 92 percent and from 92 to
94 percent, respectively. Although the White-Hispanic and White-Black gaps in status completion rates narrowed
between 2000 and 2016, the rates for Hispanic and Black 18- to 24-year-olds remained lower than the White rate
in 2016.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 v 
Postsecondary Education
Indicator 19. College Participation Rates

In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults who
were of Two or more races (42 percent), White (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent), Pacific Islander
(21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent). From 2000 to 2016, total college enrollment rates
increased for White (from 39 to 42 percent), Black (from 31 to 36 percent), and Hispanic young adults (from 22 to
39 percent) but were not measurably different for the other racial/ethnic groups during this time period.

Among Hispanic subgroups, the average college enrollment rate in 2016 ranged from 27 percent for Honduran 18- to
24-year-olds to 64 percent for Chilean 18- to 24-year-olds. Among Asian subgroups, the average college enrollment rate
ranged from 23 percent for Burmese 18- to 24-year-olds to 81 percent for Other Southeast Asian (including Indonesian
and Malaysian) 18- to 24-year-olds.

Indicator 20. Undergraduate Enrollment

Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic undergraduate enrollment more than doubled (a 134 percent increase from
1.4 million to 3.2 million students). The enrollment for most other racial/ethnic groups increased during the first part of
this period, then began to decrease around 2010.

In 2016, a greater percentage of undergraduates were female than male across all racial/ethnic groups. The gap between
female and male enrollment was widest for Black students (62 vs. 38 percent) and narrowest for Asian students (53 vs.
47 percent).

Indicator 21. Postbaccalaureate Enrollment

Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic postbaccalaureate enrollment more than doubled (a 134 percent increase, from
111,000 to 260,000 students) and Black postbaccalaureate enrollment doubled (a 100 percent increase, from 181,000 to
363,000).

In 2016, a greater percentage of postbaccalaureate students were female than male across all racial/ethnic groups. The gap
between female and male enrollment was widest for Black students (70 vs. 30 percent) and narrowest for Asian students
(56 vs. 44 percent).

Indicator 22. Financial Aid

Among full-time, full-year undergraduate students, 88 percent of Black students, 87 percent of American Indian/Alaska
Native students, and 82 percent of Hispanic students received grants in 2015–16. These percentages were higher than the
percentages for White (74 percent) and Asian (66 percent) students.

Among full-time, full-year undergraduate students, a higher percentage of Black students (71 percent) received loans in
2015–16 than students who were White (56 percent), of Two or more races (54 percent), Pacific Islander (53 percent),
Hispanic (50 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (38 percent), and Asian (31 percent).

Indicator 23. Postsecondary Graduation Rates

The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s
degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2010 was highest for Asian students (74 percent), followed by
White students (64 percent), students of Two or more races (60 percent), Hispanic students (54 percent), Pacific Islander
students (51 percent), Black students (40 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39 percent).

Indicator 24. Degrees Awarded

The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic students more than tripled between 2000–01 and 2015–16.
During the same period, the number of degrees awarded also increased for students who were Asian/Pacific Islander (by
75 percent), Black (by 75 percent), and White (by 29 percent).

vi Highlights
Indicator 25. Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields

In 2015–16, a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded in business than in any other field across all racial/
ethnic groups, with the percentages ranging from 16 percent for students of Two or more races to 22 percent for Pacific
Islander students.

Indicator 26. STEM Degrees

Overall, a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than to males in 2015–16 (58 vs. 42 percent).
However, in STEM fields, a lower percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than to males (36 vs.
64 percent). This pattern—in which females received higher percentages of bachelor’s degrees overall but lower
percentages of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields—was observed across all racial/ethnic groups.

Outcomes of Education
Indicator 27. Educational Attainment

In 2016, the percentage of adults age 25 and over who had not completed high school was higher for Hispanic adults
(33 percent) than for adults in any other racial/ethnic group (with percentages ranging from a low of 8 percent for White
adults to a high of 17 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native adults).

In 2016, the percentage of Hispanic adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s or higher degree ranged from 9 percent for
Salvadorans and Guatemalan adults to 55 percent for Venezuelan adults. Among Asian subgroups, the percentage ranged
from 10 percent for Bhutanese adults to 74 percent for Asian Indian adults.

Indicator 28. Unemployment

In 2016, unemployment rates among adults ages 25 to 64 were higher for American Indian/Alaska Native adults
(11 percent) than for Black (8 percent), Hispanic (5 percent), White (4 percent), and Asian (4 percent) adults. In addition,
a higher percentage of Black than of Hispanic, White, and Asian adults were unemployed.

Indicator 29. Youth and Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School nor Working

In 2017, the percentage of 20- to 24-year-olds who were neither enrolled in school nor working ranged from 10 percent
for Asian young adults to 31 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native young adults.

Indicator 30. Earnings and Employment

In 2016, among those with a bachelor’s or higher degree, Asian full-time, year-round workers ages 25–34 had higher
median annual earnings ($69,100) than their White peers ($54,700), and median earnings for both racial/ethnic groups
were higher than those of their Black ($49,400) and Hispanic ($49,300) peers.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 vii 
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents

Page

Highlights ............................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... xvi

Reader’s Guide ....................................................................................................................... 1

Spotlights ................................................................................................................................ 9
Spotlight A. Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................... 10
Spotlight B. Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups ....16

Chapter 1. Demographics .................................................................................................... 25

Indicator 1. Population Distribution .............................................................................................................. 26
Indicator 2. Nativity ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Indicator 3. Children’s Living Arrangements ................................................................................................. 34
Indicator 4. Children Living in Poverty ......................................................................................................... 38
Snapshot of Children Living in Poverty for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ..................................................... 42

Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation .................. 47

Indicator 5. Early Childcare and Education Arrangements ............................................................................ 48
Indicator 6. Elementary and Secondary Enrollment ....................................................................................... 52
Indicator 7. Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public Schools ........................................................................... 56
Indicator 8. English Language Learners in Public Schools ............................................................................. 60
Indicator 9. Students With Disabilities .......................................................................................................... 62

Chapter 3. Achievement ...................................................................................................... 67

Indicator 10. Reading Achievement ............................................................................................................... 68
Indicator 11. Mathematics Achievement ........................................................................................................ 74
Indicator 12. Absenteeism and Achievement .................................................................................................. 80
Indicator 13. High School Coursetaking ....................................................................................................... 84
Indicator 14. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Coursetaking ......................................... 90

Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence .................................................................. 93

Indicator 15. Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion ....................................................................................... 94
Indicator 16. Safety at School ........................................................................................................................ 98
Indicator 17. High School Status Dropout Rates .......................................................................................... 102
Snapshot of High School Status Dropout Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ....................................... 106
Indicator 18. High School Status Completion Rates .....................................................................................110

Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education ................................................................................115

Indicator 19. College Participation Rates ......................................................................................................116
Snapshot of College Participation Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ................................................... 122
Indicator 20. Undergraduate Enrollment ..................................................................................................... 126
Indicator 21. Postbaccalaureate Enrollment ................................................................................................. 130
Indicator 22. Financial Aid .......................................................................................................................... 134

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 ix 
 Page

Indicator 23. Postsecondary Graduation Rates ............................................................................................. 138

Indicator 24. Degrees Awarded .................................................................................................................... 144
Indicator 25. Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields ............................................................................ 150
Indicator 26. STEM Degrees ....................................................................................................................... 156

Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education ................................................................................... 159

Indicator 27. Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................... 160
Snapshot of Attainment of a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ........................ 164
Indicator 28. Unemployment ....................................................................................................................... 166
Indicator 29. Youth and Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School nor Working ......................................... 168
Indicator 30. Earnings and Employment ..................................................................................................... 170

Appendix A. Guide to Sources ...........................................................................................177

Appendix B. Glossary ......................................................................................................... 201

x  Contents
List of Figures

Figure Page

A.1. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity:
School years 2003–04 and 2015–16 ............................................................................................................. 10
A.2. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by percentage of minority
students in school and teacher minority status: School year 2015–16 ........................................................... 11
A.3. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by school classification
and teacher minority status: School year 2015–16 ........................................................................................ 11
A.4. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by school locale and
teacher minority status: School year 2015–16 ............................................................................................... 12
A.5. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and
years of experience: School year 2015–16 ..................................................................................................... 13
A.6. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and
highest degree earned: School year 2015–16 ................................................................................................. 14
B.1. Total enrollment and Black enrollment at historically Black colleges and universities: Selected years,
fall 1976 through fall 2016 ........................................................................................................................... 16
B.2. Percentage distribution of degrees conferred at historically Black colleges and universities, by level of degree,
race/ethnicity, and sex: Academic year 2015–16 ........................................................................................... 17
B.3. Enrollment at all U.S. institutions and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), by ethnicity: Fall 2016 ................ 18
B.4. Percentage distribution of degrees conferred to Hispanic students, by level of degree and institution type:
Academic year 2015–16 ................................................................................................................................ 19
B.5. Enrollment at tribally controlled colleges and universities, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2000 and fall 2016 ............... 20
B.6. Percentage distribution of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees conferred to American Indian/Alaska Native
students, by institution type: Academic year 2015–16 .................................................................................. 21
B.7. Enrollment at all U.S. institutions and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving
institutions (AANAPISIs), by race/ethnicity: Fall 2016 ................................................................................ 22
B.8. Percentage distribution of degrees conferred to Asian/Pacific Islander students, by level of degree and
institution type: Academic year 2015–16 ...................................................................................................... 23
1.1. Estimates of the U.S. resident population, by age group: Selected years, 2000 through 2017 ............................. 26
1.2. Estimates of the U.S. resident population, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 2000 through 2017 ...................... 27
1.3. Percentage distribution of the U.S. resident population 5 to 17 years old, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2017 ..... 28
1.4. Percentage distribution of the U.S. resident population 18 to 24 years old, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2017 ....... 29
2.1. Percentage of the population born within the United States, by race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016 ......................... 30
2.2. Percentage of the population under 18 years old born within the United States, by race/ethnicity:
2010 and 2016 .............................................................................................................................................. 31
2.3. Percentage of the Hispanic population under 18 years old born within the United States, by subgroup: 2016 ....... 32
2.4. Percentage of the Asian population under 18 years old born within the United States, by subgroup: 2016 ........ 33
3.1. Percentage distribution of children under age 18, by race/ethnicity and living arrangement: 2016 .................... 34
3.2. Percentage distribution of Hispanic children under age 18, by subgroup and living arrangement: 2016 ............ 35
3.3. Percentage distribution of Asian children under age 18, by subgroup and living arrangement: 2016 .................. 36
4.1. Percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty based on the official poverty measure,
by race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016 .......................................................................................................... 38
4.2. Percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure,
by race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016 ................................................................................................................... 39
4.3. Percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty, by race/ethnicity and type of poverty
measure: 2016 .............................................................................................................................................. 40

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 xi 
Figure Page

4.4. Percentage of children under age 18 in mother-only households living in poverty, by race/ethnicity and
type of poverty measure: 2016 ...................................................................................................................... 41
4S.1. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by race/ethnicity: 2016 ................................................... 42
4S.2. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by selected Hispanic subgroups: 2016 ............................ 43
4S.3. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by selected Asian subgroups: 2016 ................................. 44
5.1. Percentage distribution of children under 6 years old who are not enrolled in kindergarten, by race/ethnicity
of child and type of primary care arrangement: 2016 ................................................................................... 48
5.2. Percentage distribution of children under 6 years old who are not enrolled in kindergarten, by race/ethnicity
of child, poverty status of household, and type of primary care arrangement: 2016 ..................................... 49
6.1. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by
race/ethnicity: Fall 2000, fall 2015, and fall 2027 ........................................................................................ 52
6.2. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by region
and race/ethnicity: Selected years, fall 2000 through fall 2015 ..................................................................... 53
6.3. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by
race/ethnicity and traditional public or public charter school status: School year 2015–16 ........................... 54
6.4. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary students, by race/ethnicity and school type:
Fall 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................... 55
7.1. Percentage of public elementary and secondary school students enrolled in schools with at least 75 percent
minority enrollment, by student race/ethnicity: Fall 2000, fall 2010, and fall 2015 ..................................... 56
7.2. Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary school students, by student race/ethnicity and
percentage of minority enrollment in the school: Fall 2015 .......................................................................... 57
7.3. Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary school students, by student race/ethnicity and
percentage of own racial/ethnic group enrolled in the school: Fall 2015 ....................................................... 58
8.1. Number of English language learner (ELL) students in public schools, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2015 .................. 60
8.2. Percentage of public school students identified as English language learner (ELL) students, by
race/ethnicity: Fall 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 61
9.1. Percentage of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Part B, by race/ethnicity: School year 2015–16 ............................................................................................. 62
9.2. Percentage of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Part B, by type of disability and race/ethnicity: School year 2015–16 .......................................................... 63
9.3. Percentage of 14- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Part B, who exited school, by exit reason and race/ethnicity: School year 2014–15 ...................................... 64
10.1. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of 4th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2017 ................................................................................................ 68
10.2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of 8th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2017 ................................................................................................ 70
10.3. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of 12th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2015 ................................................................................................ 71
11.1. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of 4th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990–2017 ................................................................................. 74
11.2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of 8th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990–2017 ................................................................................. 76
11.3. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of 12th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 2005–2015 ................................................................................. 77
12.1. Percentage distribution of 8th-grade students by race/ethnicity and number of days absent from school in
the last month: 2017 ..................................................................................................................................... 80
12.2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale score of 8th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity and number of days absent from school in the last month: 2017 ........................ 81
12.3. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale score of 8th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity and number of days absent from school in the last month: 2017 ....................................... 82
xii  Contents
Figure Page

13.1. Average high school credits earned by students in STEM academic subject areas, by race/ethnicity: 2013 ......... 84
13.2. Average high school credits earned by students in non-STEM academic subject areas, by race/ethnicity: 2013 ..... 85
13.3. Average high school credits earned by students in career and technical education (CTE),
by race/ethnicity: 2013 ................................................................................................................................. 86
13.4. Percentage distribution of students by highest mathematics course in which high school credit was earned,
by race/ethnicity: 2013 ................................................................................................................................. 87
13.5. Percentage distribution of students by highest science course in which high school credit was earned,
by race/ethnicity: 2013 ................................................................................................................................. 88
14.1. Percentage of students earning any credit in Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB)
courses, by academic subject area and race/ethnicity: 2013 .......................................................................... 90
14.2. Average high school credits earned by students in Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB)
courses for students who earned any AP/IB credits, by academic subject area and race/ethnicity: 2013 ....... 91
15.1. Percentage of elementary and secondary school students retained in grade, by race/ethnicity: 2000–2016 ........ 94
15.2. Percentage of elementary and secondary school students retained in grade, by grade level and
race/ethnicity: 2016 ...................................................................................................................................... 95
15.3. Percentage of public school students who received out-of-school suspensions, by race/ethnicity and sex:
2013–14 ....................................................................................................................................................... 96
16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property at least 1 day
during the previous 30 days or being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during
the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2015 ........................................................................................... 98
16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight on school property
at least one time during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2015 ..................................................... 99
16.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on
school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2015 .................................................... 100
16.4. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported gang presence at school, fear of attack or harm at school,
or avoidance of one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school year,
by race/ethnicity: 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 101
17.1. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016 .......................................... 102
17.2. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2016 .................................................... 103
17.3. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity and nativity: 2016 ............................................. 104
17S.1. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by selected Hispanic subgroups: 2016 .......................................... 106
17S.2. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by selected Asian subgroups: 2016 ................................................ 107
18.1. Status completion rates of 18- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 2016 .............................................................110
18.2. Status completion rates of 18- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016 ......................................111
18.3. Status completion rates of 18- to 24-year-olds, by recency of immigration and ethnicity: 2016 ....................... 112
19.1. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by race/ethnicity: 2000, 2003, 2010, and 2016 ...............116
19.2. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by race/ethnicity: 2000–2016 .........................................118
19.3. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by sex and race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2016 .......................119
19.4. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in college by the fall immediately following
high school completion, by race/ethnicity: 2000–2016 .............................................................................. 120
19S.1. Average college enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds in degree-granting postsecondary institutions,
by selected Hispanic subgroups: 2016 ......................................................................................................... 122
19S.2. Average college enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds in degree-granting postsecondary institutions,
by selected Asian subgroups: 2016 .............................................................................................................. 124
20.1. Undergraduate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2000
through 2016 .............................................................................................................................................. 126
20.2. Percentage of total undergraduate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity:
Fall 2000, fall 2010, and fall 2016 .............................................................................................................. 127

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 xiii 
Figure Page

20.3. Percentage distribution of male and female undergraduate student fall enrollment in degree-granting
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2016 .................................................................................................... 128
20.4. Percentage distribution of undergraduate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions,
by race/ethnicity of student and control of institution: Fall 2016 ............................................................... 129
21.1. Postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity:
2000 through 2016 .................................................................................................................................... 130
21.2. Percentage of total postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions,
by race/ethnicity: 2000, 2010, and 2016 .................................................................................................... 131
21.3. Percentage distribution of male and female postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting
institutions, by race/ethnicity: 2016 ........................................................................................................... 132
21.4. Percentage distribution of postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions,
by race/ethnicity of student and control of institution: 2016 ...................................................................... 133
22.1. Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates who received financial aid from any source, by type of
aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16 .................................................................................................................. 134
22.2. Average annual amount of financial aid received by full-time, full-year undergraduates from any source,
by type of aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16 ................................................................................................. 135
22.3. Percentage of part-time or part-year undergraduates who received financial aid from any source,
by type of aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16 ................................................................................................. 136
22.4. Average annual amount of financial aid received by part-time or part-year undergraduates from any source,
by type of aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16 ................................................................................................. 137
23.1. Graduation rates from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at
4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and time to completion: Cohort entry year 2010 ........... 138
23.2. Graduation rate within 6 years (150 percent of normal time) for degree completion from first institution
attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions,
by race/ethnicity and sex: Cohort entry year 2010 ...................................................................................... 139
23.3. Graduation rate within 6 years (150 percent of normal time) for degree completion from first institution
attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions,
by race/ethnicity and control of institution: Cohort entry year 2010 .......................................................... 140
23.4. Graduation rate within 150 percent of normal time for degree completion from first institution attended
for first-time, full-time associate’s degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Cohort entry year 2013 ...............................................................................141
23.5. Graduation rate within 150 percent of normal time for degree completion from first institution attended
for first-time, full-time associate’s degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary institutions,
by race/ethnicity and control of institution: Cohort entry year 2013 .......................................................... 142
24.1. Number of degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree: Academic years
2000–01 through 2015–16 ........................................................................................................................ 144
24.2. Percentage distribution of certificates and associate’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions,
by race/ethnicity: Academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16 ...........................................................................145
24.3. Percentage distribution of bachelor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions,
by race/ethnicity: Academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16 .......................................................................... 146
24.4. Percentage distribution of associate’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2015–16 .......................................... 147
24.5. Percentage distribution of master’s and doctor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16 ...................................................... 148
24.6. Percentage distribution of master’s and doctor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2015–16 ................................................................. 149
25.1. Percentage of associate’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study,
by race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16 .................................................................................................. 150
25.2. Percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study,
by race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16 ...................................................................................................152

xiv  Contents
Figure Page

25.3. Percentage of master’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study,
by race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16 ...................................................................................................153
25.4. Percentage of doctor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study,
by race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16 .................................................................................................. 154
26.1. STEM bachelor’s degrees as a percentage of total bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16 .............................................................................. 156
26.2. Percentage of total and STEM bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions,
by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2015–16 ....................................................................................157
27.1. Percentage of adults age 25 and older who had not completed high school, by race/ethnicity:
2010 and 2016 ............................................................................................................................................ 160
27.2. Percentage of adults age 25 and older who had completed some college but had not earned a degree,
by race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016 .................................................................................................................161
27.3. Percentage of adults age 25 and older who had completed a bachelor’s or higher degree,
by race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016 ................................................................................................................ 162
27.4. Percentage distribution of educational attainment of adults age 25 and older, by race/ethnicity: 2016 ............. 163
27S.1. Percentage of adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s or higher degree, by selected Hispanic
subgroups: 2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 164
27S.2. Percentage of adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s or higher degree, by selected Asian subgroups: 2016 ....... 165
28.1. Unemployment rates of persons 16 to 64 years old, by selected age group and race/ethnicity: 2016 ................. 166
28.2. Unemployment rates of persons 25 to 64 years old, by race/ethnicity and educational attainment: 2016 ......... 167
29.1. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who were neither enrolled in school nor working, by age group and
race/ethnicity: 2017 .................................................................................................................................... 168
29.2. Percentage of 20- to 24-year-olds who were neither enrolled in school nor working, by race/ethnicity
and educational attainment: 2017 .............................................................................................................. 169
30.1. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers 25 to 34 years old, by race/ethnicity: 2016 .............. 170
30.2. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers 25 to 34 years old, by educational attainment
and race/ethnicity: 2016 ............................................................................................................................. 171
30.3. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers 25 to 34 years old with a bachelor’s or higher
degree, by educational attainment and race/ethnicity: 2016 ....................................................................... 173
30.4. Percentage of the labor force ages 25–34 who worked full time, year round, by educational attainment
and race/ethnicity: 2016 ..............................................................................................................................174

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 xv 
List of Tables

Table Page

A. Nationally representative sample and universe surveys used in this report .................................................................... 3

xvi  Contents
Reader’s Guide
Introduction
This report uses statistics to examine current conditions focus on specific racial/ethnic groups. Other reports in
and changes over time in education activities and outcomes this series include Status and Trends in the Education of
for different racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Racial and Ethnic Groups 2017, Status and Trends in the
The indicators in this report show that some traditionally Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016, Status and
disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups have made strides in Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups (2010),
educational achievement, but that gaps still persist. Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and
Alaska Natives: 2008, Status and Trends in the Education
Disparities in the educational participation and of Racial and Ethnic Minorities (2007), Status and Trends
attainment of different racial/ethnic groups in the United in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Natives,
States are well documented.1 One study found that school Status and Trends in the Education of Blacks (2003), and
readiness gaps narrowed between 1998 and 2010, but Status and Trends in the Education of Hispanics (2003).
progress was uneven among racial/ethnic groups.2 For
instance, the gap between White and Hispanic students Organization of the Report
in school readiness has narrowed, but the gap between
White and Black students showed less movement. Status The report begins with demographic information
and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Group (Chapter 1) and then is organized roughly according to
2018 contributes to this body of research by examining the chronology of an individual’s education, starting
the educational progress and challenges of students in with indicators on preprimary, elementary, and
the United States by race/ethnicity. The primary focus secondary participation (Chapter 2), and continuing
of this report is to examine differences in educational with student achievement (Chapter 3), student behaviors
participation and attainment of students in the racial/ and persistence in education (Chapter 4), postsecondary
ethnic groups of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native education (Chapter 5), and outcomes of education
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian/ (Chapter 6 ). In addition, it includes two spotlight
Alaska Native, and Two or more races. The secondary indicators: characteristics of public school teachers by
focus of this report is to illustrate the changing race/ethnicity (Spotlight A) and characteristics of minority-
demographics in the United States. Measuring population serving institutions (Spotlight B).
growth and diversity is important for anticipating the
needs of schools and teachers. This report shows that Race and Ethnicity
over time, students in these racial/ethnic groups have
completed high school and continued their education The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
in college in increasing numbers. Despite these gains, is responsible for the standards that govern the
the rate of progress has varied among these racial/ethnic categories used to collect and present federal data on
groups and differences by race/ethnicity persist in terms of race and ethnicity. The OMB revised the guidelines
increases in attainment and progress on key indicators of on racial/ethnic categories used by the federal
educational performance. This report uses the most recent government in October 1997, with a January 2003
data available and reports on demographics, preprimary, deadline for implementation. The revised standards,
elementary, and secondary education participation, available here: https://www.federalregister.gov/
student achievement, student behaviors and persistence, documents/1997/10/30/97-28653/revisions-to-the-
postsecondary education, and outcomes of education. standards-for-the-classification-of-federal-data-on-race-
and-ethnicity require a minimum of these five categories
Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic for data on race: American Indian or Alaska Native,
Groups 2018 is part of a series of reports produced by the Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that Other Pacific Islander, and White. The standards also
require the collection of data on the ethnicity categories
1 Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, J., Kristapovich,
Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. In
P., and Manning, E. (2012). Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence support of the 1997 OMB guidelines, the Department of
Study (NCES 2012-046). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, Education issued final guidance in 2007 on the collection
DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.
ed.gov/pubs2012/2012046.pdf. and reporting of racial/ethnic data. More information
2 Reardon, S.F., and Portilla, X.A. (2016). Recent Trends in Incomes, Racial, on this guidance is available here: https://www2.ed.gov/
and Ethnic School Readiness Gaps at Kindergarten Entry (CEPA Working policy/rschstat/guid/raceethnicity/index.html. It is
Paper No. 15-02). Stanford University. Stanford, CA: Center for Education
Policy Analysis. Retrieved June 28, 2018, from https://cepa.stanford.edu/ important to note that Hispanic origin is an ethnicity
sites/default/files/wp15-02-v201606_0.pdf. rather than a race, and therefore persons of Hispanic

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 1 
origin may be of any race. Origin can be viewed as the Alaska Native. In some data sources, Asians and Pacific
heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of Islanders are combined into one category so data cannot
the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their be reported separately for these two groups.
arrival in the United States. The race categories White,
Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some of the surveys from which data are presented in
and American Indian or Alaska Native, as presented in these indicators give respondents the option of selecting
these indicators, exclude persons of Hispanic origin unless either an “other” race category, a “Two or more races” or
noted otherwise. “multiracial” category, or both. Where possible, indicators
present data on the “Two or more races” category;
The categories are defined as follows: however, in some cases this category may not be separately
•• American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having shown because the information was not collected or due
origins in any of the original peoples of North to other data issues such as small sample sizes. The “other”
and South America (including Central America) category is not separately shown. Any comparisons made
and maintaining tribal affiliation or community between persons of one racial/ethnic group to “all other
attachment. racial/ethnic groups” include only the racial/ethnic groups
shown in the indicator. For postsecondary data, foreign
•• Asian: A person having origins in any of the original students are counted separately and are therefore not
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian included in any racial/ethnic category.
subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia,
China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the The American Community Survey (ACS), conducted by
Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. the U.S. Census Bureau, collects information regarding
specific racial/ethnic ancestry. This survey is used as a
•• Black or African American: A person having origins in source for several indicators in this publication. These
any of the black racial groups of Africa. indicators include Hispanic ancestry subgroups (e.g.,
•• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Other Central American,
having origins in any of the original peoples of Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, and South American) and
Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Asian ancestry subgroups (e.g., Asian Indian, Chinese,
Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese). For more
•• White: A person having origins in any of the original information on the ACS, see the Guide to Sources
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. (appendix A). For more information on race/ethnicity, see
the Glossary (appendix B).
•• Hispanic or Latino: A person of Mexican, Puerto
Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Data Sources and Estimates
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
The data in these indicators were obtained from many
Within these indicators, some of the category labels have different sources—including students and teachers, state
been shortened in the text, tables, and figures. American education agencies, local elementary and secondary
Indian or Alaska Native is denoted as American Indian/ schools, and colleges and universities—using surveys and
Alaska Native (except when separate estimates are available compilations of administrative records. Users should be
for American Indians alone or Alaska Natives alone); Black cautious when comparing data from different sources.
or African American is shortened to Black; Hispanic or Differences in aspects such as procedures, timing,
Latino is shortened to Hispanic; and Native Hawaiian or question phrasing, and interviewer training can affect the
Other Pacific Islander is shortened to Pacific Islander. comparability of results across data sources.

The indicators draw from a number of different sources. Most indicators summarize data from surveys conducted
Many are federal surveys that collect data using the by NCES or by the Census Bureau with support from
OMB standards for racial/ethnic classification described NCES. Brief explanations of the major NCES surveys
above; however, some sources have not fully adopted the used in these indicators can be found in the Guide to
standards, and some indicators include data collected Sources (appendix A). Table A provides a summary of
prior to the adoption of the OMB standards. This report some of the variations in the design and coverage of data
focuses on the six categories that are the most common sources used in this report. More detailed explanations
among the various data sources used: White, Black, can be obtained on the NCES website (https://nces.
Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/ ed.gov) under “Surveys and Programs.”

2  Reader’s Guide
Table A. Nationally representative sample and universe surveys used in this report
Survey Sample Year(s) of survey Reference time period Indicator(s)
American 295,000 households within the United 2010 through 2016 Varies by survey question 2, 3, 17, 27, 28
Community Survey States Snapshot 4,
(ACS) Snapshot 17,
Snapshot 19,
Snapshot 27

Annual Report to Children with disabilities receiving 2014–15 and 2015–16 December 1 of survey year 9
Congress on the special education and related services
Implementation
of the Individuals
with Disabilities
Education Act
(IDEA)

Census Bureau Decennial Census 2000 through 2017 July 1 of survey year 1
Population
Estimates

Civil Rights Data Public primary and secondary schools 2013–14 School year 15
Collection and public districts in the United States

Common Core of Universe (public primary and secondary 2000­–01 through 2015–16 School year 6, 7, 8, 9
Data (CCD) schools and public districts in the United
States)

Current Population 54,000 households within the United 2000 through 2016 Varies by survey question 4, 15, 17, 18,
Survey (CPS) States 19, 29, 30

Early Childhood Children between birth and age 6 not yet 2016 Time of data collection (January 5
Program enrolled in kindergarten through August 2016)
Participation
Survey of the
National Household
Education Surveys
Program (ECPP–
NHES:2016)

Higher Education Students enrolled in postsecondary 1976 through 1985 Academic year Spotlight B
General Information institutions in fall of survey year
Survey (HEGIS)

High School Students enrolled in grade 9 in fall 2009 2013 Coursetaking histories for grades 13, 14
Longitudinal Study 9–12 (plus some high school–
of 2009 (HSLS:09) level courses such as algebra,
geometry, or foreign language,
taken before grade 9) during
school years 2009–10 through
2012–13

Integrated Students enrolled at postsecondary 1985 through 2016 Institutions using traditional Spotlight B,
Postsecondary institutions in fall of survey year academic year calendars: either 20, 21
Education Data institution's fall reporting date or
System (IPEDS) October 15

Institutions using nontraditional

academic calendars: August 1
through October 31

Full-time, first-time degree- and 2016 (Cohort entry year 2010) 4-year institutions: October 15, 23
certificate-seeking undergraduate 2010 through August 31, 2016
students who began their postsecondary
education and graduated within a 2016 (Cohort entry year 2013) 2-year institutions: October 15, 23
specific time frame 2013 through August 31, 2015

Postsecondary degree recipients 2000–01 through 2015–16 The number of degrees or other Spotlight B,
formal awards conferred between 24, 25, 26
July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016

National Students in grades 4, 8, and 12 Mathematics: 1990, 1992, 1996, School year 11, 12
Assessment 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009,
of Educational 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017
Progress (NAEP)
Reading: 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, School year 10, 12
2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2011, 2013, 2015, 2017

National Students enrolled at Title IV–eligible 2015–16 Academic year 22

Postsecondary postsecondary institutions enrolled
Student Aid Study between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012
(NPSAS:16)

National Teacher Teachers and principals in elementary 2015–16 School year Spotlight A
and Principal and secondary schools
Survey (NTPS)

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 3 
Table A. Nationally representative sample and universe surveys used in this report—Continued
Survey Sample Year(s) of survey Reference time period Indicator(s)
Private School Universe (private schools in the United 2015 School year 6
Universe Survey States)
(PSS)

Projections of Public primary and secondary schools 2027 School year 6

Education Statistics and public districts in the United States

School Crime Students ages 12–18 enrolled in public 2015 Incidents during the school year 16
Supplement (SCS) and private schools during the school
to the National year
Crime Victimization
Survey

Schools and Public and private school districts, 2003–04 School year Spotlight A
Staffing Survey schools, principals, and teachers

Youth Risk Behavior Students enrolled in grades 9–12 in 2015 Incidents during the previous 16
Surveillance System public and private schools at the time of 30 days or 12 months
(YRBSS) the survey

The Guide to Sources also includes information on values for all members of the population and dividing the
non-NCES sources used to compile indicators, such as sum by the size of the population. An example is the annual
the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current average salaries of full-time instructional faculty at degree-
Population Survey (CPS). These Census Bureau surveys are granting postsecondary institutions. Another measure that is
used extensively in the indicators. For further details on sometimes used is the median. The median is the midpoint
the ACS, see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. For further value of a characteristic at or above which 50 percent of
details on the CPS, see https://www.census.gov/programs- the population is estimated to fall, and at or below which
surveys/cps.html. 50 percent of the population is estimated to fall. An example
is the median annual earnings of young adults who are full-
Data for indicators are obtained from two types of time, full-year wage and salary workers.
surveys: universe surveys and sample surveys. In universe
surveys, information is collected from every member of Standard Errors
the population. For example, in a survey regarding certain
expenditures of public elementary and secondary schools, Using estimates calculated from data based on a sample
data would be obtained from each school district in the of the population requires consideration of several factors
United States. When data from an entire population before the estimates become meaningful. When using data
are available, estimates of the total population or a from a sample, some margin of error will always be present
subpopulation are made by simply summing the units in in estimations of characteristics of the total population or
the population or subpopulation. As a result, there is no subpopulation because the data are available from only a
sampling error, and observed differences are reported as true. portion of the total population. Consequently, data from
samples can provide only an approximation of the true or
Since a universe survey is often expensive and time actual value. The margin of error of an estimate, or the
consuming, many surveys collect data from a sample of range of potential true or actual values, depends on several
the population of interest (sample survey). For example, factors such as the amount of variation in the responses,
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) the size and representativeness of the sample, and the size
assesses a representative sample of students rather than the of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. The
entire population of students. When a sample survey is magnitude of this margin of error is measured by what
used, statistical uncertainty is introduced, because the data statisticians call the “standard error” of an estimate.
come from only a portion of the entire population. This
statistical uncertainty must be considered when reporting When data from sample surveys are reported, the standard
estimates and making comparisons. error is calculated for each estimate. The standard errors
for all estimated totals, means, medians, or percentages are
Various types of statistics derived from universe and sample reported in the Reference tables.
surveys are reported in the indicators. Many indicators
report the size of a population or a subpopulation, and often In order to caution the reader when interpreting findings
the size of a subpopulation is expressed as a percentage of the in the indicators, estimates from sample surveys are flagged
total population. In addition, the average (or mean) value with a “!” when the standard error is between 30 and
of some characteristic of the population or subpopulation 50 percent of the estimate, and suppressed with a “‡” when
may be reported. The average is obtained by summing the the standard error is 50 percent of the estimate or greater.

4  Reader’s Guide
Data Analysis and Interpretation A number of considerations influence the ultimate
selection of the data years to feature in the indicators.
When estimates are from a sample, caution is warranted To make analyses as timely as possible, the latest year of
when drawing conclusions about one estimate in comparison available data is shown. The choice of comparison years
to another, or about whether a time series of estimates is may be based on the need to show the earliest available
increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Although one survey year, as in the case of the NAEP survey. In the
estimate may appear to be larger than another, a statistical case of surveys with long time frames, such as surveys
test may find that the apparent difference between them is measuring enrollment, the decade’s beginning year
not reliably measurable due to the uncertainty around the (e.g., 2000 or 2010) often starts the trend line. In the
estimates. In this case, the estimates will be described as figures and tables of the indicators, intervening years are
having no measurable difference, meaning that the difference selected in increments in order to show the general trend.
between them is not statistically significant. Conversely, The narrative for the indicators typically compares the
statistically significant differences may be referred to as most current year’s data with those from the initial year
“measurably different” in the text. and then with those from a more recent period. Where
Whether differences in means or percentages are applicable, the narrative may also note years in which the
statistically significant can be determined using the data begin to diverge from previous trends.
standard errors of the estimates. In these indicators and
other reports produced by NCES, when differences are
Rounding and Other Considerations
statistically significant, the probability that the difference All calculations within the indicators are based on
occurred by chance is less than 5 percent. unrounded estimates. Therefore, the reader may find that
Data presented in the indicators do not investigate more a calculation, such as a difference or a percentage change,
complex hypotheses, account for interrelationships among cited in the text or figure may not be identical to the
variables, or support causal inferences. We encourage calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown
readers who are interested in more complex questions in the accompanying tables. Although values reported
and in-depth analysis to explore other NCES resources, in the Reference tables are generally rounded to one
including publications, online data tools, and public- and decimal place (e.g., 76.5 percent), values reported in each
restricted-use datasets at https://nces.ed.gov. indicator are generally rounded to whole numbers (with
any value of 0.50 or above rounded to the next highest
For all indicators that report estimates based on samples, whole number). Due to rounding, cumulative percentages
differences between estimates are stated only when they are may sometimes equal 99 or 101 percent rather than
statistically significant. Findings described in this report 100 percent. While the data labels on the figures have
with comparative language (e.g., higher, lower, increase, been rounded to whole numbers for most indicators,
and decrease) are statistically significant. To determine the graphical presentation of these data is based on the
whether differences reported are statistically significant, unrounded estimates.
two-tailed t tests at the .05 level are typically used. The
t test formula for determining statistical significance is Limitations of the Data
adjusted when the samples being compared are dependent.
The t test formula is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, The relatively small sizes of the American Indian/Alaska
with the exception of statistical tests conducted Native and Pacific Islander populations pose many
using the NAEP Data Explorer (https://nces.ed.gov/ measurement difficulties when conducting statistical
nationsreportcard/tdw/database/data_tool.asp). When the analyses. Even in larger surveys, the numbers of American
variables to be tested are postulated to form a trend, the Indians/Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders included in
relationship may be tested using linear regression, logistic a sample are often small. Researchers studying data on
regression, or ANOVA trend analysis instead of a series of these two populations often face small sample sizes that
t tests. These alternate methods of analysis test for specific reduce the reliability of results. Survey data for these two
relationships (e.g., linear, quadratic, or cubic) among groups often have somewhat higher standard errors than
variables. For more information on data analysis, please see data for other racial/ethnic groups. Due to large standard
the NCES Statistical Standards, Standard 5-1, available at errors, differences that appear substantial are often not
https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2012/pdf/Chapter5.pdf. statistically significant and, therefore, not cited in the
text. Data on American Indians/Alaska Natives are often
In general, only statistically significant findings are subject to uncertainties that can result from respondents
discussed in the text. However, statistically nonsignificant self-identifying their race/ethnicity. According to research
differences between groups may be highlighted for on the collection of race/ethnicity data conducted by the
clarification purposes. Statistically nonsignificant Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1995 (https://www.bls.gov/
differences may also be discussed when they relate to a news.release/history/ethnic_102795.txt), the categorization
primary focus of the report, such as if achievement gaps of American Indian and Alaska Native is the least stable
have remained unchanged over time. self-identification. The racial/ethnic categories presented to

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 5 
a respondent, and the way in which the question is asked, available in the ACS. Even when data are available, the
can influence the response, especially for individuals who number of individuals within some of the subgroups can
consider themselves of mixed race or ethnicity. These data be small, often resulting in large standard errors.
limitations should be kept in mind when reading this report.
Symbols
As mentioned above, Asians and Pacific Islanders are
combined into one category in indicators for which the In accordance with the NCES Statistical Standards, many
data were not collected separately for the two groups. tables in this volume use a series of symbols to alert the
The combined category can sometimes mask significant reader to special statistical notes. These symbols, and their
differences between subgroups. For example, prior to 2011, meanings, are as follows:
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
— Not available.
collected data that did not allow for separate reporting
of estimates for Asians and Pacific Islanders. Information † Not applicable.
from the Digest of Education Statistics 2017 (table 101.20),
based on the Census Bureau Current Population Reports, # Rounds to zero.
indicates that 96 percent of all Asian/Pacific Islander 5- to
! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of
24-year-olds are Asian. Thus, the combined category for variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and
Asians/Pacific Islanders is more representative of Asians 50 percent.
than Pacific Islanders.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too
Relatively small sample sizes are also an issue for some few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient
of the Hispanic and Asian ancestry subgroups discussed of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or
in several indicators. Data on these subgroups are only greater.

6  Reader’s Guide
This page intentionally left blank.
The spotlight indicators in this chapter of Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups examine
selected topics in greater detail. These indicators feature innovative data collections and analyses from across the
National Center for Education Statistics.

These spotlight indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

8  Spotlights
Spotlights
Spotlight A. Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity............................10

Spotlight B. Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority

Racial/Ethnic Groups ........................................................................................................16

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 9 
 Spotlight A

Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/

Ethnicity
Schools that had more racial/ethnic diversity in their student populations also
tended to have more racial/ethnic diversity among teachers. The percentage of
minority teachers was highest at schools that had 90 percent or more minority
students (55 percent) and was lowest at schools that had less than 10 percent
minority students (2 percent).

The racial/ethnic diversity of public school students teachers.3 Additionally, other characteristics of the
has increased over time (see Elementary and Secondary teacher workforce, such as their years of experience in the
Enrollment). Research has shown that having a teacher classroom, are also of frequent interest in examinations
of the same race/ethnicity can have positive impacts on a of teacher qualifications.4 Examining characteristics of
student’s attitudes, motivation, and achievement1,2 and the teacher population by race/ethnicity can help provide
minority teachers may have more positive expectations context on the diversity and experience of teachers in our
for minority students’ achievement than nonminority public schools.

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

Percent
100

83
80
80

60

40

20
8 9
7 6
1 2 1 1
# # 1 #
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or
Alaska Native more races
Race/ethnicity

2003–04 2015–16

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

The majority of public elementary and secondary school 2003–04 (7 vs. 8 percent). In contrast, the percentages of
teachers were White in both 2003–04 (the first year teachers who were Hispanic, Asian, and of Two or more
for which teacher data for all racial/ethnic groups were races were higher in 2015–16 than in 2003–04. The
available) and 2015–16. However, the percentage of percentages of teachers who were Pacific Islander in these
teachers who were White was lower in 2015–16 than in two years were not measurably different, nor were the
SPOTLIGHT

2003–04 (80 vs. 83 percent). The percentage of teachers percentages who were American Indian/Alaska Native.
who were Black was also lower in 2015–16 than in

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

Percent of minority
students in school

Less than 10 percent 98 2

10 to 24 percent 96 4

25 to 49 percent 90 10

50 to 74 percent 80 20

75 to 89 percent 69 31

90 percent or more 45 55

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

White Minority

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

Schools with more racial/ethnic diversity in their student and schools with 10 to 24 percent minority students
populations also tended to have more racial/ethnic diversity (4 percent), and was lowest at schools with less than
among teachers. The percentage of minority5 teachers was 10 percent minority students (2 percent). The opposite
highest at schools that had 90 percent or more minority pattern was observed for White teachers, who accounted for
students (55 percent), followed by schools with 75 to 98 percent of teachers at schools with less than 10 percent
89 percent minority students (31 percent), schools with minority students but made up only 45 percent of staff at
50 to 74 percent minority students (20 percent), schools schools with 90 percent or more minority students.
with 24 to 49 percent minority students (10 percent),

Figure A.3. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by school classification
and teacher minority status: School year 2015–16

School classification

Traditional public 81 19

Public charter 71 29

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

White Minority

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

The distribution of teachers by race/ethnicity also varied teachers (14 vs. 9 percent), and teachers of Two or more
by school classification. For example, the percentage of races (2 vs. 1 percent). In contrast, the percentage of
teachers who were of a minority race/ethnicity was higher teachers who were White was higher at traditional public
at public charter schools (29 percent) than at traditional schools (81 percent) than at public charter schools
SPOTLIGHT

public schools (19 percent). The percentages of minority (71 percent), and the same was true for the percentage of
teachers within individual race/ethnicity groups was also teachers who were American Indian/Alaska Native (it was
higher at public charter schools than traditional public 0.4 percent at traditional public and 0.2 percent at public
schools for Black teachers (9 vs. 7 percent), Hispanic charter schools).

Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity 11 

 Figure A.4. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by school locale and
teacher minority status: School year 2015–16

Locale

City1 69 31

Suburban 82 18

Town 88 12

Rural 89 11

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

White Minority
1
Interpret 2015–16 data on city teachers with caution. After nonresponse adjustments, the nonresponse bias for this category is greater than for other
characteristics.
NOTE: Minority teachers include all racial/ethnic groups except for White. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to
totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher
Data File,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.23.

The distribution of teachers by race/ethnicity also differed these specific racial/ethnic groups: Black, Hispanic, and
by school location. There was a higher percentage of Asian. Conversely, the percentage of White teachers was
teachers from minority racial/ethnic groups in city schools higher in rural schools (89 percent) than in suburban
(31 percent) than in suburban schools (18 percent), schools (82 percent) or city schools (69 percent). In
town schools (12 percent), or rural schools (11 percent). addition, the percentage of White teachers was higher in
Additionally, the percentage of minority teachers in schools in towns (88 percent) and suburban areas than in
suburban schools was higher than the percentages in town city schools.
and rural schools. This same pattern held for teachers of
SPOTLIGHT

12  Spotlights
Figure A.5. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and
years of experience: School year 2015–16

Percent
100

15 16 17 16
19
24 26
80

40 38 36
39 41
60 Over 20 years
39 37
10 to 20 years
3 to 9 years
40 Less than 3 years

30
30 32 35 27
28 27
20

13 14 17
9 12 11 11
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher
Data File,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.23.

Teachers’ level of experience varied by race/ethnicity. In (24 percent) than of Black teachers (19 percent), Asian
2015–16, a higher percentage of teachers of Two or more teachers (16 percent), teachers of Two or more races
races (17 percent) than of Black teachers (12 percent), (16 percent), and Hispanic teachers (15 percent) had
Asian teachers (11 percent), and White teachers (9 percent) over 20 years of experience. The percentage who had over
had less than 3 years of experience. The percentages of 20 years of experience was also higher for Black teachers
Black (12 percent) and Hispanic (13 percent) teachers than for Hispanic teachers, and higher for American
with this level of experience were also higher than the Indian/Alaska Native teachers (26 percent) than for Asian
percentage for White teachers. At the other end of the and Hispanic teachers.
experience spectrum, a higher percentage of White teachers

SPOTLIGHT

Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity 13 

 Figure A.6. Percentage distribution of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and
highest degree earned: School year 2015–16

Percent
100
8 1 2 7 1 1! ‡ 8! ‡ 2!
11 10! 7
14

80

39 40
48 43 46
45 50 Doctor’s
60
Education specialist1
Master’s
Bachelor’s
40
Less than bachelor’s

51 44
40 45 42
20 37 35

3 2 2 2! ‡ 7! 2!
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
1
Education specialist degrees or certificates are generally awarded for 1 year’s work beyond the master’s level. Includes certificate of advanced
graduate studies.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Although rounded numbers are shown,
figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS), “Public School Teacher
Data File,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 209.23.

A higher percentage of Hispanic teachers (51 percent) highest degree was a master’s were also higher for teachers
than of teachers of Two or more races (42 percent), White of Two or more races (46 percent) and Black teachers than
teachers (40 percent), Black teachers (37 percent), and for Hispanic teachers. A higher percentage of Black teachers
Asian teachers (35 percent) had earned a bachelor’s degree (14 percent) and Asian teachers (11 percent) than of
as their highest degree. The percentage whose highest White teachers (8 percent), teachers of Two or more races
degree was a bachelor’s was also higher for White teachers (7 percent), and Hispanic teachers (7 percent) had earned
than for Black and Asian teachers, and higher for teachers an education specialist degree as their highest degree.
of Two or more races than for Asian teachers. The percentage whose highest degree was an education
specialist degree was also higher for Black teachers than
A higher percentage of Asian teachers (50 percent) and for American Indian/Alaska Native teachers (8 percent).
White teachers (48 percent) than of Black teachers A higher percentage of Black teachers (2 percent) than
(45 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (40 percent), of White teachers, Hispanic teachers, and Asian teachers
and Hispanic teachers (39 percent) had earned a master’s (1 percent for each) had earned a doctor’s degree as their
degree as their highest degree. The percentages whose highest degree.
SPOTLIGHT

14  Spotlights
Endnotes:
1 Egalite, A.J., and Kisida, B. (2018). The Effects of Teacher 4 Papay, J.P., and Kraft, M.A. (2015). Productivity Returns
Match on Students’ Academic Perceptions and Attitudes. to Experience in the Teacher Labor Market: Methodological
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1): 59–81. Challenges and New Evidence on Long-Term Career
2 Egalite, A.J., Kisida, B., and Winters, M.A. (2015). Improvement. Journal of Public Economics, 130, 105–119.
Representation in the Classroom: The Effect of Own-Race Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
Teachers on Student Achievement. Economics of Education pii/S0047272715000304.
Review, 45, 44–52. 5 Minority teachers include all racial/ethnic groups except for
3 Gershenson, S., Holt, S.B., and Papageorge, N.W. White. Minority teachers were combined in some instances in
(2016). Who Believes in Me? The Effect of Student-Teacher this indicator due to small sample sizes for some groups not
Demographic Match on Teacher Expectations. Economics of allowing for a full distribution to be presented.
Education Review, 52, 209–224.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 209.10 Data sources: National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) and
and 209.23 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)
Related indicators and resources: Characteristics of Public Glossary: Public school or institution
School Teachers (The Condition of Education); Elementary and
Secondary Enrollment; Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public
Schools

SPOTLIGHT

Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity 15 

 Spotlight B

Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving

Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups
In 2016–17, there were 4,360 degree-granting institutions in the United States,
including four types of institutions serving specific minority racial/ethnic
communities: 102 historically Black colleges and universities, 290 Hispanic-serving
institutions, 35 tribally controlled colleges and universities, and 113 Asian American
and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions.

In academic year 2016–17, there were 4,360 degree- institutions: historically Black colleges and universities,
granting institutions in the United States,1 including Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges
institutions serving specific minority racial/ethnic and universities, and Asian American and Native American
communities. This spotlight discusses the characteristics, Pacific Islander-serving institutions.
enrollment, and degrees conferred at four types of these

Figure B.1. Total enrollment and Black enrollment at historically Black colleges and universities: Selected years, fall
1976 through fall 2016

Number
350,000

300,000

Total1
250,000

Black
200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
1976 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016
Year
1
Includes U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and nonresident alien students.
NOTE: Includes institutions from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, as well as one institution in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Includes only degree-granting
institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Fall Enrollment in
Colleges and Universities,” 1976 through 1985 surveys; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF:86–99); and
IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 313.20.

In fall 2016, there were 102 historically Black colleges and adequate resources and funds to strengthen the education
universities (HBCUs), including twelve 2-year institutions of Black students in the United States.2 In 2016, there were
and ninety 4-year institutions. HBCUs were established HBCUs in 19 states, the District of Columbia, and the
with the passing of the Higher Education Act of 1965, U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2016, there were 95 HBCUs in the
as amended, and are defined as “any historically Black South, while there were 4 HBCUs in the Midwest and 2 in
college or university that was established prior to 1964, the Northeast. Although HBCUs were originally founded
whose principal mission was, and is, the education of Black to educate Black students, they also enroll students of other
SPOTLIGHT

Americans.” This act, as well as subsequent executive orders, races. In 2016, non-Black students made up 23 percent of
established federal programs “to overcome the effects of enrollment at HBCUs, compared with 15 percent in 1976.
discriminatory treatment” by providing HBCUs with

16  Spotlights
In fall 2016, about 292,100 students, including 223,500 States more than doubled, from 1.0 million students in
Black students, were enrolled at HBCUs. Overall 1976 to 2.6 million students in 2016. As a result, Black
enrollment at HBCUs increased 47 percent between enrollment at HBCUs accounted for 9 percent of overall
1976 and 2010 (from 222,600 to 326,600 students), Black enrollment in 2016, which is a decrease from
and then decreased 11 percent between 2010 and 2016. 18 percent in 1976.
In comparison, the number of students in all degree-
granting institutions increased 91 percent between 1976 Female enrollment at HBCUs has been higher than male
and 2010, and then decreased 6 percent between 2010 enrollment in every year since 1976. The percentage of
and 2016. While Black enrollment at HBCUs increased female enrollment at HBCUs increased from 53 percent
by 17 percent between 1976 and 2016 (from 190,300 to in fall 1976 to 61 percent in fall 2016. Similarly, female
223,500 students), the total number of Black students students accounted for 62 percent of Black enrollment at
enrolled in all postsecondary institutions across the United HBCUs in 2016, an increase from 56 percent in 1976.

Figure B.2. Percentage distribution of degrees conferred at historically Black colleges and universities, by level of
degree, race/ethnicity, and sex: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

19
25
30
80 39

54
28
25
60 20
Non-Black1
20 Black male
Black female
40 13

50 53 49
20 40
32

0
Total Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor’s

Level of degree

1
Includes U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and nonresident alien students.
NOTE: Includes institutions from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, as well as one institution in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Includes only degree-granting
institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Degrees conferred to Black students
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, figures are based on unrounded percentages. Detail may not sum to
100 percent because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 313.30, 321.20, 322.20, 323.20, and 324.20.

In academic year 2015–16, some 48,900 degrees were to Black students were awarded to Black female students:
conferred by HBCUs. Of the degrees conferred by 71 percent of the associate’s degrees, 65 percent of the
HBCUs, associate’s degrees accounted for 9 percent, more bachelor’s degrees, 71 percent of the master’s degrees, and
than two thirds were bachelor’s degrees (69 percent), 67 percent of the doctor’s degrees.
master’s degrees accounted for 16 percent of degrees, and
doctor’s degrees accounted for 5 percent. The degrees awarded to Black students by HBCUs
accounted for 9 percent of degrees awarded to Black
Of the degrees awarded at HBCUs, the majority students by all institutions. However, the percentage of
(75 percent) were conferred to Black students. Black degrees conferred to Black students by HBCUs varied by
students earned 46 percent of the associate’s degrees, degree level: 2 percent of associate’s degrees, 14 percent
81 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 70 percent of the of bachelor’s degrees, 6 percent of master’s degrees, and
master’s degrees, and 61 percent of the doctor’s degrees 11 percent of doctor’s degrees.
in 2015–16. At all levels, the majority of degrees awarded
SPOTLIGHT

Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups 17 

 Figure B.3. Enrollment at all U.S. institutions and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), by ethnicity: Fall 2016

Number (in millions)

20.0 18.8

15.0

15.4 Non-Hispanic
10.0
Hispanic

5.0
3.0

1.5
3.4
1.5
0.0
U.S. HSIs
Institution type

NOTE: Includes only institutions located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Includes U.S. citizens and permanent residents only. Excludes
nonresident alien students. Includes only degree-granting institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial
aid programs. Although rounded numbers are displayed, figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2017,
Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 306.10 and 312.40.

In fall 2016, there were 290 Hispanic-serving institutions expanding educational opportunities for, and improving
(HSIs), including 147 that were 2-year institutions and the attainment of, Hispanic students.3 In 2016, there
143 that were 4-year institutions. If an institution has an were HSIs in 18 states, with 157 HSIs in the West and
enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students 79 in the South. About 3.0 million students, including
that is at least 25 percent Hispanic and meets additional 1.5 million Hispanic students, were enrolled at HSIs
eligibility requirements, they can apply to be designated in 2016.4 Hispanic enrollment at HSIs accounted for
an Hispanic-serving institution. This designation allows 44 percent of overall Hispanic enrollment.
an institution to apply for federal funding that focuses on
SPOTLIGHT

18  Spotlights
Figure B.4. Percentage distribution of degrees conferred to Hispanic students, by level of degree and institution type:
Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80
49
63
71
60 77
85
Other institutions
Hispanic-serving institutions
40

51
20 37
29
23
15
0
Total Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor’s

Level of degree

NOTE: Includes only institutions located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Includes U.S. citizens and permanent residents only. Excludes
nonresident alien students. Includes only degree-granting institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial
aid programs. Although rounded numbers are displayed, figures are based on unrounded percentages. Detail may not sum to 100 percent because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 312.40, 321.20, 322.20, 323.20, and 324.20.

In academic year 2015–16, some 185,100 degrees were In academic year 2015–16, about 100,500 associate’s
conferred to Hispanic students by HSIs: more than half degrees were conferred to Hispanic students by HSIs,
(54 percent) of these degrees were associate’s degrees, accounting for 51 percent of associate’s degrees conferred
37 percent were bachelor’s degrees, 8 percent were to Hispanic students by all institutions. For other degree
master’s degrees, and 1 percent were doctor’s degrees. The levels, the percentage of degrees conferred to Hispanic
number of degrees awarded to Hispanic students by HSIs students by HSIs was smaller: 29 percent for bachelor’s
accounted for 37 percent of degrees awarded to Hispanic degrees, 23 percent for master’s degrees, and 15 percent for
students by all institutions. doctor’s degrees.

SPOTLIGHT

Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups 19 

 Figure B.5. Enrollment at tribally controlled colleges and universities, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2000 and fall 2016

Number
20,000

18,000 16,900

16,000
13,700 3,700
14,000
2,200
12,000
Non-American Indian/Alaska Native1
10,000
American Indian/Alaska Native
8,000
13,200
6,000 11,500
4,000

2,000

0
Fall 2000 Fall 2016
Year
1
Includes U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and nonresident alien students.
NOTE: Includes only institutions located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Includes only degree-granting institutions that grant associate’s
or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Degrees conferred to American Indian/Alaska Native students exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001
and Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 312.50.

In fall 2016, there were 35 tribally controlled colleges TCUs. Overall enrollment at TCUs was 23 percent higher
and universities (TCUs), including twenty-two 2-year in 2016 than in 2000, and the enrollment of American
institutions and thirteen 4-year institutions. TCUs are Indian/Alaska Native students at TCUs was 15 percent
members of the American Indian Higher Education higher. In comparison, overall enrollment at all U.S.
Consortium and are generally tribally controlled and postsecondary institutions increased 30 percent, while the
located on or near reservations. These institutions create enrollment of American Indian/Alaska Native students in
environments that foster American Indian culture, all institutions was 6 percent lower in 2016 than in 2000.
languages, and traditions.5 The 35 TCUs were in 13 states, As a result, American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at
mainly in the Midwest and West. TCUs accounted for 9 percent of overall American Indian/
Alaska Native students enrolled in 2016, compared to
In fall 2016, some 16,900 students, including 13,200 8 percent in 2000.
American Indian/Alaska Native students, were enrolled at
SPOTLIGHT

20  Spotlights
Figure B.6. Percentage distribution of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees conferred to American Indian/Alaska Native
students, by institution type: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80

60
86
Other institutions
97
Tribally controlled colleges and universities
40

20

14
3
0
Associate’s Bachelor’s
Level of degree

NOTE: Includes only institutions located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Includes U.S. citizens and permanent residents only. Excludes
nonresident alien students. Includes only degree-granting institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial
aid programs. Although rounded numbers are displayed, figures are based on unrounded percentages. Detail may not sum to 100 percent because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 312.50, 321.20, and 322.20.

In academic year 2015–16, about 1,300 associate’s degrees TCUs accounted for 14 percent of associate’s degrees and
and 300 bachelor’s degrees were conferred to American 3 percent of bachelor’s degrees conferred to American
Indian/Alaska Native students by TCUs. The degrees Indian/Alaska Native students by all institutions.
conferred to American Indian/Alaska Native students by

SPOTLIGHT

Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups 21 

 Figure B.7. Enrollment at all U.S. institutions and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving
institutions (AANAPISIs), by race/ethnicity: Fall 2016

Number
20,000,000 18,840,000

18,000,000

16,000,000

14,000,000

12,000,000 Non-Asian or
17,540,000 Pacific Islander
10,000,000
Asian or
8,000,000 Pacific Islander

6,000,000

4,000,000
Asian or Pacific Islander: 1,310,000 Asian or Pacific Islander: 290,000
2,000,000 Asian: 1,250,000 1,380,000 Asian: 280,000
Pacific Islander: 50,000 Pacific Islander: 10,000
1,100,000
0
U.S. AANAPISIs

Institution type

NOTE: Includes only institutions located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Includes U.S. citizens and permanent residents only. Excludes
nonresident alien students. Includes only degree-granting institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial
aid programs. Degrees conferred to Asian or Pacific Islander students exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed,
figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2017,
Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 306.10 and 312.60.

In fall 2016, there were 113 Asian American and were enrolled at an AANAPISI. Asian enrollment at
Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions AANAPISIs accounted for 22 percent of the overall Asian
(AANAPISIs), including forty-three 2-year institutions enrollment in all U.S institutions and Pacific Islander
and seventy 4-year institutions. If an institution has an enrollment at AANAPISIs accounted for 15 percent of the
enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least overall Pacific Islander enrollment in all U.S. institutions.
10 percent Asian and Pacific Islander and meets additional
eligibility requirements, they can apply to be admitted to In academic year 2015–16, some 235,700 degrees were
the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander- conferred by AANAPISIs, with 20 percent of these degrees
Serving Institutions Program. This designation allows conferred to Asian or Pacific Islander students. The
an institution to apply for federal funding to improve number of degrees awarded to Asian and Pacific Islander
their academic quality, increase their self-sufficiency, and students by AANAPISIs accounted for 19 percent of the
strengthen their capacity to serve Asian American students total number of degrees awarded to Asian and Pacific
and Native American Pacific Islander students.6 There Islander students by all institutions. About half of the
were AANAPISIs in 15 states, mainly in the West and degrees conferred by AANAPISIs were bachelor’s degrees
Northeast.7 (54 percent) while associate’s degrees accounted for
27 percent, master’s degrees for 16 percent, and doctor’s
In fall 2016, about 1.4 million students, including degrees for 4 percent.
277,400 Asian and 8,100 Pacific Islander students,
SPOTLIGHT

22  Spotlights
Figure B.8. Percentage distribution of degrees conferred to Asian/Pacific Islander students, by level of degree and
institution type: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80

60 81 78 79
88 90 Other institutions
Asian American and Native American
Pacific Islander-serving institutions
40

20

19 22 21
12 10
0
Total Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctor’s

Level of degree

NOTE: Includes only institutions located within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Includes U.S. citizens and permanent residents only. Excludes
nonresident alien students. Includes only degree-granting institutions that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial
aid programs. Although rounded numbers are displayed, figures are based on unrounded percentages. Detail may not sum to 100 percent because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 312.60, 321.20, 322.20, 323.20, and 324.20.

In academic year 2015–16, about 11,900 associate’s of bachelor’s degrees conferred to Asian and Pacific
degrees were conferred to Asian and Pacific Islander Islander students by all institutions. In contrast, the
students by AANAPISIs, accounting for 22 percent of degrees conferred to Asian and Pacific Islander students by
associate’s degrees awarded to Asian and Pacific Islander AANAPISIs accounted for 12 percent of master’s degrees
students by all institutions. Similarly, the number of and 10 percent of doctor’s degrees conferred to Asian and
bachelor’s degrees conferred by AANAPISIs to Asian Pacific Islander students by all institutions.
and Pacific Islander students accounted for 21 percent

Endnotes:
1 In this indicator, the United States is limited to the 50 states 5 For more information regarding tribal colleges and
and the District of Columbia, except for the discussion of universities, see: https://sites.ed.gov/whiaiane/tribes-tcus/
historically Black colleges and universities which also includes tribal-colleges-and-universities/.
one institution in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 6 For more information regarding Asian American and Native
2 For more information on historically Black colleges and American Pacific Islander-serving institutions, see: https://
universities, see: https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/one-hundred- www2.ed.gov/programs/aanapi/index.html. The eligible
and-five-historically-black-colleges-and-universities/ and financial assistance programs are the Federal Pell Grant,
https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/about-us/. Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant,
3 For more information regarding criteria for Hispanic-serving Federal Work Study, and the Federal Perkins Loan.
institutions, see: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/hsistem/ 7 An additional 11,300 students, including 3,200 Asian
index.html. For additional information on Hispanic-serving students and 7,600 Pacific Islander students, are enrolled in
institutions, see: https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/ 7 AANAPISIs located in American Samoa, Micronesia, Guam,
hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis/. the Marshall Islands, and the Northern Marianas.
4 An additional 180,600 students, including 179,500 Hispanic
students, are enrolled in 55 HSIs located in Puerto Rico.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 303.10, Data sources: Higher Education General Information Survey
306.10, 312.40, 312.50, 312.60, 313.10, 313.20, 313.30, 317.20, (HEGIS) and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
321.20, 322.20, 323.20, and 324.20 (IPEDS)
SPOTLIGHT

Related indicators and resources: Characteristics of Degree- Glossary: Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; College; Degree-
Granting Postsecondary Institutions (The Condition of Education);
granting institutions; Doctor’s degree; Master’s degree
Degrees Awarded; Postbaccalaureate Enrollment; Postsecondary
Certificates and Degrees Conferred (The Condition of Education);
Undergraduate Enrollment

Characteristics of Postsecondary Institutions Serving Specific Minority Racial/Ethnic Groups 23 

The first chapter in this report presents demographic information that provides background and context for the
education indicators presented in later chapters. In order to describe the status of the various racial/ethnic groups in the
U.S. education system, it is important to provide contextual information on the relative size of each group, where the
members of those groups come from, and other background characteristics.

This chapter’s indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

24  Chapter 1. Demographics

Chapter 1. Demographics
Indicator 1. Population Distribution ........................................................................................ 26

Indicator 2. Nativity .................................................................................................................. 30

Indicator 3. Children’s Living Arrangements ........................................................................... 34

Indicator 4. Children Living in Poverty ..................................................................................... 38

Snapshot of Children Living in Poverty for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups .............................. 42

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 25 
Indicator 1

Population Distribution
Between 2000 and 2017, the percentage of U.S. school-age children who were White
decreased from 62 to 51 percent and the percentage who were Black decreased
from 15 to 14 percent. In contrast, the percentages of school-age children from
other racial/ethnic groups increased: Hispanic children, from 16 to 25 percent; Asian
children, from 3 to 5 percent; and children of Two or more races, from 2 to 4 percent.

The population of the United States has increased An awareness of the shifting demographics of the U.S.
and become more diverse over the past two decades. population can help ensure that educators are prepared to
Measuring population growth and diversity is important work with diverse groups of students.1
for anticipating the needs of schools and teachers.

Figure 1.1. Estimates of the U.S. resident population, by age group: Selected years, 2000 through 2017

Number (in millions)

250

25 years old and over

200

150

100

5 to 17 years old

50
18 to 24 years old

Under 5 years old

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2017
Year

NOTE: The “resident population” includes the civilian population and armed forces personnel residing within the United States; it excludes armed forces
personnel residing overseas. Data are for the resident population as of July 1 of the indicated year.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2000 through 2009 Population Estimates, retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.census.gov/
popest/data/national/asrh/2011/index.html; and 2010 through 2017 Population Estimates, retrieved September 5, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/data/
datasets/2016/demo/popest/nation-detail.html. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.20.

From 2000 to 2017, the U.S. population increased by to 30.8 million), it then fluctuated between 2010 and
15 percent, from 282.2 million to 325.3 million. During 2017. Similarly, the population of children under age 5
this period, the population of adults (i.e., those age 25 increased from 19.2 million in 2000 to 20.2 million in
and over) increased by 21 percent (from 182.5 million to 2010, and then fluctuated between 2010 and 2017. The
221.1 million). While the population of 18- to 24-year- population of 5- to 17-year-olds (i.e., school-age children)
olds (i.e., the traditional college-age population) increased increased from 53.2 million in 2000 to 53.9 million in
13 percent between 2000 and 2010 (from 27.3 million 2010 and then declined to 53.7 million in 2017.

26  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 1.2. Estimates of the U.S. resident population, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 2000 through 2017

Number (in millions)

250

White

200

150

100
Two or more races
Hispanic
Black
50

Asian American Indian/Alaska Native Pacific Islander

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2017
Year

NOTE: The “resident population” includes the civilian population and armed forces personnel residing within the United States; it excludes armed forces
personnel residing overseas. Data are for the resident population as of July 1 of the indicated year. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2000 through 2009 Population Estimates, retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.census.gov/
popest/data/national/asrh/2011/index.html; and 2010 through 2017 Population Estimates, retrieved September 5, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/data/
datasets/2016/demo/popest/nation-detail.html. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.20.

Since 2000, the populations of all racial/ethnic groups by 14 percent (from 2.1 million to 2.4 million), and
have increased, with the population of those who were the White population increased by 1 percent (from
of Two or more races, Asian, Hispanic, and Pacific 195.7 million to 198.0 million).
Islander increasing at a faster rate than the populations
of those who were White, Black, and American Indian/ As a result of the differing rates of increase, the racial/
Alaska Native. Between 2000 and 2017, the population ethnic composition of the U.S. population has shifted.
of those of Two or more races doubled (from 3.5 to 7.0 The percentage of the population who were White
million), the Asian population increased by 74 percent decreased from 69 percent in 2000 to 61 percent in
(from 10.5 million to 18.3 million), the Hispanic 2017. In contrast, the percentages of the population who
population increased by 64 percent (from 35.7 million were Asian and Hispanic increased from 4 to 6 percent
to 58.6 million), and the Pacific Islander population and from 13 to 18 percent, respectively. In 2017, some
increased by 56 percent (from 0.4 million to 0.6 million). 12 percent of the population was Black, 1 percent was
During the same period, the Black population increased American Indian/Alaska Native, and less than one-half of
by 18 percent (from 34.4 million to 40.6 million), the 1 percent was Pacific Islander. Between 2000 and 2017,
American Indian/Alaska Native population increased these percentages changed by less than 1 percentage point.

Population Distribution 27 

Figure 1.3. Percentage distribution of the U.S. resident population 5 to 17 years old, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2017

Percent
100

80

62
60
51

40

25

20 15 16
14

3 5 4
# 1 2
# 1
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or
Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

2000 2017

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: The “resident population” includes the civilian population and armed forces personnel residing within the United States; it excludes armed forces
personnel residing overseas. Data are for the resident population as of July 1 of the indicated year. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic
ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2000 Population Estimates, retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.census.gov/
popest/data/national/asrh/2011/index.html; and 2017 Population Estimates, retrieved September 5, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/data/
datasets/2016/demo/popest/nation-detail.html. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.20.

The population of 5- to 17-year-olds, or school-age from other racial/ethnic groups increased: Hispanic
children, was higher in 2017 (53.7 million) than it was children, from 16 to 25 percent; Asian children, from 3 to
in 2000 (53.2 million). The racial/ethnic distribution 5 percent; and children of Two or more races, from 2 to
of the school-age population in the United States 4 percent. In 2017, the percentage of school-age children
changed during this period. Between 2000 and 2017, who were American Indian/Alaska Native was 1 percent,
the percentage of school-age children who were White and the percentage who were Pacific Islander was less
decreased from 62 percent to 51 percent and the than one-half of 1 percent. Between 2000 and 2017, these
percentage who were Black decreased from 15 to 14 percentages changed by less than 1 percentage point.
percent. In contrast, the percentage of school-age children

28  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 1.4. Percentage distribution of the U.S. resident population 18 to 24 years old, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2017

Percent
100

80

62
60 54

40

22
20 18
14 14

4 6
1 3
# # 1 1
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or
Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

2000 2017

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: The “resident population” includes the civilian population and armed forces personnel residing within the United States; it excludes armed forces
personnel residing overseas. Data are for the resident population as of July 1 of the indicated year. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic
ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2000 Population Estimates, retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.census.gov/
popest/data/national/asrh/2011/index.html; and 2017 Population Estimates, retrieved September 5, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/data/
datasets/2016/demo/popest/nation-detail.html. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.20.

The 18- to 24-year-old population, or the traditional percentage of the college-age population which was White
college-age population, increased from 27.3 million decreased from 62 to 54 percent, while the percentages
in 2000 to 30.6 million in 2017. The majority of the of other races/ethnicities increased: Black, from 13.8 to
increase, about 3.5 million, occurred between 2000 and 14.4 percent; Hispanic, from 18 to 22 percent; Asian,
2010. The changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the from 4 to 6 percent; and of Two or more races, from 1 to
traditional college-age population in the United States 3 percent. In both 2000 and 2017, less than one half
were similar to the patterns in the school-age population, of 1 percent of the college-age population was Pacific
with the exception of the Black college-age population Islander and 1 percent of the college-age population was
that increased compared to the decrease seen in the American Indian/Alaska Native.
school-age population. Thus, from 2000 to 2017, the

Endnotes:
1 Frankenberg, E., and Siegel-Hawley, G. (2008). Are www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/
Teachers Prepared for Racially Changing Schools? Teachers integration-and-diversity/are-teachers-prepared-for-racially-
Describe Their Preparation, Resources, and Practices for Racially changing-schools/frankenberg-are-teachers-prepared-racially.
Diverse Schools. University of California, Los Angeles. Los pdf.
Angeles: The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved from https://

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2016 and 2017, Data sources: Census Bureau Population Estimates
table 101.20 Glossary: N/A
Related indicators and resources: N/A

Population Distribution 29 

Indicator 2

Nativity
In 2016, about 97 percent of U.S. children under age 18 were born within the
United States. The percentages of Asian (80 percent), Pacific Islander (93 percent),
and Hispanic children (94 percent) born within the United States were below the
average of 97 percent for all children. In contrast, the percentages born within the
United States for Black children (97 percent), White children and children of Two
or more races (99 percent each), and American Indian/Alaska Native children
(rounds to 100 percent) were above the average for all children.

The composition and size of the foreign-born population grown to 13 percent of the total population and came
of the United States has changed dramatically since 1960, mostly from Latin America and Asia.1 This indicator
when foreign-born residents accounted for 5 percent of examines the percentage of the U.S. population born
the U.S. population and came mostly from European within the United States by racial/ethnic group, including
countries. By 2010, the foreign-born population had for Hispanic and Asian subgroups.

Figure 2.1. Percentage of the population born within the United States, by race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016

Percent
99 99
100 96 96
92 91 91 92
87 86
80
78
80

66
63
60

40
33 33

20

0
Total¹ White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Race/ethnicity Native

2010 2016

1
Total includes respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into
any of the other groups.
NOTE: “Born within the United States” includes those born in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Marianas, as well as those born abroad to U.S.-citizen parents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 101.30.

In 2016, about 86 percent of the U.S. population was races (92 percent), White (96 percent), and American
born within the United States,2 which was lower than Indian/Alaska Native (99 percent) were above the national
the corresponding percentage in 2010 (87 percent). The average. The percentage of the population born within the
percentages of Asian (33 percent), Hispanic (66 percent), United States was lower in 2016 than in 2010 for Black
and Pacific Islander (78 percent) people born within people (91 vs. 92 percent); in contrast, this percentage was
the United States were below the national average of higher in 2016 than in 2010 for Hispanic people (66 vs.
86 percent in 2016. In contrast, the percentages of 63 percent) and people of Two or more races (92 vs.
people who were Black (91 percent), of Two or more 91 percent).

30  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 2.2. Percentage of the population under 18 years old born within the United States, by race/ethnicity: 2010 and
2016

Percent
99 99 99 100 98 98
96 97 98 97
100 94 93
92 93

78 80
80

60

40

20

0
Total¹ White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Race/ethnicity Native2

2010 2016

1
Total includes respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into
any of the other groups.
2
In 2016, the American Indian/Alaska Native population under 18 years old born within the United States rounded to 100 percent.
NOTE: “Born within the United States” includes those born in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Marianas, as well as those born abroad to U.S.-citizen parents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 101.30.

In 2016, about 97 percent of children under age 18 were and American Indian/Alaska Native children (rounds
born within the United States. The percentages of Asian to 100 percent) were above the average for all children.
(80 percent), Pacific Islander (93 percent), and Hispanic The percentage of children born within the United States
children (94 percent) born within the United States was higher in 2016 than in 2010 for Hispanic (94 vs.
were below the average of 97 percent for all children. In 92 percent) and Asian children (80 vs. 78 percent); in
contrast, the percentages born within the United States contrast, this percentage was lower in 2016 than in 2010
for Black children (97 percent),3 children of Two or for Black children (97 vs. 98 percent).
more races (98 percent), White children (99 percent),

Nativity 31 
Figure 2.3. Percentage of the Hispanic population under 18 years old born within the United States, by subgroup: 2016

Subgroup

Hispanic 94

Cuban 87

Dominican 84

Mexican 96

Puerto Rican1 100

Spaniard 94

Total2 85
Costa Rican 90
Guatemalan 84
Central Honduran 79
American
Nicaraguan 92
Panamanian 98
Salvadoran 88

Total 86
Chilean 89
Colombian 88
South
Ecuadorian 91
American
Peruvian 91
Venezuelan 67
Other South American 86

Other Hispanic 97

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
1
In 2014, the Puerto Rican population under 18 years old born within the United States rounded to 100 percent.
2
Includes other Central American subgroups not shown separately.
NOTE: “Born within the United States” includes those born in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the Northern Marianas, as well as those born abroad to U.S.-citizen parents. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are
based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 101.30.

In 2016, about 94 percent of Hispanic children under age for Costa Rican, Spanish, Chilean, and Nicaraguan
18 were born within the United States. The percentages children were not measurably different from the average
were higher than the average for Hispanic children for Hispanic children overall. The percentages for all other
overall for the following Hispanic subgroups: Mexican subgroups were lower than the Hispanic average, ranging
(96 percent), Other Hispanic (those not included in other from 67 percent for Venezuelan children to 91 percent for
subgroups) (97 percent), Panamanian (98 percent), and Ecuadorian children.
Puerto Rican (rounds to 100 percent). The percentages

32  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 2.4. Percentage of the Asian population under 18 years old born within the United States, by subgroup: 2016

Subgroup

Asian 80

Chinese¹ 77

Filipino 81

Japanese 71

Korean 73

Total² 78
Asian Indian 79
South Bangladeshi 75
Asian Bhutanese 64
Nepalese 53
Pakistani 80

Total 83
Burmese 42
Cambodian 90
Southeast Hmong 95
Asian Laotian 96
Thai 70
Vietnamese 86
Other Southeast Asian³ 78

Other Asian 91

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

1
Includes Taiwanese.
2
In addition to the subgroups shown, also includes Sri Lankan.
3
Consists of Indonesian and Malaysian.
NOTE: “Born within the United States” includes those born in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Marianas, as well as those born abroad to U.S.-citizen parents. Asian category excludes persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.30.

Among Asian children under age 18 in 2016, about Other Southeast Asian (which consists of Indonesian
80 percent were born within the United States. The and Malaysian), Pakistani, and Thai children were not
percentages were higher than the average for Asian children measurably different from the average for Asian children
overall for the following Asian subgroups: Vietnamese overall. The percentages for all other subgroups were
(86 percent), Cambodian (90 percent), Other Asian (those lower than the Asian average, ranging from 42 percent for
not included in other subgroups) (91 percent), Hmong Burmese children to 77 percent for Chinese children.
(95 percent), and Laotian (96 percent). The percentages
for Filipino, Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese,

Endnotes:
1 Grieco, E.M., Trevelyan, E., Larsen, L., Acosta, Y.D., District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
Gambino, C., de la Cruz, P., Gryn, T., and Walters, N. the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas, as well as
(2012). The Size, Place of Birth, and Geographic Distribution of those born abroad to U.S.-citizen parents.
the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1960 to 2010. 3 Due to rounding, statistically significant differences may not
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 27, always be apparent. The percentage of children under age 18
2018, from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ born within the United States was 96.6 percent overall and
library/working-papers/2012/demo/POP-twps0096.pdf. 97.2 percent for Black children.
2 Consistent with the Census definition, “born within the
United States” includes those born in the 50 states, the

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.30 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: English Language Learners in Glossary: N/A
Public Schools

Nativity 33 
Indicator 3

Children’s Living Arrangements

In 2016, the percentage of children living with married parents was highest for Asian
children (84 percent), followed by White children (73 percent); children of Two of
more races, Pacific Islander children, and Hispanic children (57 percent each); and
American Indian/Alaska Native children (45 percent). The percentage was lowest
for Black children (33 percent).

In 2016, approximately 73.6 million children under age with no spouse present.1 In addition, 2 percent of these
18 lived in the United States. The living arrangements children lived in other arrangements.2 This indicator
of these children varied: 63 percent lived with married examines how children’s living arrangements varied across
parents, 27 percent lived with a female parent with no racial/ethnic groups.
spouse present, and 8 percent lived with a male parent

Figure 3.1. Percentage distribution of children under age 18, by race/ethnicity and living arrangement: 2016

Percent
100
2 2 3 2 4 1 3 4 2
8 7 8 10 8
10
10 13

17
80
27
31 30 32 All other children1

38
60 56 Children living with parents
or related to householder2
Male parent,
no spouse present
84
40 Female parent,
73
no spouse present
63
57 57 57 Married parents
45
20
33

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native

Race/ethnicity

1
Includes foster children, children in unrelated subfamilies, children living in group quarters, and children who were reported as the householder or spouse of
the householder.
2
Includes all children who live either with their parent(s) or with a householder to whom they are related by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who
is the spouse of the householder). Children are classified by their parents’ marital status or, if no parents are present in the household, by the marital status
of the householder who is related to the children. Living arrangements with only a “female parent” or “male parent” are those in which the parent or the
householder who is related to the child does not have a spouse living in the household. The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or
rents (maintains) the housing unit.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail
may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.20.

In 2016, across racial/ethnic groups, the majority of Islander children, and Hispanic children (57 percent
children under age 18 lived with married parents, with each); and American Indian/Alaska Native children
the exception of Black (33 percent) and American Indian/ (45 percent). The percentage was lowest for Black children
Alaska Native (45 percent) children. The percentage of (33 percent). The percentage of children living with a
children living with married parents was highest for female parent with no spouse present was highest for
Asian children (84 percent), followed by White children Black children (56 percent), followed by children who
(73 percent); children of Two of more races, Pacific were American Indian/Alaska Native (38 percent); of

34  Chapter 1. Demographics

Two or more races (32 percent), Hispanic (31 percent), Hispanic children, and Pacific Islander children. The
and Pacific Islander (30 percent); White (17 percent); percentage of children living with a male parent with no
and Asian (10 percent). Differences were statistically spouse present was higher for American Indian/Alaska
significant between the racial/ethnic groups for the Native children (13 percent) than for children of all
percentages of children living with married parents or other racial/ethnic groups except Pacific Islander children
with a female parent and no spouse present, except for (10 percent); conversely, the percentage was lowest for
the differences among children of Two or more races, Asian children (4 percent).

Figure 3.2. Percentage distribution of Hispanic children under age 18, by subgroup and living arrangement: 2016

Percent
100
2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4
10 9 8 10 8 7 8
12 9

80 22 24
31 30 30
30 31 All other children4
45 45
60 Children living with parents
or related to householder5
Male parent,
no spouse present
40
Female parent,
69 67 no spouse present
57 60 59 55 56 Married parents
45 44
20

0
Total Cuban Dominican Mexican Puerto Spaniard Central South Other
Hispanic Rican American1 American2 Hispanic
or Latino3
Subgroup
1
Includes Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Salvadoran, and other Central American subgroups.
2
Includes Chilean, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Venezuelan, and other South American subgroups.
3
Includes other Hispanic subgroups not separately shown.
4
Includes foster children, children in unrelated subfamilies, children living in group quarters, and children who were reported as the householder or spouse of
the householder.
5
Includes all children who live either with their parent(s) or with a householder to whom they are related by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who
is the spouse of the householder). Children are classified by their parents’ marital status or, if no parents are present in the household, by the marital status
of the householder who is related to the children. Living arrangements with only a “female parent” or “male parent” are those in which the parent or the
householder who is related to the child does not have a spouse living in the household. The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or
rents (maintains) the housing unit.
NOTE: Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.20.

Among Hispanic children under age 18 in 2016, about with married parents were higher than the Hispanic
57 percent lived with married parents, 31 percent lived average. The percentages of children living with a female
with a female parent with no spouse present, 10 percent parent with no spouse present were below the Hispanic
lived with a male parent with no spouse present, and average of 31 percent for Mexican (30 percent), South
2 percent lived in other arrangements. However, the American (24 percent), and Spaniard (22 percent) children,
percentages for some Hispanic subgroups differed from and were above the Hispanic average for Puerto Rican and
the Hispanic average. For instance, the percentages of Dominican children (45 percent each). The percentages of
children living with married parents were below the children living with a male parent with no spouse present
Hispanic average of 57 percent for Dominican (45 percent) were lower than the Hispanic average of 10 percent for
and Puerto Rican (44 percent) children. In contrast, the South American (8 percent) and Spaniard (7 percent)
percentages of Spaniard (69 percent), South American3 children but were higher than the Hispanic average for
(67 percent), and Mexican (59 percent) children living Central American4 children (12 percent).

Children’s Living Arrangements 35 

Figure 3.3. Percentage distribution of Asian children under age 18, by subgroup and living arrangement: 2016

Percent
100
4 1 2 2 3 2 # 2 1
4 6 5 5 7 6
3 2
7 8
10 11 11
15
18
80

All other children 5

60 Children living with parents

or related to householder6
Male parent,
93
86 87 no spouse present
40 84 83 82
77 73 Female parent,
no spouse present
Married parents
20

0
Total Chinese¹ Filipino Japanese Korean South Southeast Other
Asian Asian² Asian³ Asian4

Subgroup

# Rounds to zero.
1
Includes Taiwanese.
2
Includes Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan subgroups.
3
Includes Burmese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Vietnamese, and other Southeast Asian subgroups. Other Southeast Asian subgroups consist of
Indonesian and Malaysian.
4
Includes other Asian subgroups not separately shown.
5
Includes foster children, children in unrelated subfamilies, children living in group quarters, and children who were reported as the householder or spouse of
the householder.
6
Includes all children who live either with their parent(s) or with a householder to whom they are related by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who
is the spouse of the householder). Children are classified by their parents’ marital status or, if no parents are present in the household, by the marital status
of the householder who is related to the children. Living arrangements with only a “female parent” or “male parent” are those in which the parent or the
householder who is related to the child does not have a spouse living in the household. The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or
rents (maintains) the housing unit.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail
may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.20.

However, the percentages for some Asian subgroups the Asian average. The percentages of children living
differed from the Asian average. Overall, in 2016, about with a female parent with no spouse present were below
84 percent of Asian children under age 18 lived with the Asian average of 10 percent for Japanese (7 percent)
married parents, 10 percent lived with a female parent and South Asian (5 percent) children, and were above
with no spouse present, 4 percent lived with a male the Asian average for Southeast Asian (18 percent) and
parent with no spouse present, and 1 percent lived in Filipino (15 percent) children. The percentages of children
other arrangements. The percentages of children living living with a male parent with no spouse present were
with married parents were below the Asian average lower than the Asian average of 4 percent for Korean
of 84 percent for Filipino (77 percent) and Southeast (3 percent) and South Asian (2 percent) children but
Asian5 (73 percent) children. In contrast, the percentages were higher than the Asian average for Southeast Asian
of South Asian6 (93 percent) and Korean (87 percent) (7 percent) and Filipino (6 percent) children.
children living with married parents were higher than

36  Chapter 1. Demographics

Endnotes:
1 Includes all children who live either with their parent(s) reported as the householder or spouse of the householder. Due
or with a householder to whom they are related by birth, to the small percentage of children in this category, racial/
marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse of ethnic differences are not discussed in the indicator.
the householder). Children are classified by their parents’ 3 Includes Chilean, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian,
marital status or, if no parents are present in the household, Venezuelan, and other South American subgroups.
by the marital status of the householder who is related to the 4 Includes Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan,
children. Living arrangements with only a “female parent” or Panamanian, Salvadoran, and other Central American
“male parent” are those in which the parent or the householder subgroups.
who is related to the child does not have a spouse living in the 5 Includes Burmese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai,
household. The householder is the person (or one of the people) Vietnamese, and other Southeast Asian subgroups. Other
who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. Southeast Asian subgroups consist of Indonesian and Malaysian.
2 Includes foster children, children in unrelated subfamilies, 6 Includes Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Nepalese,
children living in group quarters, and children who were Pakistani, and Sri Lankan subgroups.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.20 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: Characteristics of Children’s Glossary: N/A
Families (The Condition of Education)

Children’s Living Arrangements 37 

Indicator 4

Children Living in Poverty

In 2016, the percentage of children under the age of 18 in families living in
poverty was higher for Black children than Hispanic children (31 and 26 percent,
respectively), and the percentages for both of these groups were higher than for
White and Asian children (10 percent each).

Research suggests that living in poverty during early percentage of children under the age of 18 in families
childhood is associated with lower-than-average academic living in poverty by race/ethnicity using two different
performance that begins in kindergarten1 and extends poverty measures, the official poverty measure and the
through high school, leading to lower-than-average Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
rates of school completion.2 This indicator examines the

Figure 4.1. Percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty based on the official poverty measure, by
race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016

Percent
50

40
Black

30

Hispanic
Total
20

Asian1
10

White

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year
1
In 2000 and 2001, Asian includes Pacific Islanders as well as Asians.
NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse
of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. Data are based on sample surveys
of the civilian noninstitutional population. The official poverty measure consists of a set of income thresholds for families of different sizes and compositions
that are compared to before-tax cash income to determine a family’s poverty status. For more information about how the Census Bureau determines who
is in poverty, see https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not
separately shown, including Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2001 through 2017. See
Digest of Education Statistics 2015, table 102.50; and Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.50.

The official poverty measure was developed in 1960 The percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty
and consists of a set of income thresholds for families of based on the official poverty measure varied across
different sizes and compositions that are compared to racial/ethnic groups in 2016. The child poverty rate for
before-tax cash income to determine a family’s poverty Black children (31 percent) was higher than the rate for
status. According to this measure, 16 percent of all related Hispanic children (26 percent), and the rates for both of
children under age 18 were in families living in poverty these groups were higher than those for White and Asian
in 2000. The rate rose to 21 percent in 2010, before children (10 percent each).
decreasing to 18 percent in 2016. From 2000 to 2016, the
official poverty measure rate increased for White children
(from 9 to 10 percent), but did not change measurably for
Black, Hispanic, and Asian3 children.

38  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 4.2. Percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty based on the Supplemental Poverty
Measure, by race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016

Percent
100

80

60

40
29 30
24 24
18
20 15 14
12
10 8

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian

Race/ethnicity

2010 2016

NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse
of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. Data are based on sample
surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) is based on a broader array of information than the official
poverty measure and adds to family income the value of benefits from many government programs designed to assist low-income families, subtracts taxes
and necessary expenses such as child care costs (for working families) and medical expenses, and adjusts poverty thresholds for geographic differences in
housing costs. To match the population included in the current official poverty measure, SPM estimates presented here exclude unrelated children under age
15. For more information about the SPM, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf. Total includes
other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Research Files, 2010 and 2016.
See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.51.

The SPM is an alternative poverty measure developed Of all children under age 18, the percentage who were
more recently than the official poverty measure (the U.S. in families living in poverty based on the SPM was
Census Bureau first published data using the SPM in 15 percent in 2016, which was lower than the rate in 2010
2011 for data years 2009 and later). The SPM is based (18 percent). A similar pattern was found across most
on a broader array of information than the official racial/ethnic groups. There was no measurable difference
poverty measure and adds to family income the value of between 2010 and 2016 for Asian children. A higher
benefits from many government programs designed to percentage of Black and Hispanic children (24 percent
assist low-income families, subtracts taxes and necessary each) than of Asian (12 percent) and White (8 percent)
expenses such as child care costs (for working families) children were living in poverty in 2016, according to
and medical expenses, and adjusts poverty thresholds for the SPM. In addition, the SPM poverty rate for White
geographic differences in housing costs.4 children in 2016 was lower than the SPM rate for Asian
children.

Children Living in Poverty 39 

Figure 4.3. Percentage of children under age 18 in families living in poverty, by race/ethnicity and type of poverty
measure: 2016

Percent
100

80

60

40
31
24 26
24
18
20 15
10 10 12
8

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian

Race/ethnicity

Official poverty measure1 Supplemental Poverty Measure2

1
The official poverty measure consists of a set of thresholds for families of different sizes and compositions that are compared to before-tax cash
income to determine a family’s poverty status. For more information about how the Census Bureau determines who is in poverty, see https://www.
census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html.
2
The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) extends the information provided by the official poverty measure by adding to family income the value of
benefits from many government programs designed to assist low-income families, subtracting taxes and necessary expenses such as child care costs
(for working families) and medical expenses, and adjusting poverty thresholds for geographic differences in housing costs. To match the population
included in the current official poverty measure, SPM estimates presented here exclude unrelated children under age 15. For more information about
the SPM, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown,
including Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2017; and
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) Research Files, 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 102.50 and 102.51.

Comparing the poverty rate based on the official measure 15 percent). A similar pattern was found across racial/
with the rate based on the SPM for children under age ethnic groups, with the exception of Asian children, where
18 provides a look into how poverty rates can differ when there was no measurable difference between the rate based
benefits from government programs, subtractions for taxes on the official measure and the rate based on the SPM.
and necessary expenses, and housing cost adjustments The percentage-point difference between the poverty rate
are included as part of family income. In 2016, the rate based on the official measure and the rate based on the
of children under age 18 who were in families living SPM was larger for Black children (7 percentage points)
in poverty based on the official poverty measure was than for Hispanic (3 percentage points) and White
higher than the rate in poverty based on the SPM (18 vs. children (2 percentage points).

40  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 4.4. Percentage of children under age 18 in mother-only households living in poverty, by race/ethnicity and
type of poverty measure: 2016

Percent
100

80

60
48
46
42
37 38
40 34 35
31 32
24

20

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian

Race/ethnicity

Official poverty measure1 Supplemental Poverty Measure2

1
The official poverty measure consists of a set of thresholds for families of different sizes and compositions that are compared to before-tax cash income to
determine a family’s poverty status. For more information about how the Census Bureau determines who is in poverty, see https://www.census.gov/topics/
income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html.
2
The Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) extends the information provided by the official poverty measure by adding to family income the value of benefits
from many government programs designed to assist low-income families, subtracting taxes and necessary expenses such as child care costs (for working
families) and medical expenses, and adjusting poverty thresholds for geographic differences in housing costs. To match the population included in the
current official poverty measure, SPM estimates presented here exclude unrelated children under age 15. For more information about the SPM, see https://
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including
Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers
are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2017; and Supplemental
Poverty Measure (SPM) Research Files, 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 102.50 and 102.51.

Both the OPM and SPM help reveal an association In 2016, children under 18 living in mother-only
between family structure and child poverty. Children households had a higher poverty rate based on the official
living in mother-only households had higher rates of measure than based on the SPM (42 vs. 31 percent). The
poverty according to both poverty measures than the same pattern was found for White, Black, and Hispanic
overall child poverty rate; this pattern was also observed children living in mother-only households.
for all racial/ethnic groups.

Endnotes:
1 Mulligan, G.M., Hastedt, S., and McCarroll, J.C. (2012). Gaps in Access and Persistence Study (NCES 2012‑046). U.S.
First-Time Kindergartners in 2010–11: First Findings From Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center
the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012046.
2012-049). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 3 The Asian child poverty rate includes Pacific Islander
DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from children in 2000 but excludes them in 2016.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012049. 4 To match the population included in the current official
2 Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, poverty measure, SPM estimates presented here exclude
J., Kristapovich, P., and Manning, E. (2012). Higher Education: unrelated children under age 15.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2015, table 102.50; Data sources: Current Population Survey (CPS)
Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 102.50 and 102.51 Glossary: Poverty (official measure); Supplemental Poverty
Related indicators and resources: Characteristics of Children’s Measure (SPM)
Families (The Condition of Education); Children’s Living
Arrangements; Snapshot of Children Living in Poverty for Racial/
Ethnic Subgroups

Children Living in Poverty 41 

 Indicator 4: SNAPSHOT

Children Living in Poverty for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

Among Hispanic subgroups in 2016, the percentage of children under age 18 living
in poverty ranged from 11 to 38 percent. Among Asian subgroups, the percentage
of children living in poverty ranged from 6 to 37 percent.

This snapshot examines the poverty rate of children of presenting data on smaller groups in the population, such
different racial/ethnic groups and subgroups, using the as American Indians/Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders.
American Community Survey (ACS) rather than the It also allows for the reporting of poverty rates for many
Current Population Survey (CPS) which is used in the specific Hispanic and Asian subgroups, including, for
indicator Children Living in Poverty. The ACS includes example, the Mexican, Puerto Rican, Chinese, and Asian
a broader representation of American society than the Indian subgroups. The percentage of children under
CPS does by including people in institutions—such as age 18 1 living in poverty2 is estimated using the official
hospitals, prisons, and the military—in addition to people poverty measure.
in households. Also, the ACS allows for more precision in

Figure 4S.1. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by race/ethnicity: 2016

Percent

100

80

60

40 34
34
28
23
19 19
20
11 11

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native1

Race/ethnicity
1
Includes persons reporting American Indian alone, persons reporting Alaska Native alone, and persons from American Indian and/or Alaska Native tribes
specified or not specified.
NOTE: Data shown are based only on related children in a family; that is, all children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage,
or adoption (except a child who is the spouse of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the
housing unit. This figure includes only children related to the householder. It excludes unrelated children and householders who are themselves under the age
of 18. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.60.

In 2016, about 19 percent of children under age 18 were by Hispanic children (28 percent), Pacific Islander
living in poverty. The percentages of children living in children (23 percent), and children of Two or more
poverty were highest for Black and American Indian/ races (19 percent), and were lowest for White and Asian
Alaska Native children (34 percent each), followed children (11 percent each).
SNAPSHOT

42  Chapter 1. Demographics

Figure 4S.2. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by selected Hispanic subgroups: 2016

Subgroup
Hispanic 28

Cuban 18

Dominican 30

Mexican 29

Puerto Rican 29

Spaniard 14

Total1 30
Costa Rican 18
Guatemalan 38
Central Honduran 36
American Nicaraguan 22
Panamanian 14
Salvadoran 24

Total 15
Chilean 12!
Colombian 14
South Ecuadorian 18
American
Peruvian 16
Venezuelan 13
Other South American 11

Other Hispanic 25

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
1
Includes other Central American subgroups not shown separately.
NOTE: Data shown are based only on related children in a family; that is, all children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage,
or adoption (except a child who is the spouse of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the
housing unit. This figure includes only children related to the householder. It excludes unrelated children and householders who are themselves under the age
of 18. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.60.

In 2016, about 28 percent of Hispanic children under percentages of Dominican, Mexican, and Puerto Rican
age 18 were living in poverty. Among Hispanic subgroups, children living in poverty were not measurably different
the percentage of children under age 18 living in from the overall Hispanic percentage. The percentages of
poverty ranged from 11 to 38 percent. The percentages children from all South American subgroups and Central
of the Hispanic subgroups of Guatemalan (38 percent) American subgroups (except Guatemalan and Honduran)
and Honduran children (36 percent) living in poverty living in poverty were lower than the overall Hispanic
were higher than the overall Hispanic percentage. The percentage.

SNAPSHOT

Children Living in Poverty for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups 43 

 Figure 4S.3. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by selected Asian subgroups: 2016

Subgroup

Asian 11

Chinese1 12

Filipino 6

Japanese 6

Korean 9

Total2 9
Asian Indian 6
South Bangladeshi 37!
Asian Bhutanese ‡
Nepalese 18
Pakistani 18

Total 18
Burmese 36
Cambodian 16
Southeast Hmong 28
Asian Laotian 14
Thai 13
Vietnamese 15
Other Southeast Asian3 ‡

Other Asian 20

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
1
Includes Taiwanese.
2
In addition to the subgroups shown, also includes Sri Lankan.
3
Consists of Indonesian and Malaysian.
NOTE: Data shown are based only on related children in a family; that is, all children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage,
or adoption (except a child who is the spouse of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the
housing unit. This figure includes only children related to the householder. It excludes unrelated children and householders who are themselves under the age
of 18. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.60.

About 11 percent of Asian children under age 18 were children. The percentages of Cambodian, Chinese,
living in poverty in 2016. Among Asian subgroups, the Korean, Laotian, Nepalese, and Thai children living
percentage of children living in poverty ranged from in poverty were not measurably different from the
6 to 37 percent. The percentages of children living in overall Asian percentage. The percentages of Asian
poverty were higher than the overall Asian percentage in Indian, Filipino, and Japanese children living in poverty
some of the Asian subgroups,3 ranging from 15 percent (6 percent each) were lower than the overall Asian
for Vietnamese children to 37 percent for Bangladeshi percentage.

Endnotes:
1 Data shown are based only on related children in a family; 2 In this indicator, poverty status is determined by the Census
that is, all children in the household who are related to the Bureau using a set of money income thresholds that vary by
householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child family size and composition. For additional information about
who is the spouse of the householder). The householder is the poverty status, see https://www.census.gov/topics/income-
person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. In 2016,
the housing unit. This indicator includes only children the poverty threshold for a family of four with two related
related to the householder. It excludes unrelated children and children under 18 years old was $24,339.
householders who are themselves under the age of 18. 3 Poverty rates for Bhutanese children are not available
because these estimates did not meet reporting standards.
SNAPSHOT

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 102.60 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: Characteristics of Children’s Glossary: Poverty (official measure)
Families (The Condition of Education)

44  Chapter 1. Demographics

This page intentionally left blank.
This chapter examines characteristics of students in preprimary, elementary, and secondary education. The indicators
focus on care arrangements for children under 6 years old who were not enrolled in kindergarten, the racial/ethnic
distribution and concentration of public school students, and the demographics of children who may require special
services in order to address their disabilities or the challenges they face in learning English.

This chapter’s indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

46  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

Chapter 2. Preprimary,
Elementary, and Secondary
Education Participation
Indicator 5. Early Childcare and Education Arrangements .................................................. 48

Indicator 6. Elementary and Secondary Enrollment .............................................................. 52

Indicator 7. Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public Schools ................................................. 56

Indicator 8. English Language Learners in Public Schools .................................................... 60

Indicator 9. Students With Disabilities ..................................................................................... 62

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 47 
Indicator 5

Early Childcare and Education Arrangements

In 2016, about 29 percent of children under 6 years old who were not enrolled
in kindergarten regularly received center-based care as their primary care
arrangement. The percentage of children who regularly received center-based care
was lower for Hispanic children (23 percent) than for children of Two or more races
(34 percent) and for Black (32 percent), White (31 percent), and Asian children
(31 percent).

The type of nonparental early care and education setting center-based care as their primary care arrangement,
in which a child regularly spends the most hours per week 19 percent received home-based relative care, 10 percent
is referred to as a child’s primary care arrangement in this received home-based nonrelative care, and 2 percent
indicator. In 2016, about 40 percent of children under regularly had multiple care arrangements for equal
6 years old who were not enrolled in kindergarten received amounts of time. The percentages of the types of primary
care only from their parents1 and did not have primary care arrangements received by children varied by child
care arrangement on a regular basis. The remaining and family characteristics, such as child’s race/ethnicity
60 percent of young children2 had some type of regularly and family poverty status.
scheduled primary care arrangement: 29 percent received

Figure 5.1. Percentage distribution of children under 6 years old who are not enrolled in kindergarten, by race/
ethnicity of child and type of primary care arrangement: 2016

Percent
100
2 2 2! 7 2 6 ‡ 9 ‡
10 12 9

20 18
80 20
19 16 25

60 23 Multiple arrangements1
31
29 34 Home-based nonrelative care
31
32 Home-based relative care
Center-based care2
40
Parental care only3

49
20 40 43
38 39
32

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Two or
more races
Race/ethnicity

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater.
1
Children who spent an equal number of hours per week in multiple nonparental care arrangements.
2
Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.
3
Children who had no regularly scheduled nonparental care arrangement and mainly received care only from their parents.
NOTE: A child’s primary arrangement is the regular nonparental care arrangement or early childhood education program in which the child spent the most
time per week. Data for Pacific Islanders and American Indians/Alaska Natives not shown because reporting standards were not met. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals
because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household
Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016). See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 202.30.

In 2016, among children under 6 years old who were races (34 percent) and for Black (32 percent), White
not enrolled in kindergarten, the percentage who (31 percent), and Asian children (31 percent) than for
regularly received center-based care as their primary care Hispanic children (23 percent). The percentage of young
arrangement was higher for children of Two or more children who regularly received home-based relative care
48  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation
as their primary care arrangement was higher for Black children received parental care only (49 percent) than
children (25 percent) than for children of Two or more received center-based care (23 percent), home-based
races (18 percent) and White children (16 percent). The relative care (20 percent), and home-based nonrelative care
percentage who regularly received home-based nonrelative (7 percent) on a regular basis. The percentage of Black
care as their primary care arrangement was higher for children who received parental care only was also higher
White children (12 percent) than for Black (9 percent), than the percentage who regularly received home-based
Hispanic (7 percent), and Asian children (6 percent). The nonrelative care (32 vs. 9 percent); however, there was
percentage of young children who received parental care no measurable difference between the percentages of
only was higher for Hispanic children (49 percent) than for Black children who received parental care only and who
children of Two or more races (39 percent), White children regularly received center-based care and home-based
(38 percent), and Black children (32 percent). In addition, relative care. For children of Two or more races, the
the percentage receiving parental care only was higher for percentage who received parental care only (39 percent)
Asian children (43 percent) than for Black children. was higher than the percentages who regularly received
home-based relative (18 percent) and nonrelative care
In 2016, parental care only was the most common type (9 percent); however, there was no measurable difference
of care arrangement for White, Hispanic, and Asian between the percentages who received parental care only
children. For instance, a higher percentage of Hispanic and who regularly received center-based care.

Figure 5.2. Percentage distribution of children under 6 years old who are not enrolled in kindergarten, by race/
ethnicity of child, poverty status of household, and type of primary care arrangement: 2016

Percent
100 ‡
5 2 2 5! ‡ 2 3! 4! 2! 1!
13 9! 10 11
14
15 17
18
80
17 16 25 22 21

20 17
20
60 Multiple arrangements2
Home-based nonrelative care
23 33
37 37 Home-based relative care
41 Center-based care3
40
Parental care only4
59 60
54
20 40
31 31 33
24

0
Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor

Total1 White Black Hispanic

Race/ethnicity and poverty status

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater.
1
Includes other racial/ethnic groups not shown separately.
2
Children who spent an equal number of hours per week in multiple nonparental care arrangements.
3
Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs.
4
Children who had no regularly scheduled nonparental care arrangement and mainly received care only from their parents.
NOTE: A child’s primary arrangement is the regular nonparental care arrangement or early childhood education program in which the child spent the most
time per week. Poor children are those whose family incomes were below the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold in the year prior to data collection, and
nonpoor children are those whose family incomes were at or above 200 percent of the poverty threshold. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic
ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household
Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016). See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 202.30.

The types of regular primary care arrangements for nonrelative care (13 vs. 5 percent). On the other hand, the
children under 6 years old who were not enrolled in percentage of children who received parental care only
kindergarten differed by family poverty status.3 In 2016, was higher for children from poor families than for those
a higher percentage of young children from nonpoor from nonpoor families (54 vs. 31 percent). There was no
families than from poor families regularly received measurable difference between the percentages of young
center-based care (37 vs. 20 percent). Similarly, a higher children from poor and nonpoor families who regularly
percentage of young children from nonpoor families received home-based relative care as their primary care
than from poor families regularly received home-based arrangement.
Early Childcare and Education Arrangements 49 
Differences by family poverty status for White, Black, regularly received home-based nonrelative care among
and Hispanic young children—the only groups for which White (14 vs. 5 percent) and Hispanic (11 vs. 4 percent)
data were available for poor and nonpoor families across children. On the other hand, a higher percentage of
types of care arrangements—followed a similar pattern young children from poor families than from nonpoor
as the differences for young children overall. A higher families received parental care only among White (59 vs.
percentage of young children from nonpoor families than 31 percent), Black (40 vs. 24 percent), and Hispanic
from poor families regularly received center-based care (60 vs. 33  percent) children. There were no measurable
as their primary care among White (37 vs. 20 percent), differences by family poverty status in the percentages
Black (41 vs. 23 percent), and Hispanic (33 vs. 17 percent) of White, Black, and Hispanic children who regularly
children. In addition, a higher percentage of young received home-based relative care as their primary care
children from nonpoor families than from poor families arrangement.

Endnotes:
1 This group is identified as “parental care only” in the 3 Poor children are those whose family incomes were below
indicator text and figures. the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold in the year prior to
2 In this indicator, the shortened forms “young children” data collection, and nonpoor children are those whose family
and “children” are used interchangeably with “children under incomes were at or above 200 percent of the poverty threshold.
6 years old who were not enrolled in kindergarten.”

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 202.30 Data sources: National Household Education Surveys Program
Related indicators and resources: Early Childhood Care (NHES)
Arrangements: Choices and Costs (The Condition of Education Glossary: Poverty (official measure); Preschool
2018 Spotlight)

50  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 6

Elementary and Secondary Enrollment

Between fall 2000 and fall 2015, the percentage of students enrolled in public
elementary and secondary schools who were White decreased from 61 to
49 percent. The percentage of Black students also decreased during this period
from 17 to 15 percent. In contrast, there was an increase in the percentage of
students enrolled in public schools who were Hispanic (from 16 to 26 percent)
and Asian/Pacific Islander (4 to 5 percent) during this time period.

Public elementary and secondary school enrollment ethnic distributions of students in public schools have been
increased from 47.2 million to 50.4 million between shifting. Public schools include both traditional public
fall 2000 and fall 2015 and is projected to continue schools and public charter schools. This indicator discusses
increasing to 52.1 million in fall 2027 (the last year for overall public school enrollment, as well as enrollment in
which projected data are available). In addition, racial/ traditional public and public charter schools separately.

Figure 6.1. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by race/
ethnicity: Fall 2000, fall 2015, and fall 2027

Percent
100

80

61
60
49
45

40
29
26

20 17 15 15 16

5 6
4 3 4
1 1 1
—
0
White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or
Alaska Native more races1
Race/ethnicity

Fall 2000 Fall 2015 Fall 20272

--- Not available.

1
In 2000, data on students of Two or more races were not collected.
2
Projected.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail
may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary
and Secondary Education,” 2000–01 and 2015–16; and National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Projection Model, 1972 through 2027. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 203.50.

Between 2000 and 2015, the percentage of students period. The percentage of students enrolled in public
enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools schools who were American Indian/Alaska Native
who were White decreased from 61 to 49 percent. The remained around 1 percent from 2000 to 2015. The
percentage of Black students also decreased during this percentage of students enrolled in public schools who
period, from 17 to 15 percent. In contrast, there was an were of Two or more races increased between 2008 (the
increase in the percentage of students enrolled in public first year for which data are available) and 2015 from 1 to
schools who were Hispanic (from 16 to 26 percent) and 3 percent.
Asian/Pacific Islander (4 to 5 percent) during this time

52  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

Between fall 2015 and fall 2027, the percentage of 29 percent), Asian/Pacific Islander (from 5 to 6 percent),
students enrolled in public schools who are White is and of Two or more races (from 3 to 4 percent). The
projected to continue decreasing (from 49 to 45 percent). percentages of students who are Black and American
In contrast, the percentage is projected to increase over Indian/Alaska Native in 2027 are projected to remain at
this period for students who are Hispanic (from 26 to 15 and 1 percent, respectively.

Figure 6.2. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by
region and race/ethnicity: Selected years, fall 2000 through fall 2015

West Northeast
Percent Percent
100 2 2 3 100 1 2
4 4 5
2 2 6
9 9 7
9 9 12 14
17
80 80 20
15
32 16
37 15
40
42 14
60 60
7
6
5
40 5 40
67 65
60
56
50
45
20 41 38 20

Two or more races2

0 0 American Indian/
2000 2005 2010 20151 2000 2005 2010 2015 Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Midwest South Hispanic
Percent Percent
Black
100 100 1 White
1 1 3 4 1 2 3
6 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 1
2 8 3
15
10 18
12
15 22
80 15 80 25
14
14
27
26
60 60 24
23

40 77 40
73
69 66
56
52
47 44
20 20

0 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2000 2005 2010 2015

Years
1
Includes imputations for prekindergarten enrollment in California and Oregon.
2
Prior to 2008, data on students of Two or more races were not collected.
NOTE: Categories not shown round to zero unless otherwise noted. Enrollment data for students not reported by race/ethnicity were prorated by state and
grade to match state totals. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on
unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary
and Secondary Education,” Selected years, 2000–01 through 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 203.50.

Between fall 2000 and fall 2015, the percentages of in the South, where the percentage of Hispanic students
students enrolled in public elementary and secondary increased by 11 percentage points. The percentages of
schools who were White and who were Black decreased in Asian/Pacific Islander students in the Northeast, Midwest,
all regions of the United States. In contrast, the percentage and South increased by 1 to 3 percentage points between
of Hispanic students increased in all regions of the United 2000 and 2015; however, the percentage did not change
States between 2000 and 2015. The largest increase was measurably for those enrolled in the West during this

Elementary and Secondary Enrollment 53 

time period. The difference between the percentage of 1 percent). The highest share of Hispanic students was in
American Indian/Alaska Native students in 2000 and New Mexico (at 61 percent), and the lowest was in West
2015 was less than 1 percentage point in all regions. The Virginia (at 2 percent). Hawaii had the highest share of
percentage of students of Two or more races increased by Asian students (at 30 percent), and West Virginia had the
2 to 4 percentage points across all regions between 2009 lowest (at 1 percent). Hawaii also had the highest share of
(the first year for which data are available for all regions) Pacific Islander students (at 30 percent), while 42 states
and 2015. and the District of Columbia had shares of Pacific
Islander students of less than one-half of 1 percent.
In fall 2015, the percentage distribution of racial/ethnic Alaska had the highest share of American Indian/Alaska
groups enrolled in public elementary and secondary Native students (at 23 percent), while 23 states and the
schools varied by state or jurisdiction. Among all states District of Columbia had shares of American Indian/
and jurisdictions, Vermont had the highest enrollment Alaska Native students of less than one-half of 1 percent.
share of White students (at 91 percent), and the District Hawaii had the highest share of students of Two or more
of Columbia had the lowest (at 10 percent). The District races (at 12 percent), and Mississippi had the lowest (at
of Columbia had the highest share of Black students 1 percent).
(at 71 percent), and Montana had the lowest (at

Figure 6.3. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by race/
ethnicity and traditional public or public charter school status: School year 2015–16

Percent

100

80

60
50

40
33 32
27 26

20 15

5 4 3 3
1 1
0
White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

Traditional public schools Public charter schools

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded
estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School
Universe Survey,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 216.30.

Although the majority of students enrolled in public 2015–16. The shares of Black and Hispanic students in
schools are enrolled in traditional public schools, the public charter schools (27 and 32 percent, respectively)
number of students enrolled in public charter schools grew were greater than the shares of Black and Hispanic
substantially from 2000–01 through 2015–16. Public students in traditional public schools (15 and 26 percent,
charter school enrollment increased from 0.4 million respectively). In contrast, the shares of White and Asian/
students in the 2000–01 school year to 2.8 million Pacific Islander students in public charter schools (33 and
students in the 2015–16 school year. There were differences 4 percent, respectively) were less than the shares of White
in the racial/ethnic distribution of students attending and Asian/Pacific Islander students in traditional public
traditional public schools and public charter schools in schools (50 and 5 percent, respectively).

54  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

There were also differences in the racial/ethnic (6 vs. 5 percent), Pacific Islander (1 percent vs. less than
distribution of students attending public schools overall 1 percent), and of Two or more races (4 vs. 3 percent). In
(i.e., traditional public schools and public charter schools contrast, the shares of students in private schools were
combined) and private schools. In fall 2015, the share of lower than the shares in public schools for students who
White students in private schools (69 percent) was higher were Black (9 vs. 15 percent), Hispanic (10 vs. 26 percent),
than the share in public schools (49 percent), and the and American Indian/Alaska Native (less than 1 percent
same pattern was evident for students who were Asian vs. 1 percent).

Figure 6.4. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary students, by race/ethnicity and school type:
Fall 2015

Percent
100

80
73
69
66 65

60

40

20 16
9 11 9 10 9
8 7 8 6 6
5 5 4 4
1 1 1 3
1 1 # # #
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

Total Catholic Other religious Nonsectarian

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Includes schools that offer kindergarten or higher grades. Percentage distribution is based on the students for whom race/ethnicity was reported.
Race/ethnicity data were not collected for prekindergarten students (846,900 students in fall 2015). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2015–16. See Digest of Education
Statistics 2017, table 205.40.

The share of enrollment in particular types of private Black students also had a greater share of enrollment
schools also varied by race/ethnicity. In fall 2015, Hispanic in other religious schools (11 percent) than in Catholic
students had a greater share of enrollment in Catholic schools (8 percent). Asian students and students of
schools (16 percent) than in other religious schools Two or more races had a greater share of enrollment in
(7 percent) and in nonsectarian schools (8 percent). In nonsectarian schools than in Catholic and other religious
contrast, White students had a greater share of enrollment schools. Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska
in other religious schools (73 percent) than in Catholic Native students each had 1 percent or less of the share of
schools (66 percent) and nonsectarian schools (65 percent). enrollment in all types of private schools.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2015, table 203.50; Data sources: Common Core of Data (CCD) and Private School
Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 203.50, 203.70, 205.40, Universe Survey (PSS)
and 216.30 Glossary: Elementary school; Geographic region; Private school;
Related indicators and resources: Elementary and Secondary Public charter school; Public school or institution; Secondary
Enrollment (The Condition of Education); Private School school; Traditional public school
Enrollment (The Condition of Education); Public Charter
School Enrollment (The Condition of Education); Racial/Ethnic
Concentration in Public Schools

Elementary and Secondary Enrollment 55 

Indicator 7

Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public Schools

In fall 2015, approximately 30 percent of public school students attended schools in
which minority students comprised at least 75 percent of total enrollment. Over half
of Hispanic, Black, and Pacific Islander students attended such schools.

Racial/ethnic distributions of public school students have schools with a majority-minority enrollment has increased
shifted between fall 2000 and fall 2015 (see indicator over time. Minority students include students who are
Elementary and Secondary Enrollment). As a result, the Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/
proportion of minority students who attended public Alaska Native, and of Two or more races.

Figure 7.1. Percentage of public elementary and secondary school students enrolled in schools with at least
75 percent minority enrollment, by student race/ethnicity: Fall 2000, fall 2010, and fall 2015

Percent
100

80

59 60
58 56
60 55 54 53
51

38 37
40 36
33
30 29
27
21 20 19
20

4 5
3
— — —
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

Fall 2000 Fall 2010 Fall 2015

— Not available.
NOTE: Minority students include students who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and of Two or more races. Prior to
2010, separate data on students who are Asian, Pacific Islander, and of Two or more races were not collected. Data reflect racial/ethnic data reported by
schools. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe
Survey,” 2000–01, 2010–11, and 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 216.50.

In fall 2015, public schools where minority students American Indian/Alaska Native students in such schools
comprised at least 75 percent of the student population increased from 29 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2015.
enrolled 30 percent of all public elementary and secondary Similarly, the percentage of Black students in these schools
students, compared with 21 percent in fall 2000. Among increased from 51 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2015.
individual racial/ethnic groups, the percentage of students Increases in enrollments in these schools was 4 percentage
enrolled in these schools increased between 2000 and points for Hispanic students and 2 percentage points for
2015 for White, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/ White students during this time.
Alaska Native students. For example, the percentage of

56  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

For students who are Asian, Pacific Islander, and of Two of Pacific Islander students enrolled in these schools
or more races, separate data was not available until fall was 1 percentage point lower in 2015 (53 percent) than
2010. Between 2010 and 2015, the percentage of Asian in 2010 (54 percent), and the percentage of students of
students enrolled in public schools where minority Two or more races enrolled in these schools was less than
students comprised at least 75 percent of the student 1 percentage point lower in 2015 (19 percent) than in
population increased 2 percentage points, from 36 percent 2010 (20 percent).
in 2010 to 38 percent in 2015. However, the percentage

Figure 7.2. Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary school students, by student race/ethnicity
and percentage of minority enrollment in the school: Fall 2015

Percent
100
5
19
14
30
80 38 37
53
58 60 75 percent or more
25
30 minority enrollment
60 18
50 to 74 percent
22 minority enrollment
27 25 to 49 percent
40 23 minority enrollment
33
21
Less than 25 percent
22 20 minority enrollment
51 27
24
20
16
28 15 14 23
10 14
10
5 6
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Minority students include students who are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and of Two or more races. Data
reflect racial/ethnic data reported by schools. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe
Survey,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 216.50.

As noted above, in fall 2015, approximately 30 percent Indian/Alaska Native students (37 percent), students
of public students attended public schools in which the of Two or more races (19 percent), and White students
combined enrollment of minority students was at least (5 percent) attended such schools. Instead, the majority of
75 percent of total enrollment. Over half of Hispanic White students (51 percent) attended schools where the
(60 percent), Black (58 percent), and Pacific Islander combined enrollment minority students was 25 percent or
students (53 percent) attended such schools. In contrast, less of total enrollment.
less than half of Asian students (38 percent), American

Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public Schools 57 

Figure 7.3. Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary school students, by student race/ethnicity
and percentage of own racial/ethnic group enrolled in the school: Fall 2015

Percent
100
3 3 1
11 7
17
26
33 15
80 6
51 21
14 75 percent or more are of
18 own race/ethnicity
60 50 to 74 percent are of
24 own race/ethnicity
99
25 to 49 percent are of
25
40 own race/ethnicity
75
30 Less than 25 percent are of
22 66 63 own race/ethnicity

20
31
14 21

5
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaskan Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Categories not shown in the figure round to zero. Data reflect racial/ethnic data reported by schools. Race categories exclude persons of
Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School
Universe Survey,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 216.55.

The enrollment data for the individual racial/ethnic data Instead, the majority of students of these racial/ethnic
provide a more detailed look at the school enrollment groups were enrolled in public schools in which less
patterns. These data show the extent to which students than a quarter of the students are of their own race. In
attend public schools with peers of the same racial/ethnic comparison, 5 percent of White students were enrolled
group. In fall 2015, some 51 percent of White students in such schools. About 26 percent of Black students were
were enrolled in public schools that were predominantly enrolled in public schools that were predominantly Black,
composed of students of their own race (i.e., 75 percent while 31 percent of Black students were enrolled in schools
or more of enrollment was White). Lower percentages in which less than a quarter of the students were Black.
of American Indian/Alaska Native (17 percent), Asian Similarly, 33 percent of Hispanic students were enrolled
(3 percent), Pacific Islander (3 percent) students were in public schools that were predominantly Hispanic, while
enrolled in public schools that were predominantly 21 percent were enrolled in schools in which less than a
composed of students of their own racial/ethnic group. quarter of the students were Hispanic.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 216.50 Data sources: Common Core of Data (CCD)
and 216.55 Glossary: Elementary school; Enrollment; Public school or
Related indicators and resources: Elementary and Secondary institution; Racial/ethnic group; Secondary school
Enrollment; Elementary and Secondary Enrollment (The Condition
of Education); Public Charter School Enrollment (The Condition of
Education)

58  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 8

English Language Learners in Public Schools

In fall 2015, about 4.9 million public school students were identified as English
language learners (ELL). Over three-quarters of ELL students were Hispanic
(77.7 percent, or 3.8 million students).

The racial/ethnic diversity of U.S. public school students Training, and bilingual education to help ensure that they
has increased, reflecting the increase in the racial/ethnic attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic
diversity of the overall U.S. population.1 This diversity attainment in English, and meet the same academic
is also apparent in the number of students identified content and academic achievement standards that all
as English language learners (ELL). ELL students are students are expected to meet. Participation in these types
individuals who have sufficient difficulty speaking, of programs can improve students’ English language
reading, writing, or understanding the English language proficiency, which, in turn, can improve their educational
to be unable to learn successfully in classrooms or to outcomes.2 This indicator examines all students identified
participate fully in the larger U.S. society. ELL students as ELL, whether or not they participated in such
often participate in language assistance programs, such as programs.
English as a Second Language, High Intensity Language

Figure 8.1. Number of English language learner (ELL) students in public schools, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2015

Number of students (in thousands)

5,000 4,854

4,000 3,773

3,000

2,000

1,000
512
295
178
27 39 31
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes all students identified as English language learners--both those participating in ELL programs and those not participating in ELL programs.
Data exclude Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Detail may not sum to totals because race/ethnicity were not
reported for some students and because of rounding. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the
figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678, extracted July 21, 2017, from the EDFacts
Data Warehouse (internal U.S. Department of Education source); and Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and
Secondary Education,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.27.

In fall 2015, about 4.9 million public school students students, and Black students accounted for 3.7 percent
were identified as ELL, representing 9.9 percent of overall (178,100 students). American Indian/Alaska Native
public school enrollment. Over three-quarters of ELL students (38,800 students), students of Two or more
students were Hispanic (77.7 percent, or 3.8 million races (31,100 students), and Pacific Islander students
students). Asian students were the second largest group (27,000 students) each made up less than 1 percent of ELL
(10.5 percent), with 511,700 ELL students. White students students.
accounted for 6.1 percent (294,800 students) of ELL

60  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

Figure 8.2. Percentage of public school students identified as English language learner (ELL) students, by race/
ethnicity: Fall 2015

Percent
50.0

40.0

29.8
30.0

20.7
20.0
15.6

9.9
10.0 7.9

2.4 1.9
1.2
0.0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes all students identified as English language learners--both those participating in ELL programs and those not participating in ELL programs.
Data exclude Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678, extracted July 21, 2017, from the EDFacts
Data Warehouse (internal U.S. Department of Education source); and Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and
Secondary Education,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.27.

In 2015, a higher percentage of Hispanic students percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students
(29.8 percent), Asian students (20.7 percent), and Pacific (7.9 percent), Black students (2.4 percent), students of
Islander students (15.6 percent) were identified as ELL Two or more races (1.9 percent), and White students
than students overall (9.9 percent). In contrast, a lower (1.2 percent) were identified as ELL than students overall.

Endnotes:
1 See indicator Racial/Ethnic Concentration in Public Schools Overview of Research Findings. Journal of Education for Students
for additional information on the racial/ethnic diversity of U.S. Placed At Risk, 10:4, 363–385. Retrieved from https://www.
public schools. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327671espr1004_2.
2 Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and Christian,
D. (2005). English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.27 Data sources: Common Core of Data (CCD) and EDFacts
Related indicators and resources: English Language Learners in Glossary: English language learner (ELL); Public school or
Public Schools (The Condition of Education) institution

English Language Learners in Public Schools 61 

Indicator 9

Students With Disabilities

In school year 2015–16, the percentage of students served under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was highest for those who were American
Indian/Alaska Native (17 percent), followed by those who were Black (16 percent),
White (14 percent), of Two or more races (13 percent), Hispanic and Pacific Islander
(12 percent each), and Asian (7 percent).

Students with disabilities may require services to provide outcomes. This indicator examines the percentage of
them access to the same learning opportunities as students students ages 3–21 served by IDEA and the percentage
without disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities distribution of children and youth receiving services for
Education Act (IDEA)1 supports states and localities in specific disabilities. The indicator also examines the rate at
their efforts to aid children and youth with disabilities— which students ages 14–21 served by IDEA exited school
and their families—protecting their rights, meeting in school year 2014–15 and the reasons why they exited.
their individual needs, and improving their educational

Figure 9.1. Percentage of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B,
by race/ethnicity: School year 2015–16

Percent
50

40

30

20 17
16
13 14 13
12 12
10
7

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Data include only those children served for whom race/ethnicity was reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved July 10,
2017, from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bcc; and National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.40.

Thirteen percent of students ages 3–21 enrolled in public American Indian/Alaska Native (17 percent), followed by
schools were served under IDEA in school year 2015–16, those who were Black (16 percent), White (14 percent),
a total of 6.7 million individuals. The percentage served of Two or more races (13 percent), Hispanic and Pacific
varied by race/ethnicity: it was highest for those who were Islander (12 percent each), and Asian (7 percent).

62  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

Figure 9.2. Percentage of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B,
by type of disability and race/ethnicity: School year 2015–16

Percent
50

43
42
40
40 37

31 30
30
26

21 21 21 20 21
20 17
15
13
10 10
8 9
10 7 8 7
6 7 6
5 6 5

0
Specific learning disability Speech or language Autism Intellectual disability
impairment

Type of disability

White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved July 10,
2017, from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bcc; and National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2015–16. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 204.50.

Among students ages 3–21 who were served under IDEA (26 percent); the percentages for students of the other
in 2015–16, the percentages who received services for races/ethnicities shown ranged from 13 to 21 percent. The
some types of disabilities differed by race/ethnicity. percentage of students served under IDEA who received
For example, the percentage of students who received services for autism was highest for those who were Asian
services for a specific learning disability2 was higher for (21 percent); the percentages for students of the other
those who were Pacific Islander (43 percent), Hispanic races/ethnicities shown ranged from 5 to 10 percent.
(42 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (40 percent), Additionally, the percentage of students served under
and Black (37 percent) than for those of the other races/ IDEA who received services for an intellectual disability
ethnicities shown (with the percentages ranging from was highest for those who were Black (9 percent); the
21 to 31 percent). The percentage of students served under percentages for students of the other races/ethnicities
IDEA who received services for a speech or language shown ranged from 5 to 7 percent.
impairment was highest for those who were Asian

Students With Disabilities 63 

Figure 9.3. Percentage of 14- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B,
who exited school, by exit reason and race/ethnicity: School year 2014–15

Percent
100

80 74 76
69
66 66 67
65
62
60

40
29

22 23 22
21
18
20 14 15
11 12 13
9 9 10
7
5

0
Graduated with a regular Received an Dropped out
high school diploma alternative certificate1

Exit reason

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

1
Received a certificate of completion, modified diploma, or some similar document, but did not meet the same standards for graduation as those for
students without disabilities.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Section 618 Data
Products: State Level Data Files, retrieved July 14, 2017, from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html. See
Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.90.

Data are also available for students ages 14–21 who (69 percent) graduated with a regular high school
received special education services under IDEA and exited diploma, 11 percent received an alternative certificate,3
school during school year 2014–15, including the reasons 18 percent dropped out, 1 percent reached maximum age,4
why they exited. In 2014–15, approximately 395,000 of and less than one-half of 1 percent died.
these 14- to 21-year-olds exited school: over two-thirds

Endnotes:
1 Formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped developmental aphasia. The term does not include children
Children Act, amended in the Individuals With Disabilities who have learning problems which are primarily the result
Education Act of 2004 (P.L. 94-152). See Appendix A: of visual, hearing, motor, or intellectual disabilities, or of
Guide to Sources for more information about the history and environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
requirements of IDEA. 3 Received a certificate of completion, modified diploma, or
2 “Specific learning disability” is defined as a disorder in similar document, but did not meet the same standards for
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in graduation as did students without disabilities.
understanding or in using spoken or written language, which 4 Each state determines its maximum age to receive special
may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, education services. At the time these data were collected,
speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. the maximum age across states generally ranged from 20 to
The term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, 22 years old.
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 204.40, Data sources: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
204.50, and 219.90 and Common Core of Data (CCD)
Related indicators and resources: Children and Youth With Glossary: Disabilities, children with; Individuals With Disabilities
Disabilities (The Condition of Education) Education Act (IDEA)

64  Chapter 2. Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation

This page intentionally left blank.
This chapter focuses on different measures of academic achievement for elementary and secondary students including
gaps between racial/ethnic groups. The indicators examine student achievement on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and mathematics assessments, as well as the relationship between student
absences from school and assessment scores. Another way to measure student progress is by the courses that students
complete in high school. Other indicators examine high school coursework and enrollment in Advanced Placement and
International Baccalaureate programs.

This chapter’s indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

66  Chapter 3. Achievement

Chapter 3. Achievement
Indicator 10. Reading Achievement ........................................................................................68

Indicator 11. Mathematics Achievement ................................................................................74

Indicator 12. Absenteeism and Achievement .........................................................................80

Indicator 13. High School Coursetaking ..................................................................................84

Indicator 14. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Coursetaking ..........90

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 67 
Indicator 10

Reading Achievement
From 1992 through 2017, the average reading scores for White 4th- and 8th-
graders were higher than those of their Black and Hispanic peers; however, some
achievement gaps have narrowed over time. For example, the White-Hispanic
achievement gap at grade 8 narrowed from 26 points in 1992 to 19 points in 2017.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) periodically since 1992, more frequently in grades 4 and
assesses student performance in reading at grades 4, 8, and 8 than in grade 12.1 The most recent reading assessments
12 in both public and private schools across the nation. were conducted in 2017 for grades 4 and 8 and in 2015
NAEP reading scores range from 0 to 500 for all grade for grade 12.2
levels. NAEP reading assessments have been administered

Figure 10.1. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of 4th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2017

Scale score Selected years, 1992–2017

500

300
White Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native
250

200

Black
150
Hispanic

0
1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Year

Scale score 2017

500

300

239 241
250 232 227
222
206 209 212
202
200

150

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Islander Indian/Alaska more races
combined Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English
language learners were not permitted in 1992 or 1994. The reading scale scores range from 0 to 500. Scale scores for American Indian/Alaska Native students
were suppressed in 1992 and 1998 because reporting standards were not met (either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of
variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater). Data on race/ethnicity are based on school reports. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years,
1992–2017 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 221.10.

68  Chapter 3. Achievement

At grade 4, the 2017 average reading scores for White At grade 4 in 2017, White students scored 30 points
(232), Black (206), Hispanic (209), and Asian/Pacific higher than American Indian/Alaska Native students,
Islander students (239) were not measurably different from 26 points higher than Blacks students, 23 points higher
the corresponding scores in 2015, but the average score for than Hispanic students, 20 points higher than Pacific
each group was higher in 2017 than in 1992 (224, 192, Islander students, and 5 points higher than students of
197, and 216, respectively). In 2017, the average score Two or more races. Asian students scored 9 points higher
for American Indian/Alaska Native 4th-graders (202) was than White students.
not measurably different from the corresponding scores in
2015 and 1994 (1994 was the first year data for American Closing achievement gaps is a goal among education
Indian/Alaska Native students met reporting standards). policymakers. Between 1992 and 2017, the average
reading score for White 4th-graders was higher than
In 2011, NAEP began reporting separate data for Asian the scores for their Black and Hispanic peers in each
students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two or assessment year. However, the White-Black gap narrowed
more races.3 At grade 4, the 2017 average reading scores from 32 points in 1992 to 26 points in 2017. The White-
for Pacific Islander students (212) and students of Two or Hispanic gap in 2017 (23 points) was not measurably
more races (227) were not measurably different from the different from the corresponding gap in 1992. The
corresponding scores in 2015 and 2011. The 2017 average White-Black and White-Hispanic gaps in 2017 were not
reading score for Asian students (241) was not measurably measurably different from the corresponding gaps in 2015.
different from the corresponding score in 2015, but it was
higher than the corresponding score in 2011 (236).

Reading Achievement 69 

Figure 10.2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of 8th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2017

Scale score Selected years, 1992–2017

500
White Asian/Pacific Islander
300

250

Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native

200
Black

150

0
1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Year

Scale score 2017

500

300 282 284

275 272
267
249 255 255 253
250

200

150

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Islander Indian/Alaska more races
combined Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The reading scale scores range from 0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing)
for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1992 or 1994. Scale scores for American Indian/Alaska Native students were
suppressed in 1992 and 1998 because reporting standards were not met (either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation
(CV) is 50 percent or greater). Data on race/ethnicity are based on school reports. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years,
1992–2017 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 221.10.

At grade 8, the 2017 average reading scores for White At grade 8 in 2017, White students scored 25 points
(275), Black (249), Hispanic (255), and Asian/Pacific higher than Black students, 22 points higher than
Islander (282) students were not measurably different from American Indian/Alaska Native students, 20 points higher
the corresponding scores in 2015, but the average score than Pacific Islander students, and 19 points higher than
for each group was higher in 2017 than in 1992 (267, Hispanic students. The 2017 average reading score for
237, 241, and 268, respectively). For American Indian/ White students was not measurably different from the
Alaska Native students, the average score in 2017 (253) score for students of Two or more races. Asian students
was not measurably different from the corresponding scored 9 points higher than White students and 11 points
scores in 2015 and 1994. The average scores for Pacific higher than students of Two or more races. The White-
Islander students (255) and students of Two or more races Hispanic achievement gap narrowed from 26 points in
(272) in 2017 were not measurably different from the 1992 to 19 points in 2017, while the White-Black gap in
corresponding scores in 2015 and 2011. The 2017 average 2017 (25 points) was not measurably different from the
score for Asian students (284) was not measurably different corresponding gap in 1992.
from the corresponding score in 2015, but it was higher
than the corresponding score in 2011 (277).

70  Chapter 3. Achievement

Figure 10.3. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of 12th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2015

Scale score Selected years, 1992–2015

500
Asian/Pacific Islander
White
300

250
Black Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
200

150

0
1992 1994 1998 2002 2005 2009 2013 2015
Year

Scale score 2015

500

295 297 297 295

300 287
276 279
266

250

200

150

‡
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Islander Indian/Alaska more races
combined Native

Race/ethnicity

‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The reading scale scores range from 0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group
testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1992 or 1994. Scale scores for American Indian/Alaska
Native students were suppressed in 1992, 1998, and 2002 because reporting standards were not met (either there are too few cases for a reliable
estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater). Data on race/ethnicity are based on school reports. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years,
1992–2015 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 221.10.

At grade 12, the 2015 average reading scores for White At grade 12 in 2015, White students scored 30 points
(295) and Hispanic (276) students were not measurably higher than Black students and 20 points higher than
different from the corresponding scores in 2013 and 1992. Hispanic students. However, there were no measurable
For Black students, the 2015 average score (266) was lower differences between the average reading scores for
than the 1992 score (273) but not measurably different White students and those for students who were Asian,
from the 2013 score. The 2015 scores were not measurably American Indian/Alaska Native, and of Two or more races.
different from the corresponding 2013 scores for students The White-Black achievement gap was wider in 2015
who were Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, and of (30 points) than in 1992 (24 points), while the White-
Two or more races. Hispanic gap in 2015 (20 points) was not measurably
different from the corresponding gap in 1992.

Reading Achievement 71 

Endnotes:
1 This indicator presents data from the Main NAEP reading 2 NAEP reading scores for 4th-grade students in 2017 had
assessment, which is not directly comparable with the Long- a mean of 222 and a standard deviation (SD) of 38. NAEP
Term Trend NAEP reading assessment. The Main NAEP reading scores for 8th-grade students in 2017 had a mean
reading assessment was first administered in 1992 and assesses of 267 and an SD of 36. NAEP reading scores for 12th-
student performance at grades 4, 8, and 12; the Long-Term grade students in 2015 had a mean of 287 and an SD of
Trend NAEP reading assessment was first administered in 41 (retrieved March 13, 2018, from the Main NAEP Data
1971 and assesses student performance at ages 9, 13, and 17. Explorer, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/).
In addition, the two assessments differ in the content assessed, 3 While NAEP reported some data on students of Two or
how often the assessment is administered, and how the results more races for earlier years, the reporting standards changed
are reported. in 2011.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 221.10 Data sources: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Related indicators and resources: Mathematics Achievement; Glossary: Achievement gap
Mathematics Performance (The Condition of Education); Reading
Performance (The Condition of Education)

72  Chapter 3. Achievement

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 11

Mathematics Achievement
From 1990 through 2017, the average mathematics scores for White 4th- and
8th-graders were higher than those of their Black and Hispanic peers; however,
some achievement gaps have narrowed over time. For example, the White-Black
achievement gap at grade 4 narrowed from 32 points in 1990 to 25 points in 2017.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) NAEP mathematics assessments have been administered
assesses student performance in mathematics at grades 4, periodically since 1990, more frequently in grades 4
8, and 12 in both public and private schools across the and 8 than in grade 12.1 The most recent mathematics
nation. NAEP mathematics scores range from 0 to assessments were conducted in 2017 for grades 4 and 8
500 for grades 4 and 8 and from 0 to 300 for grade 12. and in 2015 for grade 12.2

Figure 11.1. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of 4th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990–2017

Scale score Selected years, 1990–2017

500

Asian/Pacific Islander
300
White

250

200

Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native

150

0
1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Year

Scale score 2017

500

300
258 260
248 245
250 240
223 229 229 227

200

150

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Islander Indian/Alaska more races
combined Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The mathematics scale scores range from 0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group
testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1990 and 1992. Scale scores for American Indian/Alaska Native
students were suppressed in 1990 and 1992 and for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 2000 because reporting standards were not met (either there are
too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater). Data on race/ethnicity are based on school reports. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years,
1990–2017 Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 222.10.

74  Chapter 3. Achievement

At grade 4, the 2017 average mathematics scores for White At grade 4 in 2017, White students scored 25 points
(248), Black (223), Hispanic (229), and Asian/Pacific higher than Black students, 21 points higher than
Islander students (258) were not measurably different from American Indian/Alaska Native students, 19 points higher
the corresponding scores in 2015, but the average score for than both Hispanic and Pacific Islander students, and
each group was higher in 2017 than in 1990 (220, 188, 4 points higher than students of Two or more races. Asian
200, and 225, respectively). In 2017, the average score for students scored 12 points higher than White students.
American Indian/Alaska Native 4th-graders (227) was
not measurably different from the corresponding scores in Closing achievement gaps is a goal among education
2015 and 1996 (1996 was the first year data for American policymakers. Between 1990 and 2017, the average
Indian/Alaska Native students at grade 4 met reporting mathematics score for White 4th-graders was higher than
standards). the scores for their Black and Hispanic peers in each
assessment year. However, the White-Black gap narrowed
In 2011, NAEP began reporting separate data for Asian from 32 points in 1990 to 25 points in 2017. The White-
students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two Hispanic gap in 2017 (19 points) was not measurably
or more races.3 At grade 4, the 2017 average mathematics different from the corresponding gap in 1990.
scores for Asian students (260), Pacific Islander students
(229), and students of Two or more races (245) were not
measurably different from the corresponding scores in
2015 and 2011.

Mathematics Achievement 75 

Figure 11.2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of 8th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990–2017

Scale score Selected years, 1990–2017

500
White Asian/Pacific Islander

300

250

Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native

200

150

0
1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Year

Scale score 2017

500
310 312
293 287
300 283
269 274
260 267

250

200

150

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Islander Indian/Alaska more races
combined Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The mathematics scale scores range from 0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group
testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1990 and 1992. Scale scores for American Indian/Alaska Native
students in 1990, 1992, and 1996, and for Asian/Pacific Islander students in 1996 were suppressed because reporting standards were not met (either there are
too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater). Data on race/ethnicity are based on school reports. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years,
1990–2017 Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 222.10.

At grade 8, the 2017 average mathematics scores for White corresponding score in 2015, but it was higher than the
(293), Black (260), Hispanic (269), and Asian/Pacific corresponding score in 2011 (305).
Islander (310) students were not measurably different from
the corresponding scores in 2015, but the average score for At grade 8 in 2017, White students scored 32 points
each group was higher in 2017 than in 1990 (270, 237, higher than Black students, 25 points higher than
246, and 275, respectively). For American Indian/Alaska American Indian/Alaska Native students, 24 points higher
Native students, the average score in 2017 (267) was not than Hispanic students, 18 points higher than Pacific
measurably different from the corresponding scores in Islander students, and 6 points higher than students of
2015 and 2000 (2000 was the first year data for American Two or more races. Asian students scored 19 points higher
Indian/Alaska Native students at grade 8 met reporting than White students. The White-Black achievement gap
standards). The average scores for Pacific Islander students in 2017 (32 points) was not measurably different from the
(274) and students of Two or more races (287) in 2017 corresponding gap in 1990. Similarly, the White-Hispanic
were not measurably different from the corresponding achievement gap in 2017 (24 points) was not measurably
scores in 2015 and 2011. The 2017 average score for Asian different from the corresponding gap in 1990.
students (312) was not measurably different from the

76  Chapter 3. Achievement

Figure 11.3. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of 12th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 2005–2015

Scale score Selected years, 2005–2015

300

250
White Asian/Pacific Islander

200

150

Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native

0
2005 2009 2013 2015
Year

Scale score 2015

300

250

200
170 171
160 157
152
150 139 138
130

‡
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Islander Indian/Alaska more races
combined Native

Race/ethnicity

‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The mathematics scale scores range from 0 to 300. Assessments were not conducted for grade 12 in
2007, 2011, and 2017. Due to major changes to the framework and content of the grade 12 assessment, scores from 2005 and later assessment
years cannot be compared with scores from earlier assessment years. Data on race/ethnicity are based on school reports. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years,
2005–2015 Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 222.10.

At grade 12, the 2015 average mathematics scores were students (2015 data for Pacific Islander students did not
not measurably different from the 2013 scores for any meet reporting standards). Asian students scored 11 points
racial/ethnic group. The 2015 scores were higher for higher than White students. The scores for White
White (160), Black (130), and Hispanic (139) students 12th-grade students were higher than the scores for their
than in 2005 (157, 127, and 133, respectively), the first Black and Hispanic peers in every survey year since 2005.
year a comparable assessment was administered.4,5 The White-Black achievement gap in 2015 (30 points) was
not measurably different from the corresponding gap in
Achievement gaps were also evident for 12th-grade 2005. Similarly, the White-Hispanic achievement gap in
students. At grade 12 in 2015, White students scored 2015 (22 points) was not measurably different from the
30 points higher than Black students and 22 points higher corresponding gap in 2005.
than both American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic

Mathematics Achievement 77 

Endnotes:
1 This indicator presents data from the Main NAEP of 34 (retrieved March 13, 2018, from the Main NAEP Data
mathematics assessment, which is not directly comparable Explorer, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/).
with the Long-Term Trend NAEP mathematics assessment. 3 While NAEP reported some data on students of Two or more
The Main NAEP mathematics assessment was first races for earlier years, the reporting standards changed in 2011.
administered in 1990 and assesses student performance at 4 Prior to 2011, separate data for Asian students, Pacific
grades 4, 8, and 12; the Long-Term Trend NAEP mathematics Islander students, and students of Two or more races were not
assessment was first administered in 1973 and assesses collected; therefore, these groups were not included in the
student performance at ages 9, 13, and 17. In addition, the comparison of 2005 and 2015 scores.
two assessments differ in the content assessed, how often the 5 The 2005 mathematics framework for grade 12 introduced
assessment is administered, and how the results are reported. changes from the previous framework in order to reflect
2 NAEP mathematics scores for 4th-grade students in 2017 adjustments in curricular emphases and to ensure an
had a mean of 240 and a standard deviation (SD) of 31. appropriate balance of content. Consequently, the 12th-grade
NAEP mathematics scores for 8th-grade students in 2017 had mathematics results in 2005 and subsequent years could not
a mean of 283 and an SD of 39. NAEP mathematics scores be compared to previous assessments, and a new trend line was
for 12th-grade students in 2015 had a mean of 152 and an SD established beginning in 2005.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 222.10 Data sources: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Related indicators and resources: Mathematics Performance Glossary: Achievement gap
(The Condition of Education); Reading Achievement; Reading
Performance (The Condition of Education)

78  Chapter 3. Achievement

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 12

Absenteeism and Achievement

In 2017, the percentage of 8th-graders who reported that they had zero absences
from school in the last month was higher for Asian students (62 percent) than
for students who were Black (42 percent), White, Hispanic, of Two or more races
(40 percent each), Pacific Islander (38 percent), and American Indian/Alaska
Native (35 percent).

Children who are frequently absent from school may in the last month, focusing on students with zero absences
experience academic difficulties and are less likely to and students with more than 10 absences (i.e., students
complete school if no intervention takes place.1 Using data at the low and high ends of the range). It also examines
from the National Assessment of Educational Progress differences in the mathematics and reading achievement
(NAEP), this indicator examines racial/ethnic differences of 8th-grade students on NAEP by number of absences
in the percentage of 8th-grade students absent from school and race/ethnicity.

Figure 12.1. Percentage distribution of 8th-grade students by race/ethnicity and number of days absent from school in
the last month: 2017

Percent
100
5 1 5 2 5 2 1 2 3 7 1
7 2 11 8
14 15
15 15
80 20
28 18

More than 10 days

60 41 35 38 37
5–10 days
30 34
3–4 days
1–2 days
40
0 days
62

20 40 42 40 40
38 35

0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Two or
Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. Includes students tested with accommodations (9 to 12 percent of all students, depending on assessment
and grade level); excludes only those students with disabilities and English language learners who were unable to be tested even with accommodations
(2 percent of all students). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2017 Reading
Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 227.50.

As part of the 2017 NAEP, students reported how many Conversely, a lower percentage of Asian students (2 percent)
days they were absent from school in the last month. A were absent 5–10 days in the last month than students
higher percentage of Asian 8th-grade students (62 percent) who were White (5 percent), Hispanic (5 percent), Black
reported that they had zero absences from school in the (5 percent), of Two or more races (7 percent), American
last month than did students who were Black (42 percent), Indian/Alaska Native (8 percent), and Pacific Islander
White, Hispanic, of Two or more races (40 percent each), (11 percent). Additionally, the percentages of White and
Pacific Islander (38 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Hispanic students were lower than that of students who
Native (35 percent). were of Two or more races, American Indian/Alaska Native,
and Pacific Islander.

80  Chapter 3. Achievement

Figure 12.2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale score of 8th-grade
students, by race/ethnicity and number of days absent from school in the last month: 2017

Scale score
500

350
317
309
298 301
294 297
300 286 283 278 286
279 281 278
275 271 274 273 277
272 268
260 267 262 266 262
261 260 260
253 249 256
244 241
250 235

200

150

‡
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or
Alaska Native more races
Race/ethnicity

0 days 1–2 days 3–4 days 5–10 days More than 10 days

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).
NOTE: At grade 8, the mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. Includes public and private schools. Includes students tested with accommodations (9 to
12 percent of all students, depending on assessment and grade level); excludes only those students with disabilities and English language learners who were
unable to be tested even with accommodations (2 percent of all students). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2017 Mathematics
Assessment, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 227.50.

In general, students with fewer absences from school across racial/ethnic groups. Asian 8th-grade students
scored higher on the NAEP 2017 mathematics assessment who had zero absences from school in the last month had
than their peers with more absences. Within the White, higher NAEP mathematics scores than students from
Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Two or more races groups, every other racial/ethnic group with zero absences in the
8th-grade students who had zero absences in the last last month. Conversely, Black students who had zero
month had higher mathematics scale scores than their absences from school in the last month scored lower in
peers who had any other number of absences. In addition, math than students from every other racial/ethnic group
American Indian/Alaska Native students who had zero with zero absences in the last month. Among students
absences scored higher than those who were absent more who were absent more than 10 days in the last month,
than 10 days. Pacific Islander students who had zero Asian students scored higher than students who were
absences or who were absent 1–2 days scored higher than White, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska
those who were absent 3–4 days, but their scores were not Native. Additionally, students who were White or of Two
measurably different from the scores of those who were or more races scored higher than students who were Black
absent 5–10 days. and Hispanic.2

For students with similar numbers of absences,

mathematics achievement in 2017 can also be compared

Absenteeism and Achievement 81 

Figure 12.3. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale score of 8th-grade students,
by race/ethnicity and number of days absent from school in the last month: 2017

Scale score
500

350

300 287
282
278 276 278 274
270 273 272
264 265
259 257 255 258 256 258 260 257
255 250 252
244 245 250 248 248 246 245
250 240
232
224

200

150

‡ ‡ ‡
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or
Alaska Native more races
Race/ethnicity

0 days 1–2 days 3–4 days 5–10 days More than 10 days

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).
NOTE: At grade 8, the reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Includes public and private schools. Includes students tested with accommodations (9 to 12
percent of all students, depending on assessment and grade level); excludes only those students with disabilities and English language learners who were
unable to be tested even with accommodations (2 percent of all students). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2017 Reading
Assessment, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 227.50.

Similar to the mathematics assessment, 8th-graders with Two or more races, reading scores were higher for those
fewer absences generally scored higher on the NAEP 2017 who had zero absences or were absent 1–2 days in the
reading assessment. The exception was Pacific Islander last month than for those who were absent 3–4 days and
students, whose reading scores did not measurably differ 5–10 days.
by number of days absent. For White and Black students,
those who had zero absences from school in the last month Reading achievement in 2017 can also be compared
had higher reading scale scores than those who had any among students of different racial/ethnic groups who
other number of absences. Among Hispanic students, had similar numbers of absences in the last month. Asian
reading scores were higher for those who had zero absences 8th-grade students who had zero absences in the last
or were absent 1–2 days in the last month than for those month scored higher in reading than students of every
who were absent 3–4 days, 5–10 days, and more than other racial/ethnic group with zero absences. Conversely,
10 days. Among Asian students, reading scores were higher Black students who had zero absences from school in the
for those who had zero absences in the last month than last month scored lower in reading than students with
for those who were absent 1–2 days, 3–4 days, and more zero absences who were Asian, Two or more races, White,
than 10 days, and were not measurably different from the and Hispanic. Among students who were absent more
scores for those who were absent 5–10 days. Among both than 10 days, Asian and White students scored higher
American Indian/Alaska Native students and students of than Black and Hispanic students.

Endnotes:
1 Gottfried, M.A. (2014). Chronic Absenteeism and Its 2 Pacific Islander students who were absent more than 10 days
Effects on Students’ Academic and Socioemotional Outcomes. in the last month are not included in this comparison because
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19:2, 53–75. data were not available due to the small sample size.
Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080
/10824669.2014.962696.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 227.50 Data sources: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Related indicators and resources: Mathematics Achievement; Glossary: N/A
Mathematics Performance (The Condition of Education); Reading
Achievement; Reading Performance (The Condition of Education)

82  Chapter 3. Achievement

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 13

High School Coursetaking

A higher percentage of Asian students (45 percent) earned their highest math
course credit in calculus than students of every other racial/ethnic group.  The
percentage earning their highest math course credit in calculus was also higher
for White students (18 percent) than students of Two or more races (11 percent),
Hispanic students (10 percent), and Black students (6 percent).

As part of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 equivalent of a year-long course of study. This indicator
(HSLS:09), high school transcripts were obtained in 2013 examines the average number of credits students earned
from a nationally representative sample of both public and in different academic subject areas by students’ race/
private school students who were 9th-graders in 2009.1 ethnicity. It also examines differences by students’ race/
Transcript data provide an account of the high school ethnicity for the highest mathematics and science courses
courses in which students earned credits. One credit is the in which they earned credit.

Figure 13.1. Average high school credits earned by students in STEM academic subject areas, by race/ethnicity: 2013

Number of credits
5.0

3.9 3.9
4.0 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5
3.4
3.3
3.1 3.1
3.0

2.0

1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
0.0
Math Science Computer and Engineering and technology
information sciences

Academic subject area

White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

NOTE: High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from a nationally representative sample of students who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates include
ninth-graders who dropped out or did not obtain a high school credential by 2013. STEM refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and High
School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 3.

STEM-related courses include core coursework in math, (3.9 credits) than White students (3.4 credits), and both
science, computer and information sciences, as well as Asian and White students earned more credits in science
engineering and technology. Asian students earned more than students in any other racial/ethnic group. There were
high school credits in math (3.9 credits) than students no measurable differences in the number of credits earned
of every other racial/ethnic group.2 Additionally, White in computer and information sciences by racial/ethnic
students earned more credits (3.7 credits) than Hispanic group. White students earned more credits in engineering
students (3.5 credits) and students of Two or more races and technology (0.2 credits) than students in any other
(3.5 credits). Asian students earned more credits in science racial/ethnic group.

84  Chapter 3. Achievement

Figure 13.2. Average high school credits earned by students in non-STEM academic subject areas, by race/ethnicity:
2013

Number of credits
5.0

4.2 4.1 4.2

4.0 4.0 3.9
4.0 3.7 3.6
3.4 3.5

3.0
2.4

1.9 2.0 1.9

2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.5

1.0

0.0
English Social studies Foreign language Fine arts

Academic subject area

White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

NOTE: High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from a nationally representative sample of students who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates include
ninth-graders who dropped out or did not obtain a high school credential by 2013. STEM refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and High
School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 3.

Non-STEM related coursework includes subjects such language (2.4 credits) than students of all other racial/
as English, social studies, foreign language, and fine ethnic groups. White students earned more credits in
arts. White students earned fewer credits in English foreign language (1.9 credits) than Hispanic students
(4.0 credits) than Asian (4.2 credits) and Hispanic (1.8 credits), and students in both groups earned more
students (4.1 credits). Asian students earned more credits than Black students (1.6 credits). White students
credits in social studies (3.9 credits) than students of all earned more credits in fine arts (2.0 credits) than Asian
other racial/ethnic groups. In addition, White students students (1.8 credits), and both groups earned more credits
earned more credits in social studies (3.7 credits) than than Hispanic students (1.6 credits) and Black students
students of Two or more races (3.6 credits), Hispanic (1.5 credits). Additionally, students of Two or more races
students (3.5 credits), and Black students (3.4 credits). earned more credits in fine arts (1.9 credits) than Hispanic
Similarly, Asian students earned more credits in foreign students and Black students.

High School Coursetaking 85 

Figure 13.3. Average high school credits earned by students in career and technical education (CTE), by race/
ethnicity: 2013

Number of credits
5.0

4.0

3.2
2.9 2.9
3.0
2.6

2.2

2.0

1.0

0.0
White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from a nationally representative sample of students who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates
include ninth-graders who dropped out or did not obtain a high school credential by 2013. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and
High School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013,
table 2.

Career and technical education (CTE) includes vocational Asian students (2.2 credits). There were no measurable
education courses, as well as courses that teach general differences in the amount of CTE credits earned by White
life or employment skills. White students earned more students and Black students (2.9 credits). Asian students
credits in CTE (3.2 credits) than students of Two or more also earned fewer CTE credits than students of Two or
races (2.9 credits), Hispanic students (2.6 credits), and more races and Black students.

86  Chapter 3. Achievement

Figure 13.4. Percentage distribution of students by highest mathematics course in which high school credit was
earned, by race/ethnicity: 2013

Percent
100

80

60

45

40
32
27 25
24 24 23 23
22 22 22
18
20 17 17 16 17 16
11 11 10 11
9 9
4 4 6 6 6 4! 6
1 3 1 1! 2 2! 2
‡ ‡ ‡
0
No math Below algebra I1 Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Other math2 Precalculus Calculus

Highest mathematics course

White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater.
1
Includes basic math, applied math, other math such as history of math and mathematics–test preparation, and pre-algebra.
2
Includes integrated math, trigonometry, algebra III, probability and statistics, and noncalculus Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB)
courses.
NOTE: High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from a nationally representative sample of students who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates include
ninth-graders who dropped out or did not obtain a high school credential by 2013. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Details may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and High
School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 4.

In addition to examining the average number of credits The percentage of students whose highest math course was
earned in a particular subject area, transcript data algebra II was lower for Asian students (11 percent) than
can provide information on the specific math courses students of all other racial/ethnic groups. The percentage
(e.g., algebra I, geometry, calculus) that students took of students who earned their highest math course credit
while in high school. Math courses were coded using a in some other math course was higher for Black students
common classification system and students were placed (32 percent) than students of all other racial/ethnic
into groups based on the most difficult, or highest, course groups. A higher percentage of White students earned
in which a student earned credit. A higher percentage of their highest math credit in precalculus (22 percent) than
Black students earned no credit in math courses in high Hispanic students (17 percent), students of Two or more
school (3 percent) than Hispanic students (1 percent) and races (16 percent), and Black students (16 percent). The
White students (1 percent). There were no measurable percentage was also higher for Asian students (22 percent)
differences in the percentages of White, Black, and than students of Two or more races and Black students.
Hispanic students and students of Two or more races A higher percentage of Asian students (45 percent) earned
who earned their highest credit in a math course below their highest math course credit in calculus than students
algebra I. A similar pattern was evident for students of all other racial/ethnic groups. The percentage earning
whose highest math course was algebra I, except that the their highest math course credit in calculus was also higher
percentage of Hispanic students (6 percent) was higher for White students (18 percent) than students of Two or
than the percentage of White students (4 percent). The more races (11 percent), Hispanic students (10 percent),
percentage of Hispanic students for whom geometry was and Black students (6 percent), and lower for Black
their highest math course (17 percent) was higher than students than students of Two or more races and Hispanic
that for students of Two or more races (11 percent), Black students.
students (9 percent), White students (9 percent), and
Asian students (4 percent).

High School Coursetaking 87 

Figure 13.5. Percentage distribution of students by highest science course in which high school credit was earned, by
race/ethnicity: 2013

Percent
100

80

60
49 50
46
42
40
40 37 36
35 34
28
24

20 16
12
10
6 7! 8
2 3 3 3! 3 3! 3
‡
0
No science General science1 Specialty science2 Advanced studies3 AP or IB science4

Highest science course

White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater.
1
Includes earth science; general life or physical science; first-year biology, chemistry, and physics; integrated and unified science; and general science
courses such as origins of science and scientific research and design.
2
Includes courses such as geology, botany, zoology, and independent studies in biology, chemistry, and physics.
3
Includes advanced studies in biology, chemistry, and physics.
4
Includes Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses (except IB Middle Years Program courses).
NOTE: High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from students who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates include ninth-graders who dropped out or did
not obtain a high school credential by 2013. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are
based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and High
School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 6.

Science courses were also coded using a common racial/ethnic group. A higher percentage of White
classification system and students were placed into groups students (6 percent) earned their highest science credit
based on the most difficult, or highest, course in which in advanced studies than students of Two or more races
a student earned credit. A higher percentage of Black (3 percent), Hispanic students (3 percent), and Black
students (3 percent) and Hispanic students (3 percent) students (3 percent). The percentage of Asian students
earned no credit in science courses in high school than (40 percent) who earned their highest science credit in
White students (2 percent). A lower percentage of Asian Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate
students (28 percent) earned their highest science course (IB) science was higher than the percentage of White
credit in general science than students of all other racial/ students (16 percent), and both these percentages were
ethnic groups. The percentage was also lower for White higher than the percentages of every other racial/ethnic
students (42 percent) than Hispanic students (50 percent) group. Additionally, a higher percentage of students
and Black students (49 percent). A lower percentage of of Two or more races (12 percent) than Black students
Asian students (24 percent) earned their highest science (8 percent) earned credit in AP or IB science as their
credit in specialty science than students of every other highest science course.

Endnotes:
1 In some measures of coursetaking, high school dropouts All other races were excluded from the comparisons between
were included, while they were excluded in others. See figure racial/ethnic groups made in this indicator.
notes for more detail.
2 The racial/ethnic groups included in this indicator are White,
Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Two or more races. Students of

Reference tables: High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 Data sources: High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09)
(HSLS:09): 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Glossary: Career and technical education (CTE); Transcript
Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, tables 2, 3, 4, and 6
Related indicators and resources: High School Coursetaking
(The Condition of Education)

88  Chapter 3. Achievement

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 14

Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate

Coursetaking
The percentage of high school students earning any Advanced Placement/
International Baccalaureate credits was higher for Asian students (72 percent) than
for White students (40 percent), and the percentages for Asian and White students
were higher than the percentages for students in all other racial/ethnic groups.

As part of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 course of study in high school, and students who take AP
(HSLS:09), high school transcripts were obtained in and IB courses in high school are eligible to earn college
2013 from a nationally representative sample of students credit for those courses. This indicator examines the
who were 9th-graders in 2009. Transcripts included average number of credits earned in AP/IB courses as well
information about the number of credits earned in as the percentage of students who earned any credits in
Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate AP/IB courses by race/ethnicity.
(IB) courses. One credit is the equivalent of a year-long

Figure 14.1. Percentage of students earning any credit in Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate
(IB) courses, by academic subject area and race/ethnicity: 2013

Percent
100

80
72

60

46
40 40
40 34 34

23
20 17 16
12 12 12
10
6 8

0
Total1 Math Science

Academic subject area

White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

1
Includes all subjects (not only math and science).
NOTE: IB Middle Years Program courses are not included. High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from a nationally representative sample of students
who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates include ninth-graders who dropped out or did not obtain a high school credential by 2013. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and High
School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 8.

The percentage of students earning any AP/IB credits was lowest for Black students (23 percent). The same patterns
higher for Asian students (72 percent) than for White emerged for the percentage of students earning any AP/IB
students (40 percent), and the percentages for Asian and credits in math and science with one exception: there was
White students were higher than the percentages for no measurable difference between the percentages of Black
students in all other racial/ethnic groups.1 In contrast, and Hispanic students who earned any AP/IB credits
the percentage of students earning any AP/IB credits was in science.

90  Chapter 3. Achievement

Figure 14.2. Average high school credits earned by students in Advanced Placement (AP) or International
Baccalaureate (IB) courses for students who earned any AP/IB credits, by academic subject area and
race/ethnicity: 2013

Number of credits
5.0
4.5

4.0

3.1 3.2 3.2

3.0 2.7

2.0 1.7
1.4
1.3 1.3 1.3
1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1
1.0

0.0
Total1 Math Science

Academic subject area

White Black Hispanic Asian Two or more races

1
Includes all subjects (not only math and science).
NOTE: IB Middle Years Program courses are not included. High school transcripts were obtained in 2013 from a nationally representative sample of students
who were ninth-graders in 2009. Estimates include ninth-graders who dropped out or did not obtain a high school credential by 2013. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), First Follow-up and High
School Transcript Study Public-Use File. See HSLS:09 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 8.

Even among students who took AP/IB courses there Additionally, White students earned a higher number of
were some racial/ethnic differences in the number of total AP/IB credits (3.1 credits) than did Black students
courses they took, and therefore the number of credits (2.7 credits). The same pattern emerged when examining
they earned. For students who took any AP/IB courses in AP/IB credits earned in math. The average number of AP/
high school, the average number of AP/IB course credits IB credits earned in science was highest for Asian students
earned by Asian students (4.5 credits) was higher than (1.7 credits) and lowest for Black students (1.1 credits).
the averages for students of all other racial/ethnic groups.

Endnotes:
1 The racial/ethnic groups included in this indicator comparisons between racial/ethnic groups made in this
are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Two or more indicator.
races. Students of All other races were excluded from the

Reference tables: High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 Data sources: High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09)
(HSLS:09): 2013 Update and High School Transcript Study: A Glossary: Advanced Placement (AP); International
First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth-Graders in 2013, table 8 Baccalaureate (IB)
Related indicators and resources: High School Coursetaking
(The Condition of Education)

Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Coursetaking 91 

This chapter looks at measures of student behavior and persistence. The indicators examine the rates of retention,
suspension, and expulsion, as well as high school status dropout rates and completion rates. In addition, another
indicator provides information on safety at school, such as how often students reported being threatened or injured with
a weapon on school property or how often they had been offered illegal drugs.

This chapter’s indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

92  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

Chapter 4. Student Behaviors
and Persistence

Indicator 15. Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion ................................................................94

Indicator 16. Safety at School ..................................................................................................98

Indicator 17. High School Status Dropout Rates ....................................................................102

Snapshot of High School Status Dropout Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ...............106

Indicator 18. High School Status Completion Rates .............................................................110

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 93 
Indicator 15

Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion

Between 2000 and 2016, the percentage of students retained in a grade decreased
from 3.1 to 1.9 percent.  This pattern was observed among White, Black, and
Hispanic students.

This indicator examines racial/ethnic differences in the because of behavioral issues or because the student is not
percentages of students who were retained in a grade,1 academically ready to progress to the next grade level.
received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and
were expelled by race/ethnicity. Retention, suspension, The Current Population Survey asks parents to report the
and expulsion are all associated with negative outcomes, grade in which their child is enrolled in October of the
such as an increased risk of dropping out of school.2 current school year, and the grade in which their child was
Suspensions and expulsions are disciplinary actions taken enrolled in October of the prior school year. Retention
by a school or district in response to a student’s behavior. rates include students in kindergarten through grade 12 in
Retention, however, can be related to both disciplinary public and private schools.
and academic issues; a student might be retained

Figure 15.1. Percentage of elementary and secondary school students retained in grade, by race/ethnicity: 2000–2016

Percent
50.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

Black

4.0
Total Hispanic

2.0
White

0.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year

NOTE: Data are as of October of each survey year. Excludes students who were reported as being in a higher grade the previous year than the given year.
Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Totals include other racial/ethnic categories not separately shown.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, October, 2000 through 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 225.90.

In 2016, about 1.9 percent of students in kindergarten years between 2000 and 2016, a higher percentage of
through grade 12 were retained in the same grade in Black students than of White students were retained.
which they were enrolled in the prior school year. This The percentage of Hispanic students who were retained
percentage was lower than the percentage of students was also higher than the percentage of White students
retained in 2015 (2.2 percent). Between 2000 and 2016, retained for most years over the same period, although the
the percentage of students retained decreased from percentages of White and Hispanic students retained in
3.1 to 1.9 percent. This pattern was observed among 2016 were not measurably different.
White, Black, and Hispanic students.3 However, in all

94  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

Figure 15.2. Percentage of elementary and secondary school students retained in grade, by grade level and race/
ethnicity: 2016

Percent
50.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.7 2.9 2.7

2.6
2.3 2.2
1.9 1.9
2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5
1.5

0.0
All grades (K–12) Grades K–8 Grades 9–12

Grade level

Total White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Data are as of October of the survey year. Excludes students who were reported as being in a higher grade the previous year than the given year.
Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Totals include other racial/ethnic categories not separately shown. Although rounded numbers are
displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, October, 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 225.90.

In 2016, the percentage of Black students retained For White and Hispanic students in 2016, the percentage
in kindergarten through grade 12 (2.7 percent) was of kindergarten through 8th-grade students who were
higher than the percentage of White students retained retained in grade (both 1.5 percent) was lower than the
(1.7 percent) but was not measurably different from the percentage of 9th- through 12th-grade students who
percentage of Hispanic students retained (1.9 percent). were retained (2.2 and 2.7 percent, respectively). The
Among those in kindergarten through grade 8, a higher percentage of Black students in kindergarten through
percentage of Black students (2.6 percent) than of White 8th grade who were retained was not measurably
and Hispanic students (both 1.5 percent) were retained. different from the corresponding percentage of those in
Among those in grades 9 through 12, there were no 9th through 12th grade.
measurable differences in the percentages of White, Black,
and Hispanic students retained.

Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion 95 

Students may be suspended (in- or out-of-school)4 or by the type of disciplinary action (e.g., suspension,
expelled (with or without educational services)5 for expulsion). The remainder of this indicator discusses
disciplinary purposes. The Civil Rights Data Collection the percentages of public school students who received
provides data on the number of public school students an out-of-school suspension and were expelled, by race/
who were disciplined during the 2013–14 school year ethnicity.

Figure 15.3. Percentage of public school students who received out-of-school suspensions, by race/ethnicity and sex:
2013–14

Percent
50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0 17.6

13.7

9.6 9.1
10.0 7.3 7.4
6.4 6.2 6.7
5.3 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.3
3.4 4.3
3.2 2.6 2.7 3.1
1.7 1.1 1.7 0.5
0.0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Two or
Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity1

Total Male Female

1
Data by race/ethnicity exclude students with disabilities served only under Section 504 (not receiving services under Individuals with Disabilities Act [IDEA])
since suspensions for these students are not available disaggregated by race/ethnicity in the underlying data. Students with disabilities served only under
Section 504 made up approximately 2 percent of public school enrollment in 2013–14.
NOTE: An out-of-school suspension is an instance in which a student is temporarily removed from his or her regular school for disciplinary purposes for at
least half a day (but less than the remainder of the school year) to another setting (e.g., home or behavior center). The percentage of students receiving a
disciplinary action is calculated by dividing the cumulative number of students receiving that type of disciplinary action for the entire 2013–14 school year by
the student enrollment based on a count of students taken on a single day between September 27 and December 31. Race categories exclude persons of
Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, “2013­–14 Discipline Estimations by Discipline Type” and “2013–14
Estimations for Enrollment.” See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 233.28.

In 2013–14, about 2.6 million public school students followed by 6.7 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native
(5.3 percent) received one or more out-of-school students, 5.3 percent of students of Two or more races,
suspensions. A higher percentage of Black students 4.5 percent each of Hispanic and Pacific Islander students,
(13.7 percent) than of students from any other racial/ 3.4 percent of White students, and 1.1 percent of Asian
ethnic group received an out-of-school suspension, students.

96  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

More than twice as many male students (7.3 percent) About 111,000 students were expelled in 2013–14,
than female students (3.2 percent) received one or more amounting to 0.2 percent of public school students. The
out-of-school suspensions in 2013–14. This pattern of percentages of Black and American Indian/Alaska Native
higher percentages of male than female students receiving students who were expelled (both 0.4 percent) were higher
out-of-school suspensions was observed for all racial/ than the percentages for students of all other racial/ethnic
ethnic groups. For example, 17.6 percent of Black male groups. Among other racial/ethnic groups, 0.3 percent
students received one or more out-of-school suspensions of students of Two or more races, 0.2 percent of White
compared with 9.6 percent of Black female students. The students, 0.1 percent of Hispanic and of Pacific Islander
percentage of Black male students who received out-of- students, and less than 0.1 percent of Asian students were
school suspensions (17.6 percent) was the highest of male expelled. As with the percentages of students who received
students from any racial/ethnic group. This percentage out-of-school suspensions, a higher percentage of male
was nearly twice the percentage of the next highest racial/ (0.3 percent) than of female (0.1 percent) students were
ethnic group—American Indian/Alaska Native male expelled. This pattern of higher percentages of male than
students with 9.1 percent—and was more than twice the female students receiving expulsions was observed for all
percentage of male students from any other racial/ethnic racial/ethnic groups.
group. A similar pattern was observed among female
students, with Black female students receiving the highest
percentage of out-of-school suspensions (9.6 percent).

Endnotes:
1 Retained students are defined as those who remain in the 4 An in-school suspension is an instance in which a student is
same grade from one school year to the next. Grade retention temporarily removed from his or her regular classroom(s) for
can happen at any school level. at least half a day but remains under the direct supervision of
2 Jimerson, S.R., Anderson, G.E., and Whipple, A.D. school personnel. An out-of-school suspension is an instance
(2002). Winning the Battle and Losing the War: Examining in which a student is temporarily removed from his or her
the Relation Between Grade Retention and Dropping Out regular school for disciplinary purposes for at least half a day
of High School. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4): 441–457. (but less than the remainder of the school year) and sent to
Retrieved February 24, 2017, from http://onlinelibrary. another setting (e.g., home or behavior center).
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.10046/abstract; Stearns, E., 5 Expulsions are actions taken by a local education agency
and Glennie, E.J. (2006). When and Why Dropouts Leave that result in the removal of a student from his or her regular
High School. Youth & Society, 38(1): 29–57. Retrieved school for disciplinary purposes for the remainder of the
February 24, 2017, from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ school year or longer in accordance with local education
abs/10.1177/0044118X05282764. agency policy. Expulsions also include removals resulting from
3 Retention data are only available for White, Black, and violations of the Gun Free Schools Act that are modified to
Hispanic students. There are too few cases to conduct reliable less than 365 days.
analyses for students of other racial/ethnic groups.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 225.90, Data sources: Current Population Survey (CPS) and Civil Rights
233.27, and 233.28 Data Collection (CRDC)
Related indicators and resources: High School Status Dropout Glossary: Expulsion; Retention in grade; Suspension
Rates; School Crime and Safety (The Condition of Education);
Snapshot of High School Status Dropout Rates for Racial/Ethnic
Subgroups; Status Dropout Rates (The Condition of Education)

Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion 97 

Indicator 16

Safety at School
In 2015, the percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported they had been in
a physical fight on school property during the previous 12 months was 6 percent
for White students; this was lower than the percentages of Hispanic students and
students of Two or more races (9 percent each) and Black and American Indian/
Alaska Native students (13 percent each).

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and the whether they had been in a physical fight on school
School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime property during the previous 12 months. Students were
Victimization Survey collect information on public and also asked whether someone had offered, sold, or given
private school students’ safety at school by asking a series them an illegal drug on school property during the
of questions on their experiences at school. Specifically, previous 12 months. The 2015 SCS asked students ages
the 2015 YRBS asked students in grades 9–12 whether 12–18 about the presence of gangs2 at their school,3 how
they had carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club often they had been afraid of attack or harm at school
on school property1 during the previous 30 days; whether or on the way to and from school, and whether they had
they had been threatened or injured with a weapon on avoided one or more places in school4 because of fear of
school property during the previous 12 months; and attack or harm during the school year.

Figure 16.1. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying a weapon on school property at least 1 day
during the previous 30 days or being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property during the
previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2015

Percent

50

40

30

20!
20
15!

10
10 8 8! 8
6 6 7
4 5 5
4 3 4!
2!

0
Carried a weapon on school property¹ Were threatened or injured
with a weapon on school property²
Incident

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
1
Respondents were asked about carrying “a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club” at least 1 day during the previous 30 days.
2
Respondents were asked about being threatened or injured “with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property” during the previous
12 months.
NOTE: “On school property” was not defined for respondents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are
displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2015. See
Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 228.40 and 231.40.

In 2015, about 4 percent of students in grades 9–12 who reported carrying such a weapon on school property
reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club (10 percent) was higher than the percentage of Hispanic
on school property during the previous 30 days. The (5 percent), White (4 percent), Black (3 percent), and
percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native students Asian students (2 percent) who reported doing so.
98  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence
Additionally, the percentage of Pacific Islander students during the previous 12 months. Higher percentages
(15 percent) who reported carrying a weapon was higher of Pacific Islander (20 percent) and Black students
than the percentage of Asian students (2 percent), (8 percent) than of White (5 percent) and Asian students
although the percentage for Pacific Islander students was (4 percent), as well as a higher percentage of Hispanic
not measurably different from the percentages reported students (7 percent) than of White students, reported
by students of the other racial/ethnic groups. In the same being threatened or injured with a weapon on school
year, 6 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported being property during the previous 12 months.
threatened or injured with a weapon on school property

Figure 16.2. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported having been in a physical fight on school property at
least one time during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2015

Percent
50

40

30

21!
20

13 13
9 9
10 8
6 6

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
NOTE: “On school property” was not defined for respondents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are
displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2015. See
Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 231.10.

In 2015, about 8 percent of students in grades 9–12 students (13 percent each), and Pacific Islander students
reported that they had been in a physical fight on (21 percent) reported being in a physical fight on school
school property during the previous 12 months. A lower property in the previous 12 months. In addition, the
percentage of White students (6 percent) than of Hispanic percentage reporting that they had been in a physical fight
students and students of Two or more races (9 percent on school property in the previous 12 months was lower
each), Black and American Indian/Alaska Native for Asian students (6 percent) than for Black students.

Safety at School 99 

Figure 16.3. Percentage of students in grades 9–12 who reported that illegal drugs were made available to them on
school property during the previous 12 months, by race/ethnicity: 2015

Percent
50

40

30!
30 27
25
22
20 21 20
20
15

10

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
NOTE: “On school property” was not defined for respondents. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are
displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 2015. See
Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 232.70.

Approximately 22 percent of students in grades 9–12 that illegal drugs were made available to them on school
reported in 2015 that illegal drugs were offered, property. Also, a higher percentage of students of Two or
sold, or given to them on school property during the more races (25 percent) than of Asian students reported
previous 12 months. A higher percentage of Hispanic that illegal drugs were made available to them on school
students (27 percent) than of Black (21 percent), White property.
(20 percent), and Asian (15 percent) students reported

100  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

Figure 16.4. Percentage of students ages 12–18 who reported gang presence at school, fear of attack or harm at
school, or avoidance of one or more places in school because of fear of attack or harm during the school
year, by race/ethnicity: 2015

Percent
50

40

30

20 17
15
13
11
10 7
4! 5 4 4 4
3 3 3 3! 4 4! 3!
3!

0
Gangs were present at school¹ Afraid of attack or harm at school² Avoided one or more places in school
because of fear of attack or harm³

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Other

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
1
All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or illegal activity, are included.
2
Students were asked if they “never,” “almost never,” “sometimes,” or “most of the time” feared that someone would attack or harm them at school. Students
responding “sometimes” or “most of the time” were considered fearful.
3
Students were asked whether they avoided places because they thought that someone might attack or harm them.
NOTE: “At school” includes in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, and going to and from school. “Other” includes American Indians/
Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and persons of Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are
displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, tables 230.20, 230.70, and 230.80.

According to data collected in the 2015 SCS, about attack or harm at school during the school year, with a
11 percent of students ages 12–18 reported that gangs higher percentage of Hispanic students (5 percent) than
were present at their school during the school year. The of White students (3 percent) reporting this concern. In
percentages of students who reported the presence of addition, approximately 4 percent of students ages 12–18
gangs at their school were higher for Black students reported in 2015 that they avoided one or more places
(17 percent) and Hispanic students (15 percent) than for in school because of fear of attack or harm during the
White students (7 percent). About 3 percent of students school year, with no measurable differences in percentages
ages 12–18 reported in 2015 that they had been afraid of between racial/ethnic groups.

Endnotes:
1 “On school property” was not defined for respondents. 4 Places that students were asked about avoiding included
2 All gangs, whether or not they are involved in violent or the school entrance, hallways or stairs in school, parts of the
illegal activity, are included. school cafeteria or lunchroom, school restrooms, and other
3 “At school” includes in the school building, on school places inside the school building.
property, on a school bus, and going to and from school.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 228.40, Data sources: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS)
230.20, 230.70, 230.80, 231.10, 231.40, and 232.70 and School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime
Related indicators and resources: School Crime and Safety (The Victimization Survey
Condition of Education); Status Dropout Rates (The Condition of Glossary: N/A
Education)

Safety at School 101 

Indicator 17

High School Status Dropout Rates

From 2000 to 2016, the Hispanic status dropout rate decreased from 27.8 to
8.6 percent, while the Black rate decreased from 13.1 to 6.2 percent, and the
White rate decreased from 6.9 to 5.2 percent. Nevertheless, the Hispanic status
dropout rate in 2016 remained higher than the Black and White rates. There was no
measurable difference between the Black and White status dropout rates in 2016.

Status dropouts are no longer attending school (public or group quarters (such as college or military housing), and
private) and do not have a high school level of educational can provide detail on smaller demographic groups.
attainment. The status dropout rate measures the
percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds in the United States1 Data from the CPS show that in 2016, approximately
who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high 2.3 million 16- to 24-year-olds were not enrolled in high
school credential.2 In this indicator, status dropout rates school and had not earned a high school diploma or an
are estimated using both the Current Population Survey equivalency credential. These status dropouts accounted
(CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS). CPS for 6.1 percent of the 38.4 million noninstitutionalized,
data have been collected annually for decades, allowing for civilian 16- to 24-year-olds living in the United States. The
the analysis of detailed long-term trends, or changes over White status dropout rate (5.2 percent) was lower than the
time, for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Hispanic rate (8.6 percent), but not measurably different
ACS data, which are available for more recent years, cover from the Black rate (6.2 percent). Additionally, the Black
individuals living in households and noninstitutionalized status dropout rate was lower than the Hispanic rate.

Figure 17.1. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016

Percent

50.0

40.0

30.0
Hispanic

20.0

Black

10.0
Total

White

0.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year

NOTE: The status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a
diploma or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate). Data for total include other racial/ethnic categories not separately shown. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 2000 through 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 219.70.

The status dropout rate for all 16- to 24-year-olds between the White and Black status dropout rates. In
decreased from 10.9 percent in 2000 to 6.1 percent in all years from 2000 to 2016, the status dropout rates for
2016. In each year from 2000 to 2015, the status dropout both White and Black 16- to 24-year-olds were lower
rate was lower for White than for Black 16- to 24-year- than the rates for their Hispanic peers. During this
olds, but in 2016 there was no measurable difference period, the rate for White individuals declined from 6.9 to
102  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence
5.2 percent; the rate for Black individuals declined from from 20.9 percentage points in 2000 to 3.4 percentage
13.1 to 6.2  percent; and the rate for Hispanic individuals points in 2016. The White-Black gap narrowed from
declined from 27.8 to 8.6 percent. 6.2 percentage points in 2000 to 1.9 percentage points
in 2015, and in 2016 there was no measurable difference
As a result of these declines, the gap in status dropout rates between the status dropout rates for White and Black
between White and Hispanic 16- to 24-year-olds narrowed 16- to 24-year-olds.

Figure 17.2. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2016

Percent
50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

13.3
10.7 11.0
8.7 9.1 8.7
10.0 7.0 7.3 6.9 6.6 7.2
5.8 6.8
4.7 4.5 5.2 3.7 5.2 4.8 5.6 4.0
2.0 2.2 1.7

0.0
Total1 White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Two or
Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity
Total Male Female

1
Includes other racial/ethnic categories not separately shown.
NOTE: This figure uses a different data source than figure 1 in this indicator; therefore, estimates are not directly comparable to the estimates in figure 1. The
status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma
or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate). Data are based on sample surveys of persons living in households, noninstitutionalized group
quarters (such as college and university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers and religious groups, and temporary shelters for the homeless), and
institutionalized group quarters (such as adult and juvenile correctional facilities, nursing facilities, and other health care facilities). Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.80.

Based on data from the ACS, the status dropout rate In 2016, the male status dropout rate (6.8 percent) was
in 2016 was lower for individuals who were Asian higher than the female rate (4.7 percent). This pattern
(2.0 percent) than for those who were White (4.5 percent) of higher male status dropout rates was also evident for
and of Two or more races (4.8 percent), and the rates individuals who were American Indian/Alaska Native,
for all three groups were lower than the rates for Pacific Black, Hispanic, of Two or more races, and White. For
Islander (6.9 percent), Black (7.0 percent), Hispanic example, the gap between male and female dropout rates
(9.1 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native was 4.7 percentage points for American Indian/Alaska
(11.0 percent) individuals. Additionally, the rates for Native 16- to 24-year-olds and 1.4 percentage points for
individuals who were Black or Pacific Islander were lower White 16- to 24-year-olds.
than the rates for those who were Hispanic and American
Indian/Alaska Native.

High School Status Dropout Rates 103 

Figure 17.3. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity and nativity: 2016

Percent
50.0

40.0

30.0

19.0!
20.0
16.1
13.7

9.6 10.3
10.0
6.1 6.5
5.0 4.4 5.5 4.6
3.8 3.0 3.9 3.5
1.0
0.0
Total1 White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Two or
Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

Born in the United States Born outside the United States

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
1
Includes other racial/ethnic categories not separately shown.
NOTE: This figure uses a different data source than figure 1 in this indicator; therefore, estimates are not directly comparable to the estimates in figure 1. The
status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma
or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate). United States refers to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas. Data are based on sample surveys of persons living in households and noninstitutionalized group quarters.
Noninstitutionalized group quarters include college and university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers and religious groups, and temporary shelters
for the homeless. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded
estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.80.

Status dropout rates also varied between U.S.- and 13.7 percent), 9.6 percentage points for Hispanic 16- to
foreign-born 16- to 24-year-olds living in the United 24-year-olds (6.5 vs. 16.1 percent), and 2.0 percentage
States. In 2016, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Asian 16- points for Asian 16- to 24-year-olds (1.0 vs. 3.0 percent).
to 24-year-olds born in the United States3 had lower status There were no measurable differences by nativity in the
dropout rates than did their counterparts born outside of status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds who were
the United States. The gap between status dropouts born White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and of
in the United States and born outside the United States Two or more races.
was 9.8 percentage points for Pacific Islander (3.9 vs.

Endnotes:
1 Includes those living in the 50 states and the District of 3 Unlike those living in the United States, which only includes
Columbia. the 50 states and the District of Columbia, those born in the
2 High school credentials include either a diploma or an United States include individuals born in the 50 states, the
equivalency credential such as a GED certificate. District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 219.70, Data source: Current Population Survey (CPS) and American
219.71, and 219.80 Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: Status Dropout Rates (The Glossary: Dropout; Group quarters; Status dropout rate
Condition of Education) (American Community Survey); Status dropout rate (Current
Population Survey)

104  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

This page intentionally left blank.
 Indicator 17: SNAPSHOT

High School Status Dropout Rates for Racial/Ethnic

Subgroups
In 2016, among Hispanic 16- to 24-year-olds in the United States, the high school
status dropout rate ranged from 2.4 percent for individuals of Peruvian descent to
22.9 percent for those of Guatemalan descent. Among Asian 16- to 24-year-olds,
status dropout rates ranged from 0.7 percent for individuals of Korean descent to
29.7 percent for those of Burmese descent.

While the indicator High School Status Dropout Rates American Community Survey can be used to estimate the
presents overall high school status dropout rates for status dropout rates for many specific Asian and Hispanic
Hispanic and Asian 16- to 24-year-olds, the rates vary subgroups, including, for example, Mexican, Puerto
within both of these groups. The Census Bureau’s Rican, Chinese, and Vietnamese.

Figure 17S.1. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by selected Hispanic subgroups: 2016

Subgroup

Hispanic 9.1

Cuban 5.4

Dominican 7.5

Mexican 9.0

Puerto Rican 9.1

Spaniard 6.5

Total¹ 15.4
Costa Rican ‡
Guatemalan 22.9
Central
Honduran 16.7
American
Nicaraguan 7.2!
Panamanian ‡
Salvadoran 13.3

Total 3.6
Chilean ‡
Colombian 2.9
South
American Ecuadorian 6.1
Peruvian 2.4!
Venezuelan 3.3!
Other ‡

Other Hispanic 7.7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Percent

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
1
Includes other Central American subgroups not shown separately.
NOTE: The status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a
diploma or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate). Data are based on sample surveys of persons living in households and noninstitutionalized
group quarters. Noninstitutionalized group quarters include college and university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers and religious groups, and
temporary shelters for the homeless. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.80.
SNAPSHOT

The status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to status dropout rate for all Hispanic 16- to 24-year-olds
24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not was 9.1 percent. Status dropout rates for individuals of
earned a high school credential.1 In 2016, the high school Guatemalan (22.9 percent), Honduran (16.7 percent),

106  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

and Salvadoran (13.3 percent) descent were higher than (9.0 percent) and Puerto Rican (9.1 percent) descent, were
the total rate for all Hispanic individuals. In contrast, not measurably different from the total Hispanic rate.
six subgroups had status dropout rates that were lower When looking at the dropout rate by region, the overall
than the total Hispanic rate: Spaniard (6.5 percent), rate for individuals of Central American (15.4 percent)
Ecuadorian (6.1 percent), Cuban (5.4 percent), Venezuelan descent was higher than the total Hispanic rate, while
(3.3 percent), Colombian (2.9 percent), and Peruvian the overall status dropout rate for individuals of South
(2.4 percent). The status dropout rates for the remaining American (3.6 percent) descent was lower than the total
Hispanic subgroups, including individuals of Mexican Hispanic rate.

Figure 17S.2. Status dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by selected Asian subgroups: 2016

Subgroup

Asian 2.0

Chinese¹ 0.8

Filipino 2.0

Japanese ‡

Korean 0.7!

Total² 2.2
Asian Indian 2.1
Bangladeshi 4.3!
South
Asian Bhutanese ‡
Nepalese ‡
Pakistani 1.3!

Total 4.0
Burmese 29.7
Cambodian 3.4!
Southeast Hmong 3.6!
Asian Laotian 2.0!
Thai ‡
Vietnamese 2.3
Other³ ‡

Other Asian 2.7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Percent
! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
1
Includes Taiwanese.
2
In addition to the subgroups shown, also includes Sri Lankan.
3
Consists of Indonesian and Malaysian.
NOTE: The status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential
(either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate). Data are based on sample surveys of persons living in households and
noninstitutionalized group quarters. Noninstitutionalized group quarters include college and university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers
and religious groups, and temporary shelters for the homeless. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are
displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.80.

Among all Asian 16- to 24-year-olds, the high school Status dropout rates for the remaining Asian subgroups
status dropout rate was 2.0 percent in 2016. The status were not measurably different from the total rate for all
dropout rate for individuals of Burmese (29.7 percent) Asian 16- to 24-year-olds. When looking at the dropout
descent was higher than the total Asian rate, while the rate by region, the overall rate for individuals of Southeast
rates for individuals of Korean (0.7 percent) and Chinese Asian (4.0 percent) descent was higher than the total
(0.8 percent) descent were lower than the total Asian rate. Asian rate.
SNAPSHOT

High School Status Dropout Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups 107 

 Endnotes:
1 High school credentials include either a diploma or an
equivalency credential such as a GED certificate.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.80 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: Status Dropout Rates (The Glossary: Dropout; GED certificate; Group quarters; High school
Condition of Education) diploma; High school equivalency certificate; Status dropout rate
(American Community Survey)
SNAPSHOT

108  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 18

High School Status Completion Rates

From 2000 to 2016, the high school status completion rate for Hispanic 18- to
24-year-olds increased from 64 to 89 percent, while the Black and White status
completion rates increased from 84 to 92 percent and from 92 to 94 percent,
respectively. Although the White-Hispanic and White-Black gaps in status
completion rates narrowed between 2000 and 2016, the rates for Hispanic and
Black 18- to 24-year-olds remained lower than the White rate in 2016.

The status completion rate measures the percentage of rates include all individuals in a specified age range who
18- to 24-year-old young adults living in the United hold a high school diploma or alternative credential,
States1 who hold a high school diploma or an alternative regardless of when it was attained. The high school
credential.2 Young adults who are still enrolled in high completion rates presented in this indicator use data
school or a lower level of education are excluded from the from the Current Population Survey (CPS), allowing for
calculation of this measure. Unlike high school graduation the analysis of detailed long-term trends in the civilian
rates, which measure the percentage of students who noninstitutionalized population.
graduate during a specific school year, status completion

Figure 18.1. Status completion rates of 18- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 2016

Percent
100 97 96
93 94
92
89
84
80 75

60

40

20

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

NOTE: The status completion rate is the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who are high school completers as a percentage of the total number of 18- to 24-year-
olds who are not enrolled in high school or a lower level of education. High school completers include those with a high school diploma, as well as those with
an alternative credential, such as a GED certificate. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the 50 states
and Washington, D.C. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 219.67.

Of the 28.0 million 18- to 24-year-old young adults status completion rate was higher than the Hispanic and
who were not enrolled in high school in October 2016, American Indian/Alaska Native rates. The rate for young
approximately 26.1 million (93 percent) had earned a adults of Two or more races (96 percent) was higher than
high school diploma or alternative credential. In 2016, the rates for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska
the Asian status completion rate (97 percent) was higher Native young adults, but not measurably different from
than the White rate (94 percent), and the rates for both the rates for the other racial/ethnic groups. The Pacific
groups were higher than the rates for Black (92 percent), Islander status completion rate (84 percent) was not
Hispanic (89 percent), and American Indian/Alaska measurably different from the rate for any group included
Native (75 percent) young adults. In addition, the Black in this analysis.

110  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

Figure 18.2. Status completion rates of 18- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016

Percent
100
White Total

80
Black Hispanic

60

40

20

0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year

NOTE: The status completion rate is the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who are high school completers as a percentage of the total number of 18- to 24-year-
olds who are not enrolled in high school or a lower level of education. High school completers include those with a high school diploma, as well as those with
an alternative credential, such as a GED certificate. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the 50 states
and Washington, D.C. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 2000 through 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 219.65.

The overall status completion rate of 18- to 24-year-old increased from 92 to 94 percent. As a result of these
young adults increased from 86 percent in 2000 to increases, the White-Hispanic gap in status completion
93 percent in 2016. During this time, the Hispanic status rates narrowed from 28 percentage points in 2000 to
completion rate increased from 64 percent to 89 percent, 5 percentage points in 2016. The White-Black gap also
the Black status completion rate increased from 84 percent narrowed during this period, from 8 percentage points in
to 92 percent, and the White status completion rate 2000 to 2 percentage points in 2016.

High School Status Completion Rates 111 

Figure 18.3. Status completion rates of 18- to 24-year-olds, by recency of immigration and ethnicity: 2016

Percent
100 97
94 94
92 92

80
80

60

40

20

0
Born outside the United States First generation Second generation or higher

Recency of immigration

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

NOTE: The status completion rate is the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who are high school completers as a percentage of the total number of 18- to
24-year-olds who are not enrolled in high school or a lower level of education. High school completers include those with a high school diploma, as
well as those with an alternative credential, such as a GED certificate. Individuals defined as “first generation” were born in the United States, but one
or both of their parents were born outside the United States. Individuals defined as “second generation or higher” were born in the United States, as
were both of their parents. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table
219.67.

In 2016, the status completion rates of 18- to 24-year- young adults (94 percent) was not measurably different
olds also varied by recency of immigration.3 The status from the rates for first-generation and second-generation
completion rate for foreign-born Hispanic young adults or higher non-Hispanic young adults. Among both
was 80 percent, which was lower than the rates for their foreign-born and first-generation young adults, status
Hispanic peers who were first generation and second completion rates were lower for Hispanics than for
generation or higher (92 percent for both). Among non-Hispanics. Among young adults who were second
non-Hispanics, the status completion rate for first- generation or higher, there was no measurable difference
generation young adults (97 percent) was higher than the between the status completion rates for Hispanics and
rate for their second-generation or higher (94 percent) non-Hispanics.
peers. However, the rate for foreign-born non-Hispanic

Endnotes:
1 Includes those living in the 50 states and the District of individuals (those who were born in the United States but
Columbia. have at least one foreign-born parent); and (iii) individuals
2 The alternative credentials counted in the status completion who are second generation or higher (those who were born
rate include, for example, GED certificates and credentials in the United States and whose parents were both born in
earned by individuals who completed their education outside the United States). Those born in the United States include
of the United States. individuals born in the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
3 The recency of immigration categories used in this analysis Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
are as follows: (i) foreign-born individuals; (ii) first-generation and the Northern Marianas.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 219.65 Data sources: Current Population Survey (CPS)
and 219.67 Glossary: GED certificate; High school completer; High school
Related indicators and resources: Public High School diploma; High school equivalency certificate
Graduation Rates (The Condition of Education)

112  Chapter 4. Student Behaviors and Persistence

This page intentionally left blank.
This chapter focuses on indicators of participation in postsecondary education, such as enrollment, financial aid
received, graduation rates, and degrees awarded.

This chapter’s indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

114  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Chapter 5. Postsecondary
Education

Indicator 19. College Participation Rates ............................................................................. 116

Snapshot of College Participation Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ........................ 122

Indicator 20. Undergraduate Enrollment .............................................................................. 126

Indicator 21. Postbaccalaureate Enrollment ........................................................................ 130

Indicator 22. Financial Aid .................................................................................................... 134

Indicator 23. Postsecondary Graduation Rates ................................................................... 138

Indicator 24. Degrees Awarded ............................................................................................ 144

Indicator 25. Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields ................................................ 150

Indicator 26. STEM Degrees ................................................................................................... 156

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 115 
Indicator 19

College Participation Rates

From 2000 to 2016, total college enrollment rates increased for White (from 39 to
42 percent), Black (from 31 to 36 percent), and Hispanic young adults (from 22 to
39 percent). The 2016 total college enrollment rate for American Indian/Alaska
Native young adults (19 percent) was not measurably different from their 2000 rate.
Also, the 2016 rates for Asian young adults (58 percent), young adults of Two or
more races (42 percent), and Pacific Islander young adults (21 percent) were not
measurably different from the corresponding rates in 2003, when the collection of
separate data on Asian and Pacific Islander young adults began.

The percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college percentage of all 18- to 24-year-olds (referred to as “young
has increased since 2000. College participation can adults” in this indicator) enrolled as undergraduate or
be measured and described in terms of the total college graduate students in 2- or 4-year colleges and universities.
enrollment rate, as well as the immediate college enrollment The immediate college enrollment rate is discussed later in
rate. The total college enrollment rate is defined as the this indicator.

Figure 19.1. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by race/ethnicity: 2000, 2003, 2010, and 2016

Race/ethnicity

35
38
Total
41
41
39
42
White
43
42
31
Black 32
38
36
22
Hispanic 23
32
39
—
61
Asian
64
58
—
43
Pacific Islander
36
21!
16
American Indian/ 18
Alaska Native 41
19
—
42
Two or more races
38
42

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
2000 2003 2010 2016

— Not available.
! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Totals include other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown.
Separate data for Asians, Pacific Islanders, and persons of Two or more races were not available in 2000. After 2002, data for individual race categories
exclude persons of Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are
based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 2000, 2003, 2010, and 2016. See Digest of Education
Statistics 2017, table 302.60.

116  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

The total college enrollment rate for young adults for American Indian/Alaska Native young adults (19 vs.
overall increased from 35 percent in 2000 to 41 percent 41 percent), but not measurably different for young adults
in 2016, though the 2016 rate was not measurably in the other racial/ethnic groups.
different from the 2010 rate. From 2000 to 2016, total
college enrollment rates increased for White (from 39 to In 2016, the total college enrollment rate was higher for
42 percent), Black (from 31 to 36 percent), and Hispanic Asian young adults (58 percent) than for young adults
young adults (from 22 to 39 percent). The 2016 total who were of Two or more races (42 percent), White
college enrollment rate for American Indian/Alaska (42 percent), Hispanic (39 percent), Black (36 percent),
Native young adults (19 percent) was not measurably Pacific Islander (21 percent), and American Indian/Alaska
different from their 2000 rate. Also, the 2016 rates for Native (19 percent). Enrollment rates in 2016 were also
Asian young adults (58 percent), young adults of Two higher for White and Hispanic young adults and those of
or more races (42 percent), and Pacific Islander young Two or more races than for Pacific Islander and American
adults (21 percent) were not measurably different from Indian/Alaska Native young adults. Additionally, the
the corresponding rates in 2003.1 More recently, total rate for Black young adults was higher than the rate for
college enrollment rates were higher for Hispanic young American Indian/Alaska Native young adults.
adults in 2016 than in 2010 (39 vs. 32 percent) and lower

College Participation Rates 117 

Figure 19.2. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by race/ethnicity: 2000–2016

Percent
100

80

Asian

60

White

40
Black

20
Hispanic

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year

NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Separate data for Asian 18- to 24-year-olds were not available until
2003. After 2002, individual race categories exclude persons identifying as Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 2000 through 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 302.60.

From 2003 to 2016, the Asian-Hispanic gap in young adults was 17 percentage points higher than the
total college enrollment rates narrowed, from 38 to rate for Hispanic young adults in 2000, there was no
18 percentage points. The Asian-Black gap in total college measurable difference between the two rates in 2016. The
enrollment rates was smaller in 2016 (21 percentage White-Black gap in total college enrollment rate in 2016
points) than in 2003 (29 percentage points). From (6 percentage points) was not measurably different than
2000 to 2016, the White-Hispanic gap in total college the corresponding gap in 2000.
enrollment rates also narrowed: while the rate for White

118  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 19.3. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college, by sex and race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2016

Percent

100

80

60

44 44 44
40 41 39
39 38
40 36 35 35
33 33
25 25
18
20

0
Total White Black Hispanic Total White Black Hispanic

Male Female
Sex and race/ethnicity

2000 2016

NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Totals include other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown. In
2000, data for individual race categories include persons of Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 2000 and 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 302.60.

Between 2000 and 2016, college enrollment rates This pattern was also observed for White and Hispanic
increased overall for both young adult males (from 33 to young adults among the racial/ethnic groups examined.
39 percent) and young adult females (from 38 to For example, in 2016 the male-female gap in total college
44 percent). Among young adult males, enrollment rates enrollment rate was 5 percentage points for young adults
were higher in 2016 than in 2000 for those who were overall, 5 percentage points for White young adults, and
White (40 vs. 36 percent), Black (33 vs. 25 percent), and 9 percentage points for Hispanic young adults. Among
Hispanic (35 vs. 18 percent). Among young adult females, Black young adults, in 2000 the enrollment rate for
rates were also higher for those who were White (44 vs. females (35 percent) was 10 percentage points higher than
41 percent) and Hispanic (44 vs. 25 percent). However, the rate for males (25 percent); however, there was no
the rate for Black young adult females in 2016 (39 percent) measurable difference between the two rates in 2016.
was not measurably different from the rate in 2000.

In every year since 2000, college enrollment rates among

young adults were higher for females than for males.

College Participation Rates 119 

Figure 19.4. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in college by the fall immediately following high
school completion, by race/ethnicity: 2000–2016

Percent
100
Asian

White

80
Total

60

Black
Hispanic
40

20

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year

NOTE: Estimates are based on individuals ages 16 to 24 who graduated from high school or completed a GED or other high school equivalency credential.
Percentages for racial/ethnic groups are based on moving averages, which are used to produce more stable estimates. A 3-year moving average is a
weighted average of the year indicated, the year immediately preceding, and the year immediately following. Three-year moving averages are presented
in all but two instances: the moving average for Asian data in 2003 reflects an average of 2003 and 2004 data, and the moving average for 2016 reflects an
average of 2015 and 2016 data. High school completers include GED recipients. Separate data on Asian high school completers have been collected since
2003. From 2003 onward, White, Black, and Asian data exclude persons identifying as Two or more races. Prior to 2003, each respondent could select only
a single race category, and the “Two or more races” category was not reported. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including
Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October, 2000 through 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017,
table 302.20.

The immediate college enrollment rate is defined as the Hispanic (71 percent), White (71 percent), and Black
annual percentage of high school completers (referred to (56 percent) students. Additionally, the rates for White
as “students” in this indicator), including GED recipients, and Hispanic students were higher than the rate for Black
who enroll in 2- or 4-year colleges and universities in students.
the fall immediately following high school completion.
Similar to the pattern observed for the overall total college From 2003 to 2016, the Asian-White gap in immediate
enrollment rate, the overall immediate college enrollment college enrollment rates widened, from 6 to 17 percentage
rate increased from 63 percent in 2000 to 70 percent in points. The Asian-Black gap in immediate college
2016, though the 2016 rate was not measurably different enrollment rates was larger in 2016 (31 percentage
from the 2010 rate. The immediate college enrollment rate points) than in 2003 (14 percentage points). The Asian-
for White students was higher in 2016 (71 percent)2 than Hispanic gap in immediate college enrollment rate in
in 2000 (65 percent), and the rate for Asian students was 2016 (17 percentage points) was not measurably different
higher in 2016 (87 percent) than in 2003 (74 percent).3 than the corresponding gap in 2003. From 2000 to
For both White and Asian students, the immediate college 2016, the White-Hispanic gap in immediate college
enrollment rate increased until 2010, then fluctuated enrollment rates narrowed: while the rate for White
from 2010 to 2016. For Hispanic students, the immediate students was 17 percentage points higher than the rate
enrollment rate increased from 49 percent in 2000 to for Hispanic students in 2000, there was no measurable
71 percent in 2016. For Black students, the immediate difference between the two rates in 2016. The White-
college enrollment rate increased from 56 percent in 2000 Black gap in immediate college enrollment rate in 2016
to 66 percent in 2010, then decreased back to 56 percent (14 percentage points) was not measurably different than
in 2016. the corresponding gap in 2000.

In 2016, the immediate college enrollment rate for

Asian students (87 percent) was higher than the rates for

120  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Endnotes:
1 Prior to 2003, data were collected for the combined race immediately following. Three-year moving averages are
category of Asian/Pacific Islander young adults, and separate presented in all but two instances: the moving average for
data for young adults of Two or more races were not collected. Asian data in 2003 reflects an average of 2003 and 2004 data,
2 Percentages for racial/ethnic groups are based on moving and the moving average for 2016 reflects an average of 2015
averages, which are used to produce more stable estimates. and 2016 data.
A 3-year moving average is a weighted average of the year 3 Prior to 2003, data were collected for the combined race
indicated, the year immediately preceding, and the year category of Asian/Pacific Islander students.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.20 Data sources: Census Bureau
Related indicators and resources: College Enrollment Rates Glossary: N/A
(The Condition of Education); Immediate College Enrollment Rate
(The Condition of Education)

College Participation Rates 121 

 Indicator 19: SNAPSHOT

College Participation Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

Among Hispanic subgroups, the average college enrollment rate in 2016 ranged
from 27 percent for Honduran 18- to 24-year-olds to 64 percent for Chilean 18- to
24-year-olds. Among Asian subgroups, the average college enrollment rate ranged
from 23 percent for Burmese 18- to 24-year-olds to 81 percent for Other Southeast
Asian (including Indonesian and Malaysian) 18- to 24-year-olds.

While the indicator College Participation Rates uses data subgroups, including, for example, Mexican, Puerto
from the Current Population Survey (CPS) to present Rican, Chinese, and Asian Indian. The indicator also
overall average college enrollment rates for Hispanic examines average college enrollment rates by sex for
and Asian young adults, there is much diversity within Hispanic and Asian subgroups. The average college
both racial/ethnic groups. This snapshot uses data from enrollment rate is defined as the percentage of 18- to
the American Community Survey (ACS) to estimate 24-year-olds enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary
average college enrollment rates for Hispanic and Asian institutions.

Figure 19S.1. Average college enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by
selected Hispanic subgroups: 2016

Subgroup

Hispanic 36

Cuban 45

Dominican 38

Mexican 35

Puerto Rican 34

Spaniard 49

Total¹ 33
Costa Rican 56
Guatemalan 29
Central
Honduran 27
American
Nicaraguan 39
Panamanian 48
Salvadoran 34

Total 53
Chilean 64
Colombian 50
South
Ecuadorian 45
American
Peruvian 58
Venezuelan 59
Other 57

Other Hispanic 42

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

1
Includes other Central American subgroups not shown separately.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the entire population in the given age range residing within the United States, including both noninstitutionalized
persons (e.g., those living in households, college housing, or military housing located within the United States) and institutionalized persons (e.g., those living
in prisons, nursing facilities, or other healthcare facilities). Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 302.62.
SNAPSHOT

122 Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

In 2016, the average college enrollment rate for In 2016, the average college enrollment rate for female
Hispanic 18- to 24-year-olds was 36 percent. Average Hispanic young adults (41 percent) was higher than
college enrollment rates for the Honduran (27 percent), the enrollment rate for male Hispanic young adults
Guatemalan (29 percent), Puerto Rican (34 percent), and (32 percent). This same pattern was observed for the
Mexican (35 percent) subgroups were lower than the rate Chilean, Spaniard, Colombian, Dominican, Puerto
for Hispanic young adults overall. The average college Rican, Honduran, Cuban, Mexican, Guatemalan, and
enrollment rates for the Salvadoran, Dominican, and Other Hispanic subgroups. The female-male enrollment
Nicaraguan subgroups were not measurably different gap ranged from 7 percentage points for Other Hispanic
from the overall Hispanic rate. The average college young adults to 33 percentage points for Chilean young
enrollment rates for the remaining Hispanic subgroups adults. The average college enrollment rates for males
were higher than the overall rate for Hispanic young and females were not measurably different for the Costa
adults and ranged from 42 percent for Other Hispanic Rican, Ecuadorian, Nicaraguan, Other South American,
young adults—who could not be classified into one of the Panamanian, Peruvian, Salvadoran, and Venezuelan
predetermined subgroup categories—to 64 percent for subgroups.
Chilean young adults.

SNAPSHOT

College Participation Rates for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups 123 

 Figure 19S.2. Average college enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by
selected Asian subgroups: 2016

Subgroup

Asian 67

Chinese¹ 78

Filipino 56

Japanese 70

Korean 70

Total² 68
Asian Indian 70
South Bangladeshi 56
Asian Bhutanese ‡
Nepalese 58
Pakistani 66

Total 57
Burmese 23
Cambodian 47
Southeast Hmong 39
Asian Laotian 43
Thai 45
Vietnamese 68
Other³ 81

Other Asian 67

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).
1
Includes Taiwanese.
2
In addition to the subgroups shown, also includes Sri Lankan.
3
Consists of Indonesian and Malaysian.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the entire population in the given age range residing within the United States, including both noninstitutionalized
persons (e.g., those living in households, college housing, or military housing located within the United States) and institutionalized persons (e.g., those living
in prisons, nursing facilities, or other healthcare facilities). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed,
the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 302.62.

The average college enrollment rate for Asian 18- to enrollment rate for male Asian young adults (66 percent).
24-year-olds was 67 percent in 2016. The rates for the This same pattern was observed for the Laotian, Other
following Asian subgroups were lower than the overall Asian, and Filipino subgroups. The female-male
Asian rate: Burmese (23 percent), Hmong (39 percent), enrollment gap was 6 percentage points for Filipino
Laotian (43 percent), Thai (45 percent), Cambodian young adults, 11 percentage points for Other Asian
(47 percent), Bangladeshi (56 percent), and Filipino young adults, and 24 percentage points for Laotian young
(56 percent). Conversely, the average college enrollment adults. Conversely, the average college enrollment rate
rates for Chinese (78 percent) and Other Southeast Asian1 for female Nepalese young adults (48 percent) was lower
young adults (81 percent) were higher than the overall than the enrollment rate for male Nepalese young adults
Asian rate. The enrollment rates for other Asian subgroups (67 percent). The average college enrollment rates for
were not measurably different from the overall Asian rate. males and females were not measurably different for the
remaining twelve Asian subgroups.
In 2016, the average college enrollment rate for female
Asian young adults (68 percent) was higher than the

Endnotes:
1 Other Southeast Asian consists of Indonesian and Malaysian
and excludes Burmese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai,
and Vietnamese, which are shown separately.
SNAPSHOT

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 302.62 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: College Enrollment Rates Glossary: College; Enrollment; High school completer;
(The Condition of Education); College Participation Rates; Postsecondary education; Postsecondary institutions (basic
Undergraduate Enrollment classification by level)

124  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 20

Undergraduate Enrollment
Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic undergraduate enrollment more than doubled
(a 134 percent increase from 1.4 million to 3.2 million students). The enrollment for
most other racial/ethnic groups increased during the first part of this period, then
began to decrease around 2010.

This indicator examines the racial/ethnic differences were White, 3.2 million were Hispanic, 2.2 million were
in undergraduate fall enrollment in degree-granting Black, 1.1 million were Asian, 596,000 were of Two or
institutions, by sex and institution type for U.S. more races, 129,000 were American Indian/Alaska Native,
citizens and permanent residents. Of the 16.3 million and 47,000 were Pacific Islander.
undergraduate students in fall 2016, about 9.1 million

Figure 20.1. Undergraduate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2000 through 2016

Enrollment (in millions)

12

White

10

Black
2
Asian Pacific Islander
Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Prior to 2010, separate data on
Asian students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two or more races were not available. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001
through Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.10.

Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic undergraduate Additionally, White enrollment increased by 21 percent
enrollment more than doubled (a 134 percent increase, between 2000 and 2010 (from 9.0 million to 10.9 million
from 1.4 million to 3.2 million students). In contrast, students), then decreased by 17 percent to 9.1 million
undergraduate enrollment for other racial/ethnic groups students in 2016.
with available data for 2000 to 20161 increased between
2000 and 2010 and then began to decrease around 2010. Similarly, between 2010 and 2016, the enrollment of
For instance, Black enrollment increased by 73 percent Pacific Islander students decreased by 18 percent (from
between 2000 and 2010 (from 1.5 million to 2.7 million 58,000 to 47,000). In contrast, during this period, the
students) but then decreased by 17 percent to 2.2 million enrollment of students of Two or more races more than
students in 2016. Similarly, American Indian/Alaska doubled (an increase of 103 percent, from 294,000 to
Native enrollment increased by 29 percent between 2000 596,000) and the enrollment of Asian students was
and 2010 (from 139,000 to 179,000 students) before 2 percent higher in 2016 (1.1 million) than in 2010
decreasing by 28 percent to 129,000 students in 2016. (1.0 million).

126  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 20.2. Percentage of total undergraduate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity:
Fall 2000, fall 2010, and fall 2016

Percent
100

80
70

62
60 56

40

19
20 15
12 14 14
10
6 6
2 4
— — # # 1 1 1 —
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Two or
Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

2000 2010 2016

— Not available.
# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Prior to 2010, separate data
on Asian students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two or more races were not available. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001, Spring
2011, and Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.10.

As a result of the different growth rates of undergraduate decreased by less than 1 percentage point and remained
enrollment between 2000 and 2016, the distribution around 1 percent.
of enrollment by racial/ethnic group changed. During
this time, Hispanic enrollment as a percentage of total Between 2010 and 2016, the enrollment of Asian students
enrollment increased from 10 to 19 percent and Black and Pacific Islander students as a percentage of total
enrollment increased from 12 to 14 percent of total enrollment remained around 6 percent and less than
enrollment. White enrollment as a percentage of total one-half of 1 percent, respectively. The enrollment of
enrollment decreased between 2000 and 2016 (from 70 to students of Two or more races as a percentage of total
56 percent). During this time, American Indian/Alaska enrollment increased during this between 2010 and 2016
Native enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment (from 2 percent to 4 percent).

Undergraduate Enrollment 127 

Figure 20.3. Percentage distribution of male and female undergraduate student fall enrollment in degree-granting
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2016

Percent
100

80
56 55 53 55 57
58 60
62

60
Female
Male
40

44 45 47 45
42 40 43
20 38

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2017, Fall
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.10.

In 2016, a greater percentage of undergraduates were Black students (62 vs. 38 percent) and narrowest for Asian
female than male across all racial/ethnic groups. The students (53 vs. 47 percent).
gap between female and male enrollment was widest for

128  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 20.4. Percentage distribution of undergraduate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/
ethnicity of student and control of institution: Fall 2016

Race/ethnicity

Total 78 16 6

White 77 19 4

Black 72 16 12

Hispanic 85 10 5

Asian 82 15 3

Pacific Islander 70 17 14

American Indian/
81 12 7
Alaska Native

Two or more races 79 16 5

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Public Private nonprofit Private for-profit

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data. Details may not sum to totals because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2017, Fall
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.50.

In 2016, some 78 percent of undergraduate students institutions were above the average (16 percent) for
attended public institutions, 16 percent attended private students who were White (19 percent), Pacific Islander
nonprofit institutions, and 6 percent attended private (17 percent), and of Two or more races (16 percent)2; the
for-profit institutions. The percentages of students percentages were lower than the average for students from
attending public institutions were above the average all other racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of students
(78 percent) for students who were Hispanic (85 percent), attending private for-profit institutions were higher than
Asian (82 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native the average (6 percent) for students who were Pacific
(81 percent), and of Two or more races (79 percent); Islander (14 percent), Black (12 percent), and American
the percentages for all other racial/ethnic groups Indian/Alaska Native (7 percent); the percentages were
attending public institutions were below the average. lower than the average for students from all other racial/
The percentages students attending private nonprofit ethnic groups.

Endnotes:
1 Separate data on undergraduate enrollment for Asian 2 Although rounded numbers are discussed, comparisons are
students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two or based on unrounded data.
more races became available in 2010.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2005, table 205; Data sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 263; Digest of Education (IPEDS)
Statistics 2016, table 306.10; Digest of Education Statistics 2017, Glossary: Degree-granting institutions; For-profit institution;
tables 306.10 and 306.50 Nonprofit institution; Private institution; Public school or
Related indicators and resources: Postbaccalaureate Enrollment; institution; Undergraduate students
Undergraduate Enrollment (The Condition of Education)

Undergraduate Enrollment 129 

Indicator 21

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment
Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic postbaccalaureate enrollment more than
doubled (a 134 percent increase, from 111,000 to 260,000 students) and Black
postbaccalaureate enrollment doubled (a 100 percent increase, from 181,000 to
363,000).

This indicator examines the racial/ethnic differences in 2.5 million postbaccalaureate students enrolled in fall
postbaccalaureate fall enrollment in degree-granting 2016, some 1.6 million were White, 363,000 were Black,
institutions, by sex and institution type for U.S. citizens 260,000 were Hispanic, 200,000 were Asian, 71,000 were
and permanent residents. Postbaccalaureate degree of Two or more races, 14,000 were American Indian/
programs include master’s and doctoral programs, as well Alaska Native, and 6,100 were Pacific Islander.
as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. Of the

Figure 21.1. Postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity: 2000 through 2016

Enrollment (in millions)

2.0

White

1.5

1.0

Black Hispanic Two or more races

Asian
0.5
American Indian/Alaska Native
Pacific Islander

0.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016
Year

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Prior to 2010, separate data on
Asian students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two or more races were not available. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001
through Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2005, table 205; Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 263; Digest of
Education Statistics 2016 and 2017, table 306.10.

Between 2000 and 2016, Hispanic postbaccalaureate Similarly, White enrollment increased by 23 percent
enrollment more than doubled (a 134 percent increase, between 2000 and 2010 (from 1.5 million to 1.8 million
from 111,000 to 260,000 students) and Black students) before decreasing by 11 percent to 1.6 million
postbaccalaureate enrollment doubled (a 100 percent students in 2016.
increase, from 181,000 to 363,000 students). In contrast,
postbaccalaureate enrollment for other racial/ethnic Between 2010 and 2016, the enrollment of students
groups with available data for 2000 to 20161 generally of Two or more races more than doubled (an increase
increased from 2000 to 2010 and then began to decrease of 123 percent, from 32,000 to 71,000 students) and
around 2010. For instance, between 2000 and 2010, Asian enrollment increased by 7 percent (from 188,000
American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment increased by to 200,000 students). The enrollment of Pacific Islander
36 percent (from 13,000 to 17,000 students) but then students was 6 percent lower in 2016 (6,100) than in 2010
decreased by 20 percent to 14,000 students in 2016. (6,500).

130  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 21.2. Percentage of total postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/
ethnicity: 2000, 2010, and 2016

Percent
100

80 77
69
64
60

40

20 14
14
9 10
8 7 8
6
1 1 1 1 3
— — # # —
0
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/Alaska more races
Native
Race/ethnicity

2000 2010 2016

— Not available.
# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Prior to 2010, separate data
on Asian students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two or more races were not available. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001, Spring
2011, and Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.10.

Due to the different growth rates of postbaccalaureate Between 2010 and 2016, the enrollment of Asian students
enrollment between 2000 and 2016, the distribution of as a percentage of total enrollment increased from 7 to
enrollment by racial/ethnic group changed. During this 8 percent and the enrollment of students of Two or more
time, Black enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment races increased from 1 to 3 percent. During the same
increased from 9 to 14 percent and Hispanic enrollment period, the enrollment of Pacific Islander students as
increased from 6 to 10 percent. Conversely, White a percentage of total enrollment remained at less than
enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment decreased one-half of 1 percent.
from 77 to 64 percent and American Indian/Alaska
Native enrollment decreased by less than 1 percentage
point between 2000 and 2016.

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment 131 

Figure 21.3. Percentage distribution of male and female postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting
institutions, by race/ethnicity: 2016

Percent
100

80

60 56
62 63 63 65 62
70
60
Female
Male
40

40 44
20 38 37 37 35 38
30

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment
component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.10.

In 2016, a greater percentage of postbaccalaureate students Black students (70 vs. 30 percent) and narrowest for Asian
were female than male across all racial/ethnic groups. The students (56 vs. 44 percent).
gap between female and male enrollment was widest for

132  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 21.4. Percentage distribution of postbaccalaureate student enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/
ethnicity of student and control of institution: 2016

Race/ethnicity

Total 47 43 10

White 50 43 7

Black 36 40 24

Hispanic 49 41 10

Asian 45 49 6

Pacific Islander 29 45 26

American Indian/
Alaska Native 50 35 15

Two or more races 49 41 10

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Public Private nonprofit Private for-profit

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude persons
of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data. Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2017, Fall
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 306.50.

In 2016, about 47 percent of postbaccalaureate students for Asian (49 percent), Pacific Islander (45 percent), and
attended public institutions, 43 percent attended private White (43 percent) students; the percentages attending
nonprofit institutions, and 10 percent attended private private nonprofit institutions were below the average
for-profit institutions. The percentages of students for students from all other racial/ethnic groups. The
attending public institutions were above the average percentages of students attending private for-profit
(47 percent) for White students (50 percent), American institutions were above the average (10 percent) for Pacific
Indian/Alaska Native students (50 percent), students of Islander (26 percent), Black (24 percent), American
Two or more races (49 percent), and Hispanic students Indian/Alaska Native (15 percent), and Hispanic
(49 percent)2; the percentages for all other racial/ethnic (10 percent) students; the percentages attending private
groups attending public institutions were below the for-profit institutions were below the average for students
average. The percentages of students attending private from all other racial/ethnic groups.
nonprofit institutions were above the average (43 percent)

Endnotes:
1 Prior to 2010, separate data on postsecondary enrollment for 2 Although rounded numbers are discussed, comparisons are
Asian students, Pacific Islander students, and students of Two based on unrounded data.
or more races was not available.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2005, table 205; Data sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 263; Digest of Education (IPEDS)
Statistics 2016, table 306.10; Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables Glossary: Degree-granting institutions; For-profit institution;
306.10 and 306.50 Nonprofit institution; Postbaccalaureate enrollment; Private
Related indicators and resources: Postbaccalaureate Enrollment institution; Public school or institution; Undergraduate students
(The Condition of Education); Undergraduate Enrollment

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment 133 

Indicator 22

Financial Aid
Among full-time, full-year undergraduate students, 88 percent of Black students,
87 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 82 percent of Hispanic
students received grants in 2015–16. These percentages were higher than the
percentages for White (74 percent) and Asian (66 percent) students.

The cost of a postsecondary education is a potential burden undergraduate students is the Federal Pell Grant program.
for students in their completion of an undergraduate To qualify for a Pell Grant, a student must demonstrate
degree. Financial aid can help ease this burden. Grants financial need. Federal loans, on the other hand, are
and loans are the major forms of federal financial aid available to all students regardless of financial need. In
for degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students. addition to federal financial aid, there are also grants from
Students who receive federal aid may receive grants, loans, state and local governments, institutions, and private
or both. The largest federal grant program available to sources, as well as private loans.

Figure 22.1. Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates who received financial aid from any source, by type of
aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16

Percent

100

88 87
82 84
77 79
80
74
71
66

60 55 56
53 54
50

40 38
31

20

0
Grants Loans1
Type of aid

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

1
Includes Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS).
NOTE: Full-time, full-year undergraduates are those who were enrolled full time for 9 or more months at one or more institutions. Data include undergraduates
in degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions. Data exclude Puerto Rico. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 331.35.

In the 2015–16 school year, the percentage of full- the percentage of full-time undergraduate students who
time, full-year undergraduate students who received received Federal Pell Grants. The percentage of students
grants from any source varied by race/ethnicity. Higher who received Pell Grants was highest for Black students
percentages of Black (88 percent) and American Indian/ (72 percent) and lowest for Asian (36 percent) and White
Alaska Native (87 percent) students received grants than (34 percent) students.
students who were of Two or more races (79 percent),
White (74 percent), and Asian (66 percent). In addition, In 2015–16, the percentage of full-time, full-year
a higher percentage of Hispanic students (82 percent) undergraduate students who received loans from any
than White and Asian students and a higher percentage source also varied by racial/ethnic group. A higher
of Pacific Islander students (84 percent) than Asian percentage of Black students (71 percent) received loans
students received grants. Similar patterns emerged for than students who were White (56 percent), of Two or

134  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

more races (54 percent), Pacific Islander (53 percent), the percentages of most other racial/ethnic groups. The
Hispanic (50 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native exception was that there was no measurable difference
(38 percent), and Asian (31 percent). The percentage between the percentages of Asian students and American
of Asian students who received loans was lower than Indian/Alaska Native students who received loans.

Figure 22.2. Average annual amount of financial aid received by full-time, full-year undergraduates from any source, by
type of aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16

Dollars [In constant 2016−17 dollars]

$13,840
$14,000

$12,280
$11,940 $11,830
12,000 $11,550 $11,420 $11,390 $11,350
$11,090 $11,160
$10,750 $10,890 $10,700
$10,280 $10,270
10,000
$9,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
Grants Loans1
Type of aid

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

1
Includes Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS).
NOTE: Full-time, full-year undergraduates are those who were enrolled full time for 9 or more months at one or more institutions. Data include undergraduates
in degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions. Amounts are in constant 2016–17 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to an academic-year basis. Data exclude Puerto Rico. Race categories exclude persons of
Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 331.35.

Among full-time, full-year undergraduate students who Students who were Black ($4,900), Hispanic, and of Two
received grants from any source in 2015–16, the only or more races ($4,830) also received higher average annual
measurable differences between racial/ethnic groups in amounts of Pell Grant aid than did White students.
the average annual amount of grant aid received were
between Asian students and students of all other groups. Among full-time, full-year undergraduate students
Asian students received a higher average annual amount who received loans from any source in 2015–16, White
of grant aid ($13,840) than did students who were of Two students received a higher average annual amount of loan
or more races ($11,940), White ($11,420), Black ($11,390), aid ($11,830) than did Black ($10,890), Asian ($10,700),
Hispanic ($11,090), American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic ($10,270) students. In addition, Black
($10,750), and Pacific Islander ($10,280).1 students received a higher average annual amount of loan
aid than did Hispanic students. American Indian/Alaska
With respect to Federal Pell Grants, Asian students Native students received a lower average annual amount of
received a higher average annual amount of aid ($5,030) loan aid ($9,000) than did any other racial/ethnic group,
than did Hispanic ($4,860) and White ($4,610) students. including Pacific Islander students ($12,280).

Financial Aid 135 

Figure 22.3. Percentage of part-time or part-year undergraduates who received financial aid from any source, by type
of aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16

Percent

100

80

65
63
60
60 58
55
51 52
49
42
40 35
29 29 28
22 24

20 17

0
Grants Loans1
Type of aid

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races
1
Includes Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS).
NOTE: Part-time or part-year undergraduates include those who were enrolled part time for 9 or more months and those who were enrolled for less than 9
months either part time or full time. Data include undergraduates in degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions. Data exclude Puerto Rico. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded data are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 331.37.

Among part-time or part-year undergraduate students In 2015–16, the percentage of part-time or part-year
in 2015–16, a higher percentage of Black students (65 undergraduate students who received loans from any
percent) received grants from any source than did students source was higher for Black students (42 percent) than
who were of Two or more races (60 percent), Hispanic (58 for students who were of Two or more races (35 percent),
percent), Pacific Islander (52 percent), White (51 percent), White (29 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native
and Asian (49 percent). Additionally, higher percentages (28 percent), Pacific Islander (24 percent), Hispanic
of American Indian/Alaska Native students (63 percent), (22 percent), and Asian (17 percent). In contrast, the
students of Two or more races, and Hispanic students percentage of students who received loans was lower for
than of White and Asian students received grants in Asian students than for students of most other racial/
2015–16. Similar to the patterns for grants overall, the ethnic groups. The exception was that there was no
percentages of part-time undergraduate students who measurable difference between the percentages of Asian
received Federal Pell Grants were higher for American students and Pacific Islander students who received loans.
Indian/Alaska Native students (46 percent), students of
Two or more races (38 percent), and Hispanic students
(38 percent) than for White (30 percent), Pacific Islander
(27 percent), and Asian (27 percent) students.

136  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 22.4. Average annual amount of financial aid received by part-time or part-year undergraduates from any
source, by type of aid and race/ethnicity: 2015–16

Dollars [In constant 2016−17 dollars]

$14,000

12,000

10,000
$8,540

8,000 $7,430
$7,160 $7,110 $7,230 $7,050
$6,940
$6,110
6,000 $5,420
$4,710
$4,290 $4,220 $4,390
$4,030 $4,120
4,000 $3,750

2,000

0
Grants Loans1
Type of aid

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

1
Includes Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS).
NOTE: Part-time or part-year undergraduates include those who were enrolled part time for 9 or more months and those who were enrolled for less than 9
months either part time or full time. Data include undergraduates in degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions. Amounts are in constant 2016–17
dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to an academic-year basis. Data
exclude Puerto Rico. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 331.37.

Among part-time or part-year undergraduate students did students who were Hispanic ($3,170), Black ($3,110),
who received grants from any source in 2015–16, Asian of Two or more races ($3,090), White ($2,920), and
students received a higher average annual amount of American Indian/Alaska Native ($2,840).
grant aid ($5,420) than did students of any other racial/
ethnic group: $4,710 for students of Two or more races, Similar to the patterns for grants, Asian part-time or
$4,390 for Black students, $4,220 for White students, part-year undergraduate students received a higher average
$4,120 for Pacific Islander students, $4,030 for Hispanic annual amount of loan aid ($8,540) from any source
students, and $3,750 for American Indian/Alaska Native in 2015–16 than students who were Black ($7,230),
students. Asian students also received a higher average White ($7,110), of Two or more races ($7,050), Hispanic
annual amount of Federal Pell Grant aid ($3,410) than ($6,940), and American Indian/Alaska Native ($6,110).

Endnotes:
1 Dollar amounts are expressed in constant 2016–17 dollars.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 331.35 Data sources: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
and 331.37 (NPSAS)
Related indicators and resources: Sources of Financial Aid Glossary: Financial aid; Full-time enrollment; Part-time
(The Condition of Education); Undergraduate Enrollment enrollment

Financial Aid 137 

Indicator 23

Postsecondary Graduation Rates

The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who
began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution
in fall 2010 was highest for Asian students (74 percent), followed by White students
(64 percent), students of Two or more races (60 percent), Hispanic students
(54 percent), Pacific Islander students (51 percent), Black students (40 percent),
and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39 percent).

The 1990 Student Right to Know Act requires degree- institution. The 6-year graduation rate (150 percent
granting postsecondary institutions to report the graduation rate) in 2016 was 60 percent for first-time, full-
percentage of students who complete their program within time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a
150 percent of the normal time for completion (e.g., bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in
within 6 years for students seeking a bachelor’s degree). fall 2010. In comparison, 41 percent of first-time, full-
Students who transfer without completing a degree are time undergraduates seeking a bachelor’s degree received
counted as noncompleters in the calculation of these rates them within 4 years and 56 percent received them within
regardless of whether they complete a degree at another 5 years.

Figure 23.1. Graduation rates from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at
4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and time to completion: Cohort entry year 2010

Percent
100

80 74
6
64
60 60
60 4
4 54 18
51 4 Graduation within 6 years
15 6
15 5 Graduation within 5 years
16
40 39 Graduation within 4 years
40 17
17
5 16
17 4

14 12
50
41
40 45
20 39
32
30 31
21 23

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Data are for 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to students
receiving bachelor’s degrees from their initial institutions of attendance only. The total includes data for persons whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 2016–17,
Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 326.10.

Among students of different racial/ethnic groups who races (60 percent), Hispanic students (54 percent), Pacific
began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree- Islander students (51 percent), Black students (40 percent),
granting institution in fall 2010, the 6-year graduation and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39 percent).
rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students was In comparison, the 4-year graduation rates for first-time,
highest for Asian students (74 percent), followed by full-time undergraduate students was 50 percent or less for
White students (64 percent), students of Two or more each racial/ethnic group.

138  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 23.2. Graduation rate within 6 years (150 percent of normal time) for degree completion from first institution
attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by
race/ethnicity and sex: Cohort entry year 2010

Percent
100

80 77
70
67
63 61 62
60 57 58 56
53
50 50
44 42
40 34 35

20

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races
Race/ethnicity

Male Female

NOTE: Data are for 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to students
receiving bachelor’s degrees from their initial institutions of attendance only. The total includes data for persons whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 2016–17,
Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 326.10.

The 6-year graduation rate was higher for females than for Islander students (53 percent for females vs. 50 percent for
males overall (63 vs. 57 percent) and within each racial/ males) and widest among Black students (44 percent for
ethnic group. The gender gap was narrowest among Pacific females vs. 34 percent for males).

Postsecondary Graduation Rates 139 

Figure 23.3. Graduation rate within 6 years (150 percent of normal time) for degree completion from first institution
attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by
race/ethnicity and control of institution: Cohort entry year 2010

Percent
100

79
80
72
69 68
66
62 62
59
60 55 56
54 52
48 49
43
40
40 36
34 32
30
26 25
18 20
20

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races
Race/ethnicity

Public Private nonprofit Private for-profit

NOTE: Data are for 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to
students receiving bachelor’s degrees from their initial institutions of attendance only. The total includes data for persons whose race/ethnicity was
not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded
data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter
2016–17, Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 326.10.

Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who Asian students (72 percent) and lowest for American
began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree- Indian/Alaska Native students (36 percent). The
granting institution in fall 2010, the 6-year graduation 6-year graduation rate for students at private for-profit
rate was 66 percent at private nonprofit institutions, institutions was lower than those at public and private
59 percent at public institutions, and 26 percent at private nonprofit institutions across all racial/ethnic groups. At
for-profit institutions. Private nonprofit institutions private for-profit institutions, the 6-year graduation rate
had the highest 6-year graduation rates for each racial/ was highest for Asian students (48 percent) and lowest for
ethnic group; Asian students (79 percent) had the highest Black students (18 percent). At each type of 4-year degree-
graduation rate at private nonprofit institutions and granting institution, less than 50 percent of both Black
Black students (43 percent) had the lowest. At public students and American Indian/Alaska Native students
institutions, the 6-year graduation rate was highest for graduated within 6 years.

140  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 23.4. Graduation rate within 150 percent of normal time for degree completion from first institution attended for
first-time, full-time associate’s degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary institutions, by
race/ethnicity: Cohort entry year 2013

Percent
100

80

60

40 36 34
30 32
30
27 25
23
20

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Data are for 2-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer
to students receiving associate’s degrees or certificates from their initial institutions of attendance only. Totals include data for persons whose race/
ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on
unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter
2016–17, Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 326.20.

At 2-year degree-granting institutions, 30 percent of rate was highest for Asian students (36 percent), followed
first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began by Pacific Islander students (34 percent), White students
seeking a certificate or associate’s degree in fall 2013 (32 percent), Hispanic students (30 percent), American
attained it within 150 percent of the normal time required Indian/Alaska Native students (27 percent), students
for completion of these programs (e.g., completing a of Two or more races (25 percent), and Black students
2-year degree within 3 years). The 150 percent graduation (23 percent).

Postsecondary Graduation Rates 141 

Figure 23.5. Graduation rate within 150 percent of normal time for degree completion from first institution attended for
first-time, full-time associate’s degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary institutions, by
race/ethnicity and control of institution: Cohort entry year 2013

Percent
100

80 75
69 69
66 64 66 65
64
60 60 61
60 57
52 54
50
48

40
32
27
24
21 20 20
20 17
13

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races
Race/ethnicity

Public Private nonprofit Private for-profit

NOTE: Data are for 2-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to
students receiving associate’s degrees or certificates from their initial institutions of attendance only. Students who transferred to another institution
before receiving an associate’s degree or certificate are not counted as graduates. The total includes data for persons whose race/ethnicity was not
reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter
2016–17, Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 326.20.

The 150 percent graduation rate was twice as high at 2-year institutions, the 150 percent graduation rate was
private nonprofit and private for-profit 2-year institutions highest for Asian students (75 percent) and lowest for
(60 percent each) than it was at public 2-year institutions Black students (50 percent). At private for-profit 2-year
(24 percent). The 150 percent graduation rate in 2016 for institutions, the 150 percent graduation rate was highest
first-time, full-time students at public 2-year institutions for Asian and Pacific Islander students (69 percent each)
was highest for Asian students (32 percent) and lowest and lowest for Black students (48 percent).
for Black students (13 percent). At private nonprofit

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 326.10 Data sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
and 326.20 (IPEDS)
Related indicators and resources: Undergraduate Retention and Glossary: Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Certificate;
Graduation Rates (The Condition of Education) Degree-granting institution; For-profit institution; Full-time
enrollment; Graduate; Nonprofit institution; Postsecondary
institutions (basic classification by level); Public school or
institution; Undergraduate students

142  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

This page intentionally left blank.
Indicator 24

Degrees Awarded
The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic students more than
tripled between 2000–01 and 2015–16. During the same period, the number of
degrees awarded also increased for students who were Asian/Pacific Islander
(by 75 percent), Black (by 75 percent), and White (by 29 percent).

In academic year 2015–16, postsecondary institutions examines the number of degrees1 awarded between
conferred 939,000 certificates, 1.0 million associate’s academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16 across degree levels
degrees, 1.9 million bachelor’s degrees, 786,000 master’s and racial/ethnic groups.
degrees, and 178,000 doctor’s degrees. This indicator

Figure 24.1. Number of degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree: Academic years 2000–01
through 2015–16

Number of degrees
2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000
Bachelor’s degrees
1,400,000

1,200,000
Associate’s degrees
1,000,000
Certificates1
800,000

Master’s degrees
600,000

400,000
Doctor’s degrees2
200,000

0
2000–01 2005–06 2010–11 2015–16
Year
1
Includes less-than-1-year awards and 1- to less-than-4-year awards (excluding associate’s degrees).
2
Includes Ph.D., Ed.D., and comparable degrees at the doctoral level. Includes most degrees formerly classified as first-professional, such as M.D., D.D.S., and
law degrees.
NOTE: Includes nonresident aliens. Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2001 through
Fall 2016, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 320.20, 321.20, 322.20, 323.20, and 324.20.

Between academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16, the total (from 474,000 to 786,000), and doctor’s degrees by
number of postsecondary degrees awarded increased at all 49 percent (from 120,000 to 178,000). Reflecting the
degree levels: certificates by 70 percent (from 553,000 to overall increase in the number of postsecondary degrees
939,000), associate’s degrees by 74 percent (from 579,000 awarded at each level, the number of postsecondary
to 1.0 million), bachelor’s degrees by 54 percent (from degrees awarded generally increased for racial/ethnic
1.2 million to 1.9 million), master’s degrees by 66 percent groups at each level between 2000–01 and 2015–16.

144  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 24.2. Percentage distribution of certificates and associate’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions, by
race/ethnicity: Academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16

Percent
100

80
72

61
60 57
53

40

21 20
18 17
20 14 14
11 10
5 5 5 5
1 1 2 1 3
1
0 — —
2000–01 2015–16 2000–01 2015–16

Certificates1 Associate’s degrees

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

--- Not available.

1
Includes less-than-1-year awards and 1- to less-than-4-year awards (excluding associate’s degrees).
NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Separate data on students of Two or more races were
not available until 2010–11. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on
unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2001 and Fall
2016, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 320.20 and 321.20.

The number of postsecondary certificates below the (a 242 percent increase, from 57,300 to 196,000) and the
baccalaureate level awarded to Hispanic students more number of degrees awarded to Black students more than
than doubled (a 146 percent increase, from 78,500 to doubled (a 110 percent increase, from 63,900 to 134,000)
193,000) between academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16. between academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16. During
During this period, the number of certificates awarded also this period, the number of associate’s degrees awarded also
increased by 63 percent for Black students (from 99,400 increased by 89 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander students
to 162,400), by 60 percent for American Indian/Alaska (from 28,500 to 53,800), by 43 percent by American
Native students (from 6,600 to 10,500), by 56 percent for Indian/Alaska Native students (from 6,600 to 9,500),
Asian/Pacific Islander students (from 28,100 to 43,900), and by 38 percent for White students (from 411,100 to
and by 49 percent for White students (from 333,500 to 566,700). As a result of the differing rates of increase over
496,500). As a result of the differing rates of increase this period, the share of all associate’s degrees earned by
over this period, the share of all certificates earned by Hispanic students increased by 10 percentage points (from
Hispanic students increased by 6 percentage points (from 10 to 20 percent) between 2000–01 and 2015–16. In
14 to 21 percent) between 2000–01 and 2015–16. In contrast, the share of associate’s degrees earned by White
contrast, the share of certificates earned by White students students decreased by 15 percentage points over this period
decreased by 8 percentage points over this period (from (from 72 to 57 percent). Meanwhile, the shares of all
61 to 53 percent). The shares of all certificates earned by associate’s degrees earned by Black, Asian/Pacific Islander,
Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska and American Indian/Alaska Native students changed by
Native students changed by 1 percentage point or less 2 percentage points or less between 2000–01 and 2015–16.
between 2000–01 and 2015–16.

At the associate’s degree level, the number of degrees

awarded to Hispanic students more than tripled

Degrees Awarded 145 

Figure 24.3. Percentage distribution of bachelor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by
race/ethnicity: Academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16

Percent
100

80 77

65

60

40

20
13
9 11
6 7 8
3
1 — 1
0
2000–01 2015–16
Year

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

— Not available.
NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Separate data on students of Two or more races
were not available until 2010–11. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are
based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2001
and Fall 2016, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 322.20.

At the bachelor’s degree level, the number of degrees a result of the differing rates of increase over this period,
awarded to Hispanic students more than tripled between the share of all bachelor’s degrees earned by Hispanic
academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16 (a 202 percent students increased by 6 percentage points (from 6 to
increase, from 77,700 to 235,000). During this period, the 13 percent) between 2000–01 and 2015–16. In contrast,
number of bachelor’s degrees awarded also increased by the share of bachelor’s degrees earned by White students
75 percent for both Asian/Pacific Islander students (from decreased by 12 percentage points over this period (from
78,900 to 138,300) and Black students (from 111,300 to 77 to 65 percent). Meanwhile, the shares of all bachelor’s
194,500), and by 29 percent for White students (from degrees earned by Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and
927,400 to 1.2 million). The number of bachelor’s degrees American Indian/Alaska Native students changed by
awarded to American Indian/Alaska Native students was 1 percentage point or less between 2000–01 and 2015–16.
higher in 2015–16 (9,700) than in 2000–01 (9,000). As

146  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 24.4. Percentage distribution of associate’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80

56 56 54
60 62 61 60 61 59
67 65 64

60
Female
Male
40

44 44 46
20 40 38
38 39 40 39
39 41
34
33 36
35 36

0
White Black Hispanic Asian/ American Two or White Black Hispanic Asian/ American Two or
Pacific Indian/ more Pacific Indian/ more
Islander Alaska races Islander Alaska races
Native Native

Associate’s degrees Bachelor’s degrees

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to
totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 321.20 and 322.20.

Across all racial/ethnic groups, female students earned the students, 60 percent for Hispanic students, 59 percent
majority of certificates, associate’s degrees, and bachelor’s for students of Two or more races, 56 percent for White
degrees. For example, the shares of bachelor’s degrees students, and 54 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander
earned by female students were 64 percent for Black students.
students, 61 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native

Degrees Awarded 147 

Figure 24.5. Percentage distribution of master’s and doctor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16

Percent
100

79 77
80
68
66

60

40

20
14 13
9 10 11
7 7 9 8
5 6 5
3 2
1 — 1 1 — 1
0
2000–01 2015–16 2000–01 2015–16

Master’s degrees Doctor’s degrees

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

— Not available.
NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Separate data on students of Two or more races
were not available until 2010–11. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are
based on unrounded data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2001
and Fall 2016, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 322.20.

The distribution of graduate degrees by race/ethnicity At the doctor’s degree level, the number of degrees
between academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16 followed awarded to Hispanic students more than doubled (an
a pattern similar to that observed for undergraduate increase of 126 percent, from 5,200 to 11,800) between
degrees. At the master’s degree level, the number of academic years 2000–01 and 2015–16. During this
degrees awarded to Hispanic students almost tripled (an period, the number of doctor’s degrees awarded also
increase of 191 percent, from 21,700 to 62,900), and the increased by 90 percent for Black students (from 7,000 to
number awarded to Black students more than doubled 13,400), by 69 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander students
(an increase of 129 percent, from 38,900 to 88,800). The (from 11,600 to 19,600), by 30 percent for White students
number of master’s degrees awarded during this period (from 82,300 to 107,100), and by 15 percent for American
also increased by 87 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander Indian/Alaska Native students (from 710 to 810). As a
students (from 24,500 to 45,900), by 42 percent for result of the changes over this period, the share of all
American Indian/Alaska Native students (from 2,500 to doctor’s degrees earned by Hispanic students increased by
3,500), and by 33 percent for White students (324,200 3 percentage points (from 5 to 8 percent), and there was
to 431,900). As a result of the differing rates of increase an increase of 2 percentage points for the shares earned
over this period, there was an increase of 4 percentage by Black students (from 7 to 9 percent) and Asian/Pacific
points each for the shares of all master’s degrees earned Islander students (from 11 to 13 percent). In contrast,
by Hispanic students (from 5 to 10 percent) and Black the share of doctor’s degrees earned by White students
students (from 9 to 14 percent).2 In contrast, the share of decreased by 9 percentage points (from 77 to 69 percent)
all master’s degrees earned by White students decreased and the share earned by American Indian/Alaska Native
by 12 percentage points over this period (from 79 to students decreased by less than 1 percentage point over
66 percent). Meanwhile, the shares of all master’s degrees this period.
earned by Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/
Alaska Native students changed by 1 percentage point or
less between 2000–01 and 2015–16.

148  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 24.6. Percentage distribution of master’s and doctor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80

56 53 57 56 54 55
62 64 65 63 66
70
60
Female
Male
40

44 47 43 44 46 45
20 38 36 37
30 35 34

0
White Black Hispanic Asian/ American Two or White Black Hispanic Asian/ American Two or
Pacific Indian/ more Pacific Indian/ more
Islander Alaska races Islander Alaska races
Native Native

Master’s degrees Doctor’s degrees

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 323.20 and 324.20.

In academic year 2015–16, female students earned the from 56 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander students to
majority of both master’s and doctor’s degrees. This 65 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native students.
pattern was observed across all racial/ethnic groups, At the doctor’s degree level, female students earned
but was more pronounced for Black students than for 66 percent of degrees earned by Black students; the shares
students of other races/ethnicities. In 2015–16, female of doctor’s degrees earned by females of other racial/ethnic
students earned 70 percent of the master’s degrees earned groups ranged from 53 percent for White students to
by Black students. The shares of master’s degrees earned 57 percent for Hispanic students.
by female students of other racial/ethnic groups ranged

Endnotes:
1 For the purposes of this indicator, the term “degree” is used 2 Although rounded numbers are discussed, all calculations in
to refer to a postsecondary award at any of the following levels: this indicator are based on unrounded data.
doctor’s, master’s, bachelor’s, associate’s, and certificate. Data
reported by racial/ethnic groups includes only U.S. citizens
and permanent residents.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 320.20, Data sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
321.20, 322.20, 323.20, and 324.20 (IPEDS)
Related indicators and resources: Postsecondary Certificates and Glossary: Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Certificate;
Degrees Conferred (The Condition of Education) Degree-granting institutions; Doctor’s degree; First-time student
(undergraduate); Master’s degree; Private institution; Public school
or institution

Degrees Awarded 149 

Indicator 25

Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields

In 2015–16, a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded in business
than in any other field across all racial/ethnic groups, with the percentages ranging
from 16 percent for students of Two or more races to 22 percent for Pacific Islander
students.

There are varying outcomes for postsecondary degree the five fields in which the greatest number of associate’s,
recipients—in terms of educational attainment, labor force bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees were awarded to
participation, and earnings—depending on their field of U.S. citizens and permanent residents2 in academic year
study. For example, certain degree fields are associated with 2015–16, both overall and by racial/ethnic group. Note
higher median annual salaries.1 This indicator examines that the five largest fields differ by level of degree.

Figure 25.1. Percentage of associate’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study, by
race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16

Field of study

38
37
Liberal arts 37
and sciences, 41
general studies, 33
and humanities 36
33
40

19
22
20
Health professions 13
and related programs 17
20 Total1
18
15 White

13 Black
12
16
11 Hispanic
Business
17
13 Asian
14
13 Pacific Islander
4 American Indian/
4 Alaska Native
5
Homeland security, Two or more races
5
law enforcement, 2
and firefighting 4
4
4

3
3
3
Computer and 2
information sciences 4
3
3
3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100

Percent
1
Nonresident alien students are not included in the total.
NOTE: These five fields were selected because they were the fields in which the largest percentages of associate’s degrees were awarded in 2015–16. To
facilitate trend comparisons, certain aggregations have been made of the degree fields as reported in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS): “Business” includes business management, marketing, and related support services and personal and culinary services. Data are for postsecondary
institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, and sex
were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 321.30.

150  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

In 2015–16, over three-quarters of the associate’s degrees related programs ranged from 13 percent for Hispanic
awarded were in the five largest fields: liberal arts and students to 22 percent for White students. For business
sciences, general studies, and humanities (38 percent); degrees, the percentage awarded ranged from 11 percent
health professions and related programs (19 percent); for Hispanic students to 17 percent for Asian students. In
business (13 percent); homeland security, law enforcement, homeland security, law enforcement, and firefighting (the
and firefighting (4 percent); and computer and fourth largest field), the percentage of degrees awarded
information sciences (3 percent). Across racial/ethnic ranged from 2 percent for Asian students to 5 percent
groups, the percentage of degrees awarded in liberal arts for Black students and Hispanic students. Between 2 and
and sciences, general studies, and humanities ranged 4 percent of students in each racial/ethnic group were
from 33 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native and awarded an associate’s degree in computer and information
Asian students to 41 percent for Hispanic students. The science.
percentage of degrees awarded in health professions and

Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields 151 

Figure 25.2. Percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study, by
race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16

Field of study

19
19
20
18
Business
20
22
19
16
12
13
14
Health professions
10
and related
13
programs
16
Total1
11
10
White
8
8 Black
8
Social sciences 10 Hispanic
and history 8
7
Asian
8
10
Pacific Islander
6
6 American Indian/
8 Alaska Native
8 Two or more races
Psychology
5
6
7
7
6
6
5
Biological and 5
biomedical sciences 13
5
5
7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100

Percent
1
Nonresident alien students are not included in the total.
NOTE: These five fields were selected because they were the fields in which the largest percentages of bachelor’s degrees were awarded in 2015–16. To
facilitate trend comparisons, certain aggregations have been made of the degree fields as reported in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS): “Business” includes business management, marketing, and related support services and personal and culinary services. Data are for postsecondary
institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, and sex
were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 322.30.

Over half of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2015–16 (11 percent), whereas social sciences and history was the
were in the five largest fields: business (19 percent); health second largest field for students of Two or more races
professions and related programs (12 percent); social (10 percent). Biological and biomedical sciences was the
sciences and history (8 percent); psychology (6 percent); second largest field for Asian students (13 percent). The
and biological and biomedical sciences (6 percent). percentage of degrees awarded in the fourth largest field,
Business was the most popular bachelor’s degree for all psychology, ranged from 5 percent for Asian students
racial/ethnic groups, ranging from 16 percent of students to 8 percent for Black and Hispanic students. With the
of Two or more races to 22 percent for Pacific Islander exception of Asian students, the percentage of degrees
students. Health professions and related programs was awarded in the field of biological and biomedical sciences
the second most popular field for White (13 percent), ranged from 5 percent for Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander,
Black (14 percent), Hispanic (10 percent), Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native students to 7 percent
(16 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native students for students of Two or more races.

152  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 25.3. Percentage of master’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study, by race/
ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16

Field of study

24
22
30
Business 23
30
31
22
22
22
24
18
Education 23
10
20
Total1
24
White
18

16 Black
17
16 Hispanic
Health professions 13
Asian
and related 19
programs 20
Pacific Islander
16
15 American Indian/
Alaska Native
7
6 Two or more races
10
Public administration 10
and social services 4
7
8
8
4
4
4
Psychology 5
2
4
4
4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100
Percent
1
Nonresident alien students are not included in the total.
NOTE: These five fields were selected because they were the fields in which the largest percentages of master’s degrees were awarded in 2015–16. To
facilitate trend comparisons, certain aggregations have been made of the degree fields as reported in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS): “Business” includes business management, marketing, and related support services and personal and culinary services. Data are for
postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree,
field of degree, and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of
Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 323.30.

In 2015–16, about 73 percent of the master’s degrees for Asian students to 24 percent for White and American
awarded were in the five largest fields: business Indian/Alaska Native students. The percentage of degrees
(24 percent); education (22 percent); health professions awarded in health professions and related programs ranged
and related programs (16 percent); public administration from 13 percent for Hispanic students to 20 percent
and social services (7 percent); and psychology (4 percent). for Pacific Islander students. The percentage of degrees
The percentage of master’s degrees awarded in business awarded in the fourth largest field, public administration
ranged from 22 percent for students who were White, and social services, ranged from 4 percent for Asian
American Indian/Alaska Native, and of Two or more races students to 10 percent for Black and Hispanic students.
to 31 percent for Pacific Islander students. The percentage The percentage of degrees awarded in psychology ranged
of degrees awarded in education ranged from 10 percent from 2 to 5 percent across all racial/ethnic groups.

Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields 153 

Figure 25.4. Percentage of doctor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study, by race/
ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16

Field of study

46
44
35
Health professions 36
and related programs 67
47
33
47
23
23
23
Legal professions 33
and studies 13
24
Total1
36
26
White
7
7 Black
17
Education 8 Hispanic
2
10 Asian
9
4 Pacific Islander
4
American Indian/
4
Alaska Native
5
Psychology 5 Two or more races
2
5
4
4
4
4
2
Biological and 4
biomedical sciences 4
4
3
4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100
Percent
1
Nonresident alien students are not included in the total.
NOTE: These five fields were selected because they were the fields in which the largest percentages of doctor’s degrees were awarded in 2015–16.
Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level
of degree, field of degree, and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 324.25.

In 2015–16, over 80 percent of the doctor’s degrees Asian students to 36 percent for American Indian/Alaska
awarded were in the five largest fields: health professions Native students. In the field of education, the percentage
and related programs (46 percent); legal professions and of degrees awarded ranged from 2 percent for Asian
studies (23 percent); education (7 percent); psychology students to 17 percent for Black students. (Education
(4 percent); and biological and biomedical sciences was the third largest field for all groups except Asian
(4 percent). Compared to degrees at other levels, students, for whom the third largest field was engineering.)
there was wider variability across racial/ethnic groups Psychology was the fourth largest field, and the percentage
in the percentage of degrees awarded in these fields. of doctor’s degrees awarded ranged from 2 percent for
The percentage of doctor’s degrees awarded in health Asian students to 5 percent for Black, Hispanic, and
professions and related programs ranged from 33 percent Pacific Islander students. In biological and biomedical
for American Indian/Alaska Native students to 67 percent sciences, the percentage of degrees awarded ranged from
for Asian students. The percentage of degrees awarded in 2 to 4 percent across racial/ethnic groups.
legal professions and studies ranged from 13 percent for

154  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Endnotes:
1 Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., 2 Nonresident alien graduates are not included in the totals
Zhang, J., Kristapovich, P., and Manning, E. (2012). Higher presented here because data for these students are not reported
Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study (NCES by race/ethnicity.
2012‑046). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved August
2015 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012046.pdf.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 321.30, Data sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
322.30, 323.30, and 324.25 (IPEDS)
Related indicators and resources: Graduate Degree Fields Glossary: Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Classification of
(The Condition of Education); Undergraduate Degree Fields Instructional Programs (CIP); Doctor’s degree; Fields of study;
(The Condition of Education) Master’s degree

Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Fields 155 

Indicator 26

STEM Degrees
Overall, a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than
to males in 2015–16 (58 vs. 42 percent). However, in STEM fields, a lower percentage
of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than to males (36 vs. 64 percent).
This pattern—in which females received higher percentages of bachelor’s degrees
overall but lower percentages of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields—was observed
across all racial/ethnic groups.

Young adults with bachelor’s or higher degrees in the fields degrees in non-STEM fields.1 This indicator examines
of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM
(STEM) tend to have more positive economic outcomes, fields by race/ethnicity and gender for U.S. citizens and
such as higher median earnings, than do those with permanent residents.

Figure 26.1. STEM bachelor’s degrees as a percentage of total bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80

60

40
33

18 18 20
20 15 15
12 14

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. STEM fields include biological and biomedical
sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering and engineering technologies, mathematics and statistics, and physical sciences and science
technologies. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students
whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are
based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 318.45 and 322.30.

Of the 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2015–16, of bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM fields. In contrast,
about 331,000 (18 percent) were in STEM fields. The the percentages of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic
percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded that were in (15 percent), Pacific Islander (15 percent), American
STEM fields varied by race/ethnicity. For example, the Indian/Alaska Native (14 percent), and Black students
percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Asian students (12 percent) that were STEM degrees were lower than
that were STEM degrees (33 percent) was almost double the overall percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in
the overall percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM fields. The percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded
STEM fields. The percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to White students that were STEM degrees (18 percent)
to students of Two or more races that were STEM degrees was about the same as the overall percentage of bachelor’s
(20 percent) was also higher than the overall percentage degrees awarded in STEM fields.

156  Chapter 5. Postsecondary Education

Figure 26.2. Percentage of total and STEM bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/
ethnicity and sex: Academic year 2015–16

Percent
100

80

66
64 63 64
60 62 60
60 58
55

45
42
40 38 40
40 36 37 36
34

20

0
Total Total STEM White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native

STEM degrees by race/ethnicity

Male Female

NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. STEM fields include biological and biomedical
sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering and engineering technologies, mathematics and statistics, and physical sciences and science
technologies. Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students
whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2016,
Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 318.45, 322.30, 322.40, and 322.50.

Overall, a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees were was largest among White students (33 percentage points),
awarded to females than to males in 2015–16 (58 vs. followed by Pacific Islander (28 percentage points),
42 percent). However, in STEM fields, a lower percentage Hispanic (25 percentage points), American Indian/
of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females than to Alaska Native (23 percentage points), Asian students
males (36 vs. 64 percent). This pattern—in which females (21 percentage points), and students of Two or more races
received higher percentages of bachelor’s degrees overall (21 percentage points). Black students (11 percentage
but lower percentages of bachelor’s degrees in STEM points) had the smallest gap between the percentage
fields—was observed across all racial/ethnic groups. The of STEM bachelor’s degrees awarded to males and the
gap between the percentage of STEM bachelor’s degrees percentage awarded to females.
awarded to males and the percentage awarded to females

Endnotes:
1 For more information on economic outcomes by degree field,
please see Digest of Education Statistic 2016, table 505.10.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 318.45, Data sources: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
322.30, 322.40, and 322.50 (IPEDS)
Related indicators and resources: Undergraduate and Graduate Glossary: Bachelor’s degree; Classification of Instructional
Degree Fields; Undergraduate Degree Fields (The Condition of Programs (CIP); STEM fields
Education); Undergraduate Enrollment (The Condition of Education)

STEM Degrees 157 

The final chapter of this report discusses measures of educational outcomes for adults by race/ethnicity. The indicators
examine educational attainment among adults age 25 and older, median incomes, unemployment and employment
rates, and the percentage of youth and young adults neither enrolled in school nor working.

This chapter’s indicators are available at the Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/.

158  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Chapter 6. Outcomes of
Education

Indicator 27. Educational Attainment ................................................................................... 160

Snapshot of Attainment of a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree for

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups ........................................................................... 164

Indicator 28. Unemployment ................................................................................................. 166

Indicator 29. Youth and Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School nor Working ................... 168

Indicator 30. Earnings and Employment .............................................................................. 170

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 159 
Indicator 27

Educational Attainment
In 2016, the percentage of adults age 25 and over who had not completed high
school was higher for Hispanic adults (33 percent) than for adults in any other
racial/ethnic group (with percentages ranging from a low of 8 percent for White
adults to a high of 17 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native adults).

Educational attainment refers to the highest level of attainment by race/ethnicity, focusing on adults age 25
education completed (e.g., a high school diploma or and older at the lowest educational attainment level (less
equivalency certificate, some college, or a bachelor’s than high school completion), an intermediate attainment
degree). In general, higher educational attainment is level (some college but no degree), and highest educational
associated with higher median earnings and higher attainment level (a bachelor’s or higher degree).
employment rates.1 This indicator examines educational

Figure 27.1. Percentage of adults age 25 and older who had not completed high school, by race/ethnicity: 2010 and
2016

Percent
100

80

60

40 38
33

18 20
20 17
14 15 14 13 13
13 12 12
9 9
8

0
Total1 White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

2010 2016

1
Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown as well as respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on
the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into any of the other groups.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 and 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40.

The percentage of adults age 25 and older who had (8 and 9 percent, respectively), Black (15 and 18 percent,
not completed high school decreased from 14 percent respectively), Hispanic (33 and 38 percent, respectively),
in 2010 to 13 percent in 2016, a pattern also observed Asian (13 and 14 percent, respectively), American Indian/
for most racial/ethnic groups. The percentage of adults Alaska Native (17 and 20 percent, respectively), and of
age 25 and older who had not completed high school Two or more races (9 and 12 percent, respectively).
was lower in 2016 than 2010 for those who were White

160  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Figure 27.2. Percentage of adults age 25 and older who had completed some college but had not earned a degree, by
race/ethnicity: 2010 and 2016

Percent
100

80

60

40
28 27 26 26
25 25 25 25
21 21 22 21
17 18
20 13 12

0
Total1 White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

2010 2016

1
Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown as well as respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on
the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into any of the other groups.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 and 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40.

The percentage of adults age 25 and older who had percentages of adults 25 and older from the other racial/
completed some college but had not earned a degree ethnic groups who had completed some college but had
decreased from 21.3 percent in 2010 to 20.6 percent in not earned a degree were not measurably different between
2016. Similarly, the percentages for White and Asian 2010 and 2016.
adults were lower in 2016 than 2010. However, the

Educational Attainment 161 

Figure 27.3. Percentage of adults age 25 and older who had completed a bachelor’s or higher degree, by race/
ethnicity: 2010 and 2016

Percent
100

80

60 54
50

40 35 34
31 31
28 29
21
18 18
20 15 15 14 15
13

0
Total1 White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

2010 2016

1
Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown as well as respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on
the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into any of the other groups.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010 and 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40.

The percentage of adults age 25 and older who had White (35 and 31 percent, respectively), Black (21 and
completed a bachelor’s or higher degree increased from 18 percent, respectively), Hispanic (15 and 13 percent,
28 percent in 2010 to 31 percent in 2016. Similarly, the respectively), Asian (54 and 50 percent, respectively),
percentage who had completed a bachelor’s or higher Pacific Islander (18 and 15 percent, respectively), and of
degree was higher in 2016 than 2010 for adults who were Two or more races (34 and 29 percent, respectively).

162  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Figure 27.4. Percentage distribution of educational attainment of adults age 25 and older, by race/ethnicity: 2016

Percent
100

15 18 15
21
31 35 34
80 6 9
8
8 54
18
Bachelor’s or
8 26 higher degree
60 9 25 10
25 Associate’s degree
Some college,
21
28 no degree
21 25
7 High school only
40
Less than high
12 33 school completion
31 35
27
20 27 15 22
33

15 17
13 13 13
8 9
0
Total 1
White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or
Islander Indian/ more races
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity
1
Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown as well as respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on
the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into any of the other groups.
NOTE: High school completers include diploma recipients and those completing high school through alternative credentials, such as a GED. Race categories
exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Detail may not sum to totals
because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40.

In 2016, the percentage of adults age 25 and older who had different, there were some that were not measurably
not completed high school was highest for Hispanic adults different. The percentage of Pacific Islander adults who
(33 percent) followed by 17 percent of American Indian had completed some college but had not earned a degree
Alaska Native adults, 15 percent of Black adults, 13 percent was not measurably different from the corresponding
of Asian adults, 13 percent of Pacific Islander adults, percentages for adults who were Black, American Indian/
9 percent of adults of Two or more races, and 8 percent of Alaska Native, and of Two or more races. In addition,
White adults. Most of the differences between these racial/ the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native adults
ethnic groups were statistically significant; the exceptions who had completed some college but not earned a degree
were that the percentage of Pacific Islander adults who did was not measurably different from the corresponding
not complete high school was not measurably different percentage for adults of Two or more races.
from the percentages of both Black and Asian adults.
The percentage of adults age 25 and older who had earned
The percentage of adults age 25 and older who had a bachelor’s or higher degree in 2016 was highest for Asian
completed some college but had not earned a degree in adults (54 percent). Among the other racial/ethnic groups,
2016 was highest for American Indian/Alaska Native 35 percent of White adults, 34 percent of adults of Two or
adults (26 percent) followed by 25 percent each for adults more races, 21 percent of Black adults, 18 percent of Pacific
of Two or more races, Pacific Islander adults, and Black Islander adults, and 15 percent each of American Indian/
adults. Among the other racial/ethnic groups, 21 percent Alaska Native and Hispanic adults had earned a bachelor’s or
of White adults, 18 percent of Hispanic adults, and higher degree. Most of the differences between these racial/
12 percent of Asian adults had completed some college but ethnic groups were statistically significant; the exception was
had not earned a degree. While most of the differences that there was no measurable difference between American
between the racial/ethnic groups were measurably Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic adults.

Endnotes:
1 See Earnings and Employment.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: Educational Attainment of Glossary: Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Educational
Young Adults (The Condition of Education); Snapshot of Attainment attainment; Educational attainment (Current Population Survey);
of a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups High school completer

Educational Attainment 163 

 Indicator 27: SNAPSHOT

Attainment of a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree for

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups
In 2016, the percentage of Hispanic adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s or
higher degree ranged from 9 percent for Salvadoran and Guatemalan adults to
55 percent for Venezuelan adults. Among Asian subgroups, the percentage ranged
from 10 percent for Bhutanese adults to 74 percent for Asian Indian adults.

Attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree is associated have attained a bachelor’s or higher degree for specific
with positive economic outcomes, such as higher median Hispanic and Asian subgroups (including, for example,
earnings and higher employment rates.1 This indicator the Mexican, Puerto Rican, Chinese, and Asian Indian
examines the percentage of adults age 25 and older who subgroups).

Figure 27S.1. Percentage of adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s or higher degree, by selected Hispanic
subgroups: 2016

Subgroup

Hispanic 15

Cuban 27

Dominican 18

Mexican 11

Puerto Rican 18

Spaniard 35

Total¹ 12
Costa Rican 30
Guatemalan 9
Central
Honduran 10
American
Nicaraguan 21
Panamanian 35
Salvadoran 9

Total 34
Chilean 39
Colombian 34
South
Ecuadorian 23
American
Peruvian 31
Venezuelan 55
Other South American 38

Other Hispanic 18

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
1
Includes other Central American subgroups not shown separately.
NOTE: Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40.

In 2016, about 15 percent of Hispanic adults age 25 Honduran (10 percent), Guatemalan (9 percent), and
and older had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree. The Salvadoran (9 percent). The percentages for all other
percentage of adults who had earned a bachelor’s or higher subgroups were higher than the average for Hispanic adults
SNAPSHOT

degree was lower for some Hispanic subgroups than the overall and ranged from 18 percent for Puerto Rican and
average for Hispanic adults overall: Mexican (11 percent), Dominican adults to 55 percent for Venezuelan adults.

164  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Figure 27S.2. Percentage of adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s or higher degree, by selected Asian subgroups:
2016

Subgroup

Asian 54

Chinese¹ 55

Filipino 50

Japanese 52

Korean 56

Total² 70
Asian Indian 74
South Bangladeshi 49
Asian Bhutanese 10
Nepalese 42
Pakistani 56

Total 29
Burmese 21
Cambodian 16
Southeast Hmong 18
Asian Laotian 18
Thai 50
Vietnamese 29
Other Southeast Asian³ 48

Other Asian 48

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent

¹ Includes Taiwanese.
2
In addition to the subgroups shown, also includes Sri Lankan.
3
Consists of Indonesian and Malaysian.
NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40.

Differences by Asian subgroup were also found in the Asian adults. The percentage of Pakistani adults who had
percentage of adults age 25 and older who had earned at earned a bachelor’s or higher degree was not measurably
least a bachelor’s degree. In 2016, the percentages of Asian different from the average for all Asian adults. The
Indian (74 percent), Korean (56 percent), and Chinese percentages for all other subgroups were lower than the
(55 percent) adults who had earned at least a bachelor’s average for all Asian adults and ranged from 10 percent for
degree were higher than the average of 54 percent for all Bhutanese adults to 52 percent for Japanese adults.

Endnotes:
1 See Earnings and Employment.
SNAPSHOT

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 104.40 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
Related indicators and resources: Educational Attainment of Glossary: N/A
Young Adults (The Condition of Education)

Attainment of a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree for Racial/Ethnic Subgroups 165 

Indicator 28

Unemployment
In 2016, unemployment rates among adults ages 25 to 64 were higher for American
Indian/Alaska Native adults (11 percent) than for Black (8 percent), Hispanic
(5 percent), White (4 percent), and Asian (4 percent) adults. In addition, a higher
percentage of Black than of Hispanic, White, and Asian adults were unemployed.

The unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the employment, or some other reason) are not included in
civilian labor force (i.e., all civilians who are employed or the labor force and are not considered unemployed. T his
seeking employment) who are not working and who made indicator examines the differences in the unemployment
specific efforts to find employment sometime during the rate by race/ethnicity, age group, and level of educational
prior 4 weeks. People who have no job and are not looking attainment.
for employment (due to being retired, having unpaid

Figure 28.1. Unemployment rates of persons 16 to 64 years old, by selected age group and race/ethnicity: 2016

Percent
100

80

60

40
32
27
24
21
19 19 19
20
14 12
11 9 10 11
8
5 4 5 4
0
16 to 19 years old 20 to 24 years old 25 to 64 years old

Age group

Total White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/Alaska Native

NOTE: The unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the civilian labor force who are not working and who made specific efforts to find employment
sometime during the prior 4 weeks. Totals include racial/ethnic groups not separately shown as well as respondents who wrote in some other race that
was not included as an option on the questionnaire and therefore could not be placed into any of the other groups. Race categories exclude persons of
Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 501.10 and
501.20.

In 2016, some 21 percent of youth ages 16 to 19 who were (19 percent), White (19 percent), and Asian (14 percent)
not enrolled in school were unemployed, as were 11 percent youth were unemployed. Among youth ages 20 to 24
of youth ages 20 to 24 not enrolled in school, and 5 percent who were not enrolled in school, a higher percentage
of adults ages 25 to 64 (including both those enrolled and of American Indian/Alaska Native youth (24 percent)
not enrolled in school). This pattern of youth ages 16 to than of Black (19 percent), Hispanic (12 percent),
19 and 20 to 24 having higher unemployment rates than Asian (10 percent), and White (9 percent) youth were
adults ages 25 to 64 was observed across racial/ethnic unemployed; additionally, a higher percentage of Black than
groups in 2016. of Hispanic, Asian, and White youth were unemployed.
Similarly, among adults ages 25 to 64, a higher percentage
Within each age group, there were differences in of American Indian/Alaska Native adults (11 percent)
unemployment rates among racial/ethnic groups. Among than of Black (8 percent), Hispanic (5 percent), White
youth ages 16 to 19 who were not enrolled in school, (4 percent), and Asian (4 percent) adults were unemployed.
higher percentages of Black (32 percent) and American In addition, a higher percentage of Black than of Hispanic,
Indian/Alaska Native (27 percent) youth than of Hispanic White, and Asian adults were unemployed.
166  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education
Figure 28.2. Unemployment rates of persons 25 to 64 years old, by race/ethnicity and educational attainment: 2016

Percent
100

80

60

40

18 19
20 15
9 10 10
6 5 6 6 5 5
3 2 4 3 3 4
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/
Alaska Native
Race/ethnicity

Less than high school completion High school completion Bachelor’s or higher degree

NOTE: The unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the civilian labor force who are not working and who made specific efforts to find employment
sometime during the prior 4 weeks. High school completion includes those with equivalency credentials, such as the GED credential. Totals include racial/
ethnic groups not separately shown as well as respondents who wrote in some other race that was not included as an option on the questionnaire and
therefore could not be placed into any of the other groups. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded numbers are displayed,
the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2016. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 501.10.

While the overall unemployment rate in 2016 for adults each level of educational attainment in 2016. Among those
ages 25 to 64 was 5 percent, it was 9 percent for those who who had not completed high school, higher percentages
had not completed high school, compared with 6 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent) and Black
for those who had completed high school1 and 3 percent (18 percent) adults than of White (10 percent), Hispanic
for those with a bachelor’s or higher degree. This pattern (6 percent), and Asian (5 percent) adults were unemployed,
of higher unemployment rates being associated with lower and a higher percentage of White adults than of Hispanic
levels of educational attainment was generally evident across and Asian adults were unemployed. Among adults who had
all racial/ethnic groups. For example, the unemployment completed high school, the unemployment rate was highest
rate for American Indian/Alaska Native adults who had for American Indian/Alaska Native adults (15 percent),
not completed high school was 19 percent, compared with followed by Black (10 percent), Hispanic (6 percent), White
15 percent for those who had completed high school and (5 percent), and Asian (5 percent) adults. Among adults
4 percent for those with a bachelor’s or higher degree. The with a bachelor’s or higher degree, higher percentages
unemployment rate for Black adults who had not completed of American Indian/Alaska Native (4 percent), Black
high school was 18 percent, compared with 10 percent for (4 percent), Hispanic (3 percent), and Asian (3 percent)
those who had completed high school and 4 percent for adults than of White adults (2 percent) were unemployed.
those with a bachelor’s or higher degree. Additionally, a higher percentage of Black adults than of
Hispanic and Asian adults were unemployed.
Differences in unemployment rates for adults ages 25 to
64 were also found between racial/ethnic groups within

Endnotes:
1 High school completion includes those with equivalency
credentials, such as the GED credential.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, tables 501.10 Data sources: American Community Survey (ACS)
and 501.20 Glossary: Bachelor’s degree; Educational attainment; Employment
Related indicators and resources: Employment and status; High school completer
Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment (The Condition
of Education); Youth and Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School
nor Working

Unemployment 167 
Indicator 29

Youth and Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School nor

Working
In 2017, the percentage of 20- to 24-year-olds who were neither enrolled in school
nor working ranged from 10 percent for Asian young adults to 31 percent for
American Indian/Alaska Native young adults.

Youth and young adults who are neither enrolled in workforce or school—either temporarily or permanently—
school nor working may face limited future opportunities for financial or personal reasons related to illness,
because they are detached from these core activities for disability, or the care of family members. This indicator
this age group.1 There are many reasons why youth and provides information on youth and young adults at an age
young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 may be neither when most are transitioning into postsecondary education
enrolled in school nor working. For example, they may be or the workforce. This is a critical period for young people
seeking but unable to find work or they may have left the as they pursue educational, occupational, and other goals.

Figure 29.1. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who were neither enrolled in school nor working, by age group and race/
ethnicity: 2017

Percent
100

80

60

40
31

19 17 17
20 16 15
12 14 12
11 9 11! 10 10
4!
‡
0
18 to 19 years old 20 to 24 years old
Age group

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Two or more races

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although
rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2017. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 501.30.

In 2017, lower percentages of youth ages 18 and 19 Hispanic (12 percent), of Two or more races (10 percent),
(11 percent) than of young adults ages 20 to 24 (14 percent) White (9 percent), and Asian (4 percent).
were neither enrolled in school nor working. This same
pattern was observed for most racial/ethnic groups. For Among young adults ages 20 to 24, a higher percentage of
youth and young adults who were of Two or more races and American Indian/Alaska Native young adults (31 percent)
who were Black, there were no measurable differences.2 than of young adults of all other racial/ethnic groups were
neither enrolled in school nor working. Additionally, the
There were also differences among racial/ethnic groups in percentages of Black and Hispanic young adults (19 and
the percentages of youth and young adults neither enrolled 17 percent, respectively) neither enrolled in school nor
in school nor working. Among youth ages 18 and 19, a working were higher than the percentages of White and
higher percentage of Black youth (16 percent) were neither Asian young adults (12 percent and 10 percent, respectively).
enrolled in school nor working than youth who were

168  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Figure 29.2. Percentage of 20- to 24-year-olds who were neither enrolled in school nor working, by race/ethnicity and
educational attainment: 2017

Percent
100

80

60

47

37 39!
40 36
29 31
24 25
22
20 17 18
11 11
7 8 7 7 8
5 4
0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian
Race/ethnicity

Less than high school completion High school completion

Some college, no bachelor’s degree Bachelor’s or higher degree

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. High school completion includes equivalency credentials, such as
the GED credential. Some college, no bachelor’s degree includes persons with no college degree as well as those with an associate’s degree. Total includes
other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. These groups are omitted
from this figure since most of their estimates did not meet reporting standards. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Although rounded
numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2017. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 501.30.

In 2017, the percentage of 20- to 24-year-olds neither in percentages for those with some college (7 percent) and
school nor working was generally higher for those with those with a bachelor’s or higher degree (5 percent).
lower levels of educational attainment than for those with
higher levels of educational attainment. This was also the Similarly, among Black young adults, the percentage
case for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian young adults.3 neither in school nor working was higher for those who
For instance, among White young adults, the percentage had not completed high school (47 percent) than for
neither in school nor working was higher for those who those who had completed high school (29 percent), and
had not completed high school (36 percent) than for the percentages for both groups were higher than the
those who had completed high school (22 percent), and percentages for those with some college (7 percent) and
the percentages for both groups were higher than the those with a bachelor’s or higher degree (17 percent).

Endnotes:
1 Fernandes-Alcantara, A.L. (2015). Disconnected Youth: A 3 Comparisons for young adults who were of Two or more
Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School races, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska were not
(CRS Report No. R40535). Retrieved from https://fas.org/ made since most of their estimates did not meet reporting
sgp/crs/misc/R40535.pdf. standards.
2 Comparisons for Pacific Islanders could not be made due to
reporting standards not being met for youth ages 18 to 19.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 501.30 Data sources: Current Population Survey (CPS)
Related indicators and resources: Employment and Glossary: Employment status
Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment (The Condition of
Education); Unemployment

Youth and Young Adults Neither Enrolled in School nor Working 169 
Indicator 30

Earnings and Employment

In 2016, among those with a bachelor’s or higher degree, Asian full-time, year-round
workers ages 25–34 had higher median annual earnings ($69,100) than their White
peers ($54,700), and median earnings for both racial/ethnic groups were higher
than those of their Black ($49,400) and Hispanic ($49,300) peers.

In 2016, economic outcomes for 25- to 34-year-olds the percentage of the 25- to 34-year-old labor force2 who
varied by educational attainment and race/ethnicity. worked full time, year round across different racial/ethnic
This indicator discusses the median annual earnings of backgrounds and levels of educational attainment.
full-time, year-round1 25- to 34-year-old workers and

Figure 30.1. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers 25 to 34 years old, by race/ethnicity: 2016

Earnings
$90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000 $54,600

50,000 $44,900
$40,000 $41,700
40,000 $34,200 $35,900
$33,700 $33,900

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Indian/ Two or
Islander Alaska Native more races

Race/ethnicity

NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. Data are based on sample surveys of
the noninstitutionalized population, which excludes persons living in institutions (e.g., prisons or nursing facilities); data include military personnel who live in
households with civilians, but exclude those who live in military barracks. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), “Annual Social and Economic Supplement,” 2017. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 502.30.

Although the 2016 median earnings of full-time, Islander ($34,200), Hispanic ($33,900), and Black
year-round workers ages 25–34 were $40,000, median full-time workers ($33,700). Median earnings of full-
earnings varied by racial/ethnic group. Asian full-time time workers ages 25–34 of Two or more races ($41,700)
workers ages 25–34 had the highest median earnings were not measurably different from those of their White
($54,600) of any racial/ethnic group. In addition, and American Indian/Alaska Native peers; however, the
the median earnings of White full-time, year-round median earnings of full-time workers of Two or more
workers ages 25–34 ($44,900) were higher than those races were higher than those of Pacific Islander, Hispanic,
of American Indian/Alaska Native ($35,900), Pacific and Black full-time workers.

170  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Figure 30.2. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers 25 to 34 years old, by educational attainment and
race/ethnicity: 2016

Educational attainment

$25,400
$29,100
Less than high $21,400
school completion $25,000
$26,400
‡

$31,800
$35,000
$27,800
High school completion1
$30,000
Total
$29,100
$32,500 White
Black
Hispanic
$38,000
$39,700 Asian

$30,400 Two or more races

Associate’s degree
$34,900
$39,600
$45,000

$54,800
$54,700
Bachelor’s or $49,400
higher degree $49,300
$69,100
$57,000

$0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Earnings

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).
1
Includes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential.
NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. Data are based on sample surveys of
the noninstitutionalized population, which excludes persons living in institutions (e.g., prisons or nursing facilities); data include military personnel who live
in households with civilians, but exclude those who live in military barracks. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including Pacific
Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native. Median annual earnings by educational attainment for Pacific Islander young adults and American Indian/
Alaska Native young adults are not available because these data did not meet reporting standards. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), “Annual Social and Economic Supplement,” 2017. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 502.30.

Higher levels of educational attainment were generally earnings for Asian full-time workers ages 25–34 with and
associated with higher median earnings for full-time, without a high school credential ($29,100 and $26,400,
year-round workers ages 25–34 in 2016.3 For example, respectively) were not measurably different; however,
the median earnings of full-time workers who had not median earnings for both groups were lower than for
completed high school ($25,400) were lower than the those with an associate’s degree ($39,600) and those with
median earnings of those who had ($31,800). Both groups a bachelor’s or higher degree ($69,100). Data on median
had lower median earnings than did full-time workers earnings for those of Two or more races who had not
with an associate’s degree ($38,000), and full-time workers completed high school did not meet reporting standards;
with a bachelor’s or higher degree had the highest median however, the median earnings of full-time workers of Two
earnings ($54,800). This same pattern was observed for or more races who had completed high school ($32,500)
White and Hispanic full-time workers.4 A similar pattern were not measurably different from the median earnings
was also observed for Black full-time workers, with the of those with an associate’s degree, but were lower than
exception that the median earnings of those who had the median earnings of those with a bachelor’s or higher
completed high school and those with an associate’s degree ($57,000).
degree were not measurably different. The median

Earnings and Employment 171 

In 2016, median annual earnings of full-time workers races ($45,000), White ($39,700), Asian ($39,600), and
ages 25–34 differed by race/ethnicity at most levels of Hispanic ($34,900) were higher than the median earnings
educational attainment. For example, the median earnings of their Black peers ($30,400), and the median earnings
of White full-time workers who had not completed high of White full-time workers were also higher than those
school ($29,100) were higher than the median earnings of their Hispanic peers. Among those with a bachelor’s or
of their Hispanic peers ($25,000), and both racial/ethnic higher degree, Asian full-time workers had higher median
groups had higher median earnings than Black full-time earnings ($69,100) than did their White peers ($54,700),
workers ($21,400). Among those who had completed and median earnings for both racial/ethnic groups were
high school, median earnings of White full-time workers higher than those of their Black ($49,400) and Hispanic
($35,000) were higher than the median earnings of their ($49,300) peers. Median earnings of full-time workers
Hispanic ($30,000), Asian ($29,100), and Black ($27,800) of Two or more races with a bachelor’s or higher degree
peers. Among those with an associate’s degree, median ($57,000) were not measurably different from those of
earnings of full-time workers who were of Two or more their Asian, White, Black, or Hispanic peers.

172  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Figure 30.3. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers 25 to 34 years old with a bachelor’s or higher
degree, by educational attainment and race/ethnicity: 2016

Educational attainment

$54,800

$54,700

$49,400
Total
$49,300

$69,100

$57,000

$50,000
Total
$50,000
White
$45,800
Bachelor’s Black
degree $44,700 Hispanic
$59,700 Asian
Two or more races
$49,600
Bachelor’s
or higher
degree
$64,100

$61,100

$59,600
Master’s or
higher degree $55,700

$80,500

$69,000

$0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Earnings

NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. Data are based on sample surveys of
the noninstitutionalized population, which excludes persons living in institutions (e.g., prisons or nursing facilities); data include military personnel who live
in households with civilians, but exclude those who live in military barracks. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including Pacific
Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native. Median annual earnings by educational attainment for Pacific Islander young adults and American Indian/
Alaska Native young adults are not available because these data did not meet reporting standards. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), “Annual Social and Economic Supplement,” 2017. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 502.30.

As noted above, median earnings of White full-time and median earnings were also higher for White than for
workers ages 25–34 who worked full time, year round Hispanic full-time workers. However, median earnings
in 2016 exceeded the corresponding median earnings of of Black full-time workers were not measurably different
Black and Hispanic full-time workers at most attainment from those of White and Hispanic full-time workers.
levels, including at the combined bachelor’s or higher Among those with a master’s or higher degree, Asian full-
degree attainment level. However, different patterns were time workers had higher median earnings ($80,500) than
observed in median earnings among White, Black, and White ($61,100), Black ($59,600), and Hispanic ($55,700)
Hispanic full-time workers with a bachelor’s degree only full-time workers. Unlike the pattern observed for lower
and a Master’s or higher degree. Among those with a attainment levels, the median earnings of White, Black,
bachelor’s degree only, Asian full-time workers had higher and Hispanic full-time workers with a Master’s or higher
median earnings ($59,700) than White ($50,000), Black degree were not measurably different.
($45,800), and Hispanic ($44,700) full-time workers,

Earnings and Employment 173 

Figure 30.4. Percentage of the labor force ages 25–34 who worked full time, year round, by educational attainment and
race/ethnicity: 2016

Educational attainment

60
58
Less than high 39
school completion 65
78
‡

69
68
66
High school completion1
72
Total
80
White
55
Black
Hispanic
72
72 Asian

75 Two or more races

Associate’s degree
73
71
59

79
79
Bachelor’s or 79
higher degree 78
77
79

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).
1
Includes equivalency credentials, such as the GED credential.
NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. Data are based on sample surveys of
the noninstitutionalized population, which excludes persons living in institutions (e.g., prisons or nursing facilities); data include military personnel who live
in households with civilians, but exclude those who live in military barracks. Total includes other racial/ethnic groups not separately shown, including Pacific
Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native. Full-time employment rates by educational attainment for Pacific Islander young adults and American Indian/
Alaska Native young adults are not available because these data did not meet reporting standards. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.
Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), “Annual Social and Economic Supplement,” 2017. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2017, table 502.30.

In 2016, the percentage of the 25- to 34-year-old labor school, the percentage of the labor force who worked full
force who worked full time differed by race/ethnicity time was higher for Asian 25- to 34-year-olds (80 percent)
for those with lower levels of educational attainment. than for their Hispanic peers (72 percent), and both
For example, among those who had not completed high groups had higher percentages of full-time workers than
school, the percentage of the labor force who worked did their peers who were White (68 percent), Black
full time was higher for Asian (78 percent) and Hispanic (66 percent), and of Two or more races (55 percent). In
25- to 34-year-olds (65 percent) than for their White peers contrast, among those with an associate’s degree or a
(58 percent), and all three groups had higher percentages bachelor’s or higher degree, there were no measurable
of full-time workers than did Black 25- to 34-year-olds differences across racial/ethnic groups in the percentages
(39 percent). Among those who had completed high of 25- to 34-year-olds who worked full time.

174  Chapter 6. Outcomes of Education

Endnotes:
1 “Full time, year round” is used interchangeably with the 4 Median annual earnings and employment rates by
shortened form “full time.” It refers to those who worked educational attainment for Pacific Islander and American
35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. Indian/Alaska Native full-time year-round workers ages 25–34
2 The labor force consists of those who reported working or are not available because these data did not meet reporting
looking for work. standards.
3 Differences in earnings may also reflect other factors, such as
differences in occupation.

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 502.30 Data sources: Current Population Survey (CPS)
Related indicators and resources: Annual Earnings of Young Glossary: Bachelor’s degree; Educational attainment (Current
Adults (The Condition of Education) Population Survey); High school completer; Labor force; Median
earnings

Earnings and Employment 175 

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A.
Guide to Sources
The indicators in this report present data from a variety Once SEAs have completed their submissions, the CCD
of sources. Brief descriptions of these sources and their survey staff analyzes and verifies the data for quality
data collections and data collection methods are presented assurance. Even though the CCD is a universe collection
below, grouped by sponsoring organization. Most of these and thus not subject to sampling errors, nonsampling
sources are federal surveys and many are conducted by the errors can occur. The two potential sources of nonsampling
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). errors are nonresponse and inaccurate reporting. NCES
attempts to minimize nonsampling errors through the use
The data were collected using many research methods, of annual training of SEA coordinators, extensive quality
including surveys of a universe (such as all colleges) or of a reviews, and survey editing procedures. In addition, each
sample and compilations of administrative records. year SEAs are given the opportunity to revise their state-
level aggregates from the previous survey cycle.
National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) The CCD survey consists of five components: The Public
Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, the Local
Common Core of Data Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey, the
State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary
The Common Core of Data (CCD) is NCES’s primary Education, the National Public Education Financial Survey
database on public elementary and secondary education in (NPEFS), and the School District Finance Survey (F-33).
the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national
statistical database of all public elementary and secondary Public Elementary/Secondary School
schools and school districts containing data designed to be Universe Survey
comparable across all states. This database can be used to
select samples for other NCES surveys and provide basic The Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey
information and descriptive statistics on public elementary includes all public schools providing education services
and secondary schools and schooling in general. to prekindergarten (preK), kindergarten, grades 1–13,
and ungraded students. Grade 13 designates high school
The CCD collects statistical information annually from
approximately 100,000 public elementary and secondary students who are enrolled in programs where they can earn
schools and approximately 18,000 public school districts college credit in an extended high school environment,
(including supervisory unions and regional education or career and technical (CTE) students in a high school
service agencies) in the 50 states, the District of program that continues beyond grade 12. For school
Columbia, Department of Defense (DoD) dependents year (SY) 2015–16, the survey included records for each
schools, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), Puerto public elementary and secondary school in the 50 states,
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana the District of Columbia, the DoD dependents schools
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Three categories of (overseas and domestic), the Bureau of Indian Education
information are collected in the CCD survey: general (BIE), Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern
descriptive information on schools and school districts, Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
data on students and staff, and fiscal data. The general
school and district descriptive information includes The Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey
name, address, phone number, and type of locale; the includes data for the following variables: NCES school
data on students and staff include selected demographic ID number, state school ID number, name of the school,
characteristics; and the fiscal data pertain to revenues and name of the agency that operates the school, mailing
current expenditures. address, physical location address, phone number, school
type, operational status, locale code, latitude, longitude,
The EDFacts data collection system is the primary county number, county name, full-time-equivalent (FTE)
collection tool for the CCD. NCES works collaboratively classroom teacher count, low/high grade span offered,
with the Department of Education’s Performance congressional district code, school level, students eligible
Information Management Service to develop the CCD for free lunch, students eligible for reduced-price lunch,
collection procedures and data definitions. Coordinators total students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch,
from state education agencies (SEAs) submit the CCD and student totals and detail (by grade, by race/ethnicity,
data at different levels (school, agency, and state) to the and by sex). The survey also contains flags indicating
EDFacts collection system. Prior to submitting CCD files whether a school is Title I eligible, schoolwide Title I
to EDFacts, SEAs must collect and compile information eligible, a magnet school, a charter school, a shared-time
from their respective local education agencies (LEAs) school, or a BIE school, as well as which grades are offered
through established administrative records systems within at the school.
their state or jurisdiction.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 177 
State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ Defense (DoD) dependents schools, the Bureau of Indian
Secondary Education Education, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ More information about EDFacts file specifications and
Secondary Education for the 2015–16 school year provides data groups can be found at https://www.ed.gov/EDFacts.
state-level, aggregate information about students and
staff in public elementary and secondary education. It EDFacts is a universe collection and is not subject to
includes data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, sampling error, but nonsampling errors such as nonresponse
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern and inaccurate reporting may occur. The U.S. Department
Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The DoD of Education attempts to minimize nonsampling errors by
dependents schools (overseas and domestic) and the training data submission coordinators and reviewing the
BIE are also included in the survey universe. This survey quality of state data submissions. However, anomalies may
covers public school student membership by grade, race/ still be present in the data.
ethnicity, and state or jurisdiction and covers number of
staff in public schools by category and state or jurisdiction. Differences in state data collection systems may limit the
Beginning with the 2006–07 school year, the number of comparability of EDFacts data across states and across
diploma recipients and other high school completers are time. To build EDFacts files, state education agencies
no longer included in the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public rely on data that were reported by their schools and
Elementary/Secondary Education File. These data are school districts. The systems used to collect these data are
now published in the public-use CCD State Dropout and evolving rapidly and differ from state to state.
Completion Data File.
In some cases, EDFacts data may not align with data
Further information on the nonfiscal CCD data may be reported on state education agency websites. States may
obtained from update their websites on schedules different from those
they use to report data to ED. Furthermore, ED may
Patrick Keaton use methods for protecting the privacy of individuals
Elementary and Secondary Branch represented within the data that could be different from
Administrative Data Division the methods used by an individual state.
National Center for Education Statistics
550 12th Street SW EDFacts data on homeless students enrolled in public
Washington, DC 20202 schools are collected in data group 655 within file 118.
patrick.keaton@ed.gov
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd EDFacts data on English language learners enrolled in
public schools are collected in data group 678 within
file 141. EDFacts four-year adjusted cohort graduation
Further information on the fiscal CCD data may be
rate (ACGR) data are collected in data group 695 within
obtained from
file 150 and in data group 696 within file 151. EDFacts
Stephen Cornman collects these data groups on behalf of the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Branch Elementary and Secondary Education.
Administrative Data Division
National Center for Education Statistics Further information on EDFacts may be obtained from
550 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20202 EDFacts
stephen.cornman@ed.gov Elementary/Secondary Branch
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd Administrative Data Division
National Center for Education Statistics
550 12th Street SW
EDFacts Washington, DC 20202
EDFacts@ed.gov
EDFacts is a centralized data collection through which https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html
state education agencies submit preK–12 education data
to the U.S. Department of Education (ED). All data in
High School Longitudinal Study
EDFacts are organized into “data groups” and reported to
ED using defined file specifications. Depending on the of 2009
data group, state education agencies may submit aggregate The High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09)
counts for the state as a whole or detailed counts for is a nationally representative, longitudinal study of
individual schools or school districts. EDFacts does not approximately 21,000 9th-grade students in 944 schools
collect student-level records. The entities that are required who will be followed through their secondary and
to report EDFacts data vary by data group but may include postsecondary years. The study focuses on understanding
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Department of students’ trajectories from the beginning of high school

178 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

into postsecondary education, the workforce, and beyond. Integrated Postsecondary Education
The HSLS:09 questionnaire is focused on, but not limited Data System
to, information on science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education and careers. It is designed The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
to provide data on mathematics and science education, (IPEDS) surveys over 7,300 postsecondary institutions,
the changing high school environment, and postsecondary including universities and colleges, as well as institutions
education. This study features a new student assessment in offering technical and vocational education beyond the
algebra skills, reasoning, and problem solving and includes high school level. IPEDS, an annual universe collection
surveys of students, their parents, math and science that began in 1986, replaced the Higher Education General
teachers, and school administrators, as well as a new survey Information Survey (HEGIS).
of school counselors.
IPEDS consists of interrelated survey components that
The HSLS:09 base year took place in the 2009–10 provide information on postsecondary institutions,
school year, with a randomly selected sample of fall-term student enrollment, programs offered, degrees and
9th-graders in more than 900 public and private high certificates conferred, and both the human and financial
schools that had both a 9th and an 11th grade. Students resources involved in the provision of institutionally
took a mathematics assessment and survey online. based postsecondary education. Prior to 2000, the IPEDS
Students’ parents, principals, and mathematics and science survey had the following subject-matter components:
teachers and the school’s lead counselor completed surveys Graduation Rates; Fall Enrollment; Institutional
on the phone or online. Characteristics; Completions; Salaries, Tenure, and Fringe
Benefits of Full-Time Faculty; Fall Staff; Finance; and
The HSLS:09 student questionnaire includes interest and
Academic Libraries (in 2000, the Academic Libraries
motivation items for measuring key factors predicting
component became a survey separate from IPEDS).
choice of postsecondary paths, including majors and
Since 2000, IPEDS survey components occurring in a
eventual careers. This study explores the roles of different
particular collection year have been organized into three
factors in the development of a student’s commitment to
seasonal collection periods: fall, winter, and spring.
attend college and then take the steps necessary to succeed
The Institutional Characteristics and Completions
in college (the right courses, courses in specific sequences,
components first took place during the fall 2000
etc.). Questionnaires in this study have asked questions of
collection; the Employees by Assigned Position (EAP),
students and parents regarding reasons for selecting specific
Salaries, and Fall Staff components first took place during
colleges (e.g., academic programs, financial aid and access
the winter 2001–02 collection; and the Enrollment,
prices, and campus environment).
Student Financial Aid, Finance, and Graduation Rates
The first follow-up of HSLS:09 occurred in the spring components first took place during the spring 2001
of 2012, when most sample members were in the collection. In the winter 2005–06 data collection, the
11th grade. Data files and documentation for the first EAP, Fall Staff, and Salaries components were merged into
follow-up were released in fall 2013 and are available on the Human Resources component. During the 2007–08
the NCES website. collection year, the Enrollment component was broken
into two separate components: 12-Month Enrollment
A between-round postsecondary status update survey took (taking place in the fall collection) and Fall Enrollment
place in the spring of students’ expected graduation year (taking place in the spring collection). In the 2011–12
(2013). It asked respondents about college applications, IPEDS data collection year, the Student Financial Aid
acceptances, and rejections, as well as their actual college component was moved to the winter data collection to aid
choices. In the fall of 2013 and the spring of 2014, high in the timing of the net price of attendance calculations
school transcripts were collected and coded. displayed on the College Navigator (https://nces.ed.gov/
collegenavigator). In the 2012–13 IPEDS data collection
A full second follow-up was conducted in 2016, when most
year, the Human Resources component was moved from
sample members were 3 years beyond high school graduation.
the winter data collection to the spring data collection,
Additional follow-ups are planned, to at least age 30.
and in the 2013–14 data collection year, the Graduation
For more information on HSLS:09, contact: Rates and Graduation Rates 200 Percent components
were moved from the spring data collection to the winter
Elise Christopher data collection. In the 2014–15 data collection year, a
Sample Surveys Division new component (Admissions) was added to IPEDS and
Longitudinal Surveys Branch a former IPEDS component (Academic Libraries) was
National Center for Education Statistics reintegrated into IPEDS. The Admissions component,
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)
created out of admissions data contained in the fall
550 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20202 collection’s Institutional Characteristics component,
hsls09@ed.gov was made a part of the winter collection. The Academic
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09 Libraries component, after having been conducted as

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 179 
a survey independent of IPEDS between 2000 and institutions. Implemented in 1966, HEGIS was an annual
2012, was reintegrated into IPEDS as part of the spring universe survey of institutions accredited at the college
collection. level by an agency recognized by the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Education. These institutions were listed in
Beginning in 2008–09, the first-professional degree NCES’s Education Directory, Colleges and Universities.
category was combined with the doctor’s degree category.
However, some degrees formerly identified as first- HEGIS surveys collected information on institutional
professional that take more than 2 full-time-equivalent characteristics, faculty salaries, finances, enrollment, and
academic years to complete, such as those in Theology degrees. Since these surveys, like IPEDS, were distributed
(M.Div, M.H.L./Rav), are included in the master’s degree to all higher education institutions, the data presented are
category. Doctor’s degrees were broken out into three not subject to sampling error. However, they are subject
distinct categories: research/scholarship, professional to nonsampling error, the sources of which varied with the
practice, and other doctor’s degrees. survey instrument.
IPEDS race/ethnicity data collection also changed in The NCES Taskforce for IPEDS Redesign recognized
2008–09. The “Asian” race category is now separate from a that there were issues related to the consistency of data
“Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” category, and definitions as well as the accuracy, reliability, and validity
a new category of “Two or more races” has been added. of other quality measures within and across surveys. The
IPEDS redesign in 2000 provided institution-specific
The degree-granting institutions portion of IPEDS is a web-based data forms. While the new system shortened
census of colleges that award associate’s or higher degrees and data processing time and provided better data consistency,
are eligible to participate in Title IV financial aid programs. it did not address the accuracy of the data provided by
Prior to 1993, data from technical and vocational institutions institutions.
were collected through a sample survey. Beginning in
1993, all data are gathered in a census of all postsecondary Beginning in 2003–04 with the Prior Year Data Revision
institutions. Beginning in 1997, the survey was restricted to System, prior-year data have been available to institutions
entering current data. This allows institutions to make
institutions participating in Title IV programs.
changes to their prior-year entries either by adjusting the
The classification of institutions offering college and data or by providing missing data. These revisions allow
university education changed as of 1996. Prior to 1996, the evaluation of the data’s accuracy by looking at the
institutions that had courses leading to an associate’s or changes made.
higher degree or that had courses accepted for credit toward NCES conducted a study (NCES 2005-175) of the
those degrees were considered higher education institutions. 2002–03 data that were revised in 2003–04 to determine
Higher education institutions were accredited by an agency the accuracy of the imputations, track the institutions that
or association that was recognized by the U.S. Department submitted revised data, and analyze the revised data they
of Education or were recognized directly by the Secretary submitted. When institutions made changes to their data, it
of Education. The newer standard includes institutions that was assumed that the revised data were the “true” data. The
award associate’s or higher degrees and that are eligible to data were analyzed for the number and type of institutions
participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Tables making changes, the type of changes, the magnitude of the
that contain any data according to this standard are titled changes, and the impact on published data.
“degree-granting” institutions. Time-series tables may contain
data from both series, and they are noted accordingly. The Because NCES imputes for missing data, imputation
impact of this change on data collected in 1996 was not procedures were also addressed by the Redesign Taskforce.
large. For example, tables on faculty salaries and benefits were For the 2003–04 assessment, differences between revised
only affected to a very small extent. Also, degrees awarded values and values that were imputed in the original files
at the bachelor’s level or higher were not heavily affected. were compared (i.e., revised value minus imputed value).
The largest impact was on private 2-year college enrollment. These differences were then used to provide an assessment
In contrast, most of the data on public 4-year colleges were of the effectiveness of imputation procedures. The size of
affected to a minimal extent. The impact on enrollment in the differences also provides an indication of the accuracy
public 2-year colleges was noticeable in certain states, such of imputation procedures. To assess the overall impact
as Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington, of changes on aggregate IPEDS estimates, published
but was relatively small at the national level. Overall, tables for each component were reconstructed using the
total enrollment for all institutions was about one-half of revised 2002–03 data. These reconstructed tables were
1 percent higher in 1996 for degree-granting institutions then compared to the published tables to determine the
than for higher education institutions. magnitude of aggregate bias and the direction of this bias.
Prior to the establishment of IPEDS in 1986, HEGIS Since the 2000–01 data collection year, IPEDS data
acquired and maintained statistical data on the collections have been web-based. Data have been provided
characteristics and operations of higher education by “keyholders,” institutional representatives appointed

180 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

by campus chief executives, who are responsible for Fall (Institutional Characteristics)
ensuring that survey data submitted by the institution are
correct and complete. Because Title IV institutions are the This survey collects the basic information necessary to
primary focus of IPEDS and because these institutions are classify institutions, including control, level, and types of
required to respond to IPEDS, response rates for Title IV programs offered, as well as information on tuition, fees,
institutions have been high (data on specific components and room and board charges. Beginning in 2000, the
are cited below). More details on the accuracy and survey collected institutional pricing data from institutions
reliability of IPEDS data can be found in the Integrated with first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking
Postsecondary Education Data System Data Quality Study undergraduate students. Unduplicated full-year enrollment
(NCES 2005-175). counts and instructional activity are now collected in the
12-Month Enrollment survey. Beginning in 2008–09, the
Further information on IPEDS may be obtained from student financial aid data collected include greater detail.
The overall unweighted response rate was 100.0 percent for
Sam Barbett Title IV degree-granting institutions for 2009 data.
Postsecondary Branch
Administrative Data Division In the fall 2016 data collection, the response rate for Title
National Center for Education Statistics IV entities on the Institutional Characteristics component
550 12th Street SW rounded to 100 percent: Of the 6,834 Title IV entities that
Washington, DC 20202
were expected to respond, only 1 response was missing.
samuel.barbett@ed.gov
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data
Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) looked at tuition and
Fall (Completions) price in Title IV institutions. Only 8 percent of institutions
in 2002–03 and 2003–04 reported the same data to IPEDS
This survey was part of the HEGIS series throughout its
and Thomson Peterson—a company providing information
existence. However, the degree classification taxonomy was
about institutions based on the institutions’ voluntary data
revised in 1970–71, 1982–83, 1991–92, 2002–03, and
submissions—consistently across all selected data items.
2009–10. Collection of degree data has been maintained
Differences in wordings or survey items may account for
through IPEDS.
some of these inconsistencies.
The nonresponse rate does not appear to be a significant
Further information on the IPEDS Institutional
source of nonsampling error for this survey. The response
Characteristics component may be obtained from
rate over the years has been high; for the fall 2016
Completions component, it rounded to 100 percent. Moussa Ezzeddine
Because of the high response rate, there was no need to Christopher Cody
conduct a nonresponse bias analysis. Imputation methods Postsecondary Branch
for the fall 2016 IPEDS Completions component Administrative Data Division
are discussed in the 2016–17 Integrated Postsecondary National Center for Education Statistics
Education Data System (IPEDS) Methodology Report 550 12th Street SW
(NCES 2017-078). Washington, DC 20202
moussa.ezzeddine@ed.gov
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data christopher.cody@ed.gov
Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) indicated that most Title https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds
IV institutions supplying revised data on completions in
2003–04 were able to supply missing data for the prior Winter (Graduation Rates and Graduation
year. The small differences between imputed data for the Rates 200 Percent)
prior year and the revised actual data supplied by the
In IPEDS data collection years 2012–13 and earlier, the
institution indicated that the imputed values produced by
Graduation Rates and Graduation Rates 200 Percent
NCES were acceptable.
components were collected during the spring collection.
Further information on the IPEDS Completions In the IPEDS 2013–14 data collection year, however,
the Graduation Rates and Graduation Rates 200 Percent
component may be obtained from
collections were moved to the winter data collection.
Christopher Cody
Postsecondary Branch The 2016–17 Graduation Rates component collected
Administrative Data Division counts of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking
National Center for Education Statistics undergraduate students beginning their postsecondary
550 12th Street SW education in the specified cohort year and their completion
Washington, DC 20202 status as of 150 percent of normal program completion
christopher.cody@ed.gov time at the same institution where the students started. If
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 150 percent of normal program completion time extended

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 181 
beyond August 31, 2016, the counts as of that date were Beginning with the fall 1986 survey and the introduction
collected. Four-year institutions used 2010 as the cohort of IPEDS (see above), the survey was redesigned. The
year, while less-than-4-year institutions used 2013 as the survey allows (in alternating years) for the collection
cohort year. Of the 5,995 institutions that were expected of age and residence data. Beginning in 2000, the
to respond to the Graduation Rates component, responses survey collected instructional activity and unduplicated
were missing for 11 institutions, resulting in a response headcount data, which are needed to compute a
rate that rounded to 100 percent. standardized, full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment
statistic for the entire academic year. As of 2007–08,
The 2016–17 Graduation Rates 200 Percent component
the timeliness of the instructional activity data has been
was designed to combine information reported in a prior
improved by collecting these data in the fall as part of the
collection via the Graduation Rates component with
12-Month Enrollment component instead of in the spring
current information about the same cohort of students.
as part of the Fall Enrollment component.
From previously collected data, the following counts were
obtained: the number of students entering the institution The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data
as full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking students Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) showed that public
in a cohort year; the number of students in this cohort institutions made the majority of changes to enrollment
completing within 100 and 150 percent of normal data during the 2004 revision period. The majority of
program completion time; and the number of cohort changes were made to unduplicated headcount data,
exclusions (such as students who left for military service). with the net differences between the original data and the
Then the number of additional cohort exclusions and revised data being about 1 percent. Part-time students
additional program completers between 151 and 200 in general and enrollment in private not-for-profit
percent of normal program completion time was collected. institutions were often underestimated. The fewest changes
Four-year institutions reported on bachelor’s or equivalent by institutions were to Classification of Instructional
degree-seeking students and used cohort year 2008 as Programs (CIP) code data. (The CIP is a taxonomic coding
the reference period, while less-than-4-year institutions scheme that contains titles and descriptions of primarily
reported on all students in the cohort and used cohort year postsecondary instructional programs.)
2012 as the reference period. Of the 5,594 institutions
that were expected to respond to the Graduation Rates Further information on the IPEDS Fall Enrollment
200 Percent component, responses were missing for component may be obtained from
10 institutions, resulting in a response rate that rounded to
100 percent. Aida Aliyeva
Postsecondary Branch
Further information on the IPEDS Graduation Rates Administrative Data Division
and Graduation Rates 200 Percent components may be National Center for Education Statistics
obtained from 550 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20202
Andrew Mary aaliyeva@air.org
Postsecondary Branch
Administrative Data Division https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds
National Center for Education Statistics
550 12th Street SW Spring (Finance)
Washington, DC 20202
andrew.mary@ed.gov This survey was part of the HEGIS series and has been
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ continued under IPEDS. Substantial changes were made in
the financial survey instruments in fiscal year (FY) 1976,
Spring (Fall Enrollment) FY 1982, FY 1987, FY 1997, and FY 2002. While
these changes were significant, a considerable effort has
This survey has been part of the HEGIS and IPEDS been made to present only comparable information on
series since 1966. Response rates have been relatively trends and to note inconsistencies. The FY 1976 survey
high, generally exceeding 85 percent. Beginning in 2000, instrument contained numerous revisions to earlier survey
with web-based data collection, higher response rates forms, which made direct comparisons of line items very
were attained. In the spring 2017 data collection, the Fall difficult. Beginning in FY 1982, Pell Grant data were
Enrollment component covered fall 2016. Of the 6,742 collected in the categories of federal restricted grant and
institutions that were expected to respond, 6,734 provided contract revenues and restricted scholarship and fellowship
data, for a response rate that rounded to 100 percent. Data expenditures. The introduction of IPEDS in the FY 1987
collection procedures for the Fall Enrollment component of survey included several important changes to the survey
the spring 2017 data collection are presented in Enrollment instrument and data processing procedures. Beginning
and Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2016; and in FY 1997, data for private institutions were collected
Financial Statistics and Academic Libraries, Fiscal Year 2016: using new financial concepts consistent with Financial
First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2018-002). Accounting Standards Board (FASB) reporting standards,

182 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

which provide a more comprehensive view of college National Assessment of Educational
finance activities. The data for public institutions continued Progress
to be collected using the older survey form. The data for
public and private institutions were no longer comparable The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
and, as a result, no longer presented together in analysis is a series of cross-sectional studies initially implemented
tables. In FY 2001, public institutions had the option of in 1969 to assess the educational achievement of U.S.
either continuing to report using Government Accounting students and monitor changes in those achievements.
Standards Board (GASB) standards or using the new In the main national NAEP, a nationally representative
FASB reporting standards. Beginning in FY 2002, public sample of students is assessed at grades 4, 8, and 12
institutions could use either the original GASB standards, in various academic subjects. The assessment is based
the FASB standards, or the new GASB Statement on frameworks developed by the National Assessment
35 standards (GASB35). Governing Board (NAGB). It includes both multiple-
choice items and constructed-response items (those
Possible sources of nonsampling error in the financial requiring written answers). Results are reported in two
statistics include nonresponse, imputation, and ways: by average score and by achievement level. Average
misclassification. The unweighted response rate has been scores are reported for the nation, for participating states
about 85 to 90 percent for most years these data appeared and jurisdictions, and for subgroups of the population.
in NCES reports; however, in more recent years, response Percentages of students performing at or above three
rates have been much higher because Title IV institutions achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, and Advanced) are also
are required to respond. Since 2002, the IPEDS data reported for these groups.
collection has been a full-scale web-based collection, which
has improved the quality and timeliness of the data. For Main NAEP Assessments
example, the ability of IPEDS to tailor online data entry
forms for each institution based on characteristics such From 1990 until 2001, main NAEP was conducted for
as institutional control, level of institution, and calendar states and other jurisdictions that chose to participate. In
system and the institutions’ ability to submit their data 2002, under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind
online are aspects of full-scale web-based collections that Act of 2001, all states began to participate in main NAEP,
have improved response. and an aggregate of all state samples replaced the separate
national sample. (School district-level assessments—under
The response rate for the FY 2016 Finance component the Trial Urban District Assessment [TUDA] program—
was nearly 100 percent: Of the 6,825 institutions and also began in 2002.)
administrative offices that were expected to respond, 6,816
provided data. Data collection procedures for the FY 2016 Results are available for the mathematics assessments
component are discussed in Enrollment and Employees administered in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011,
in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2016; and Financial 2013, 2015, and 2017. In 2005, NAGB called for the
Statistics and Academic Libraries, Fiscal Year 2016: First Look development of a new mathematics framework. The
(Provisional Data) (NCES 2018-002). revisions made to the mathematics framework for the 2005
assessment were intended to reflect curricular emphases
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data and better assess the specific objectives for students at each
Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) found that only a grade level.
small percentage (2.9 percent, or 168) of postsecondary
institutions either revised 2002–03 data or submitted data The revised mathematics framework focuses on two
for items they previously left unreported. Though relatively dimensions: mathematical content and cognitive demand.
few institutions made changes, the changes made were By considering these two dimensions for each item in the
relatively large—greater than 10 percent of the original assessment, the framework ensures that NAEP assesses an
data. With a few exceptions, these changes, large as they appropriate balance of content, as well as a variety of ways
were, did not greatly affect the aggregate totals. of knowing and doing mathematics.

Further information on the IPEDS Finance component Since the 2005 changes to the mathematics framework
may be obtained from were minimal for grades 4 and 8, comparisons over time
can be made between assessments conducted before and
Aida Aliyeva after the framework’s implementation for these grades.
Postsecondary Branch The changes that the 2005 framework made to the grade
Administrative Data Division 12 assessment, however, were too drastic to allow grade 12
National Center for Education Statistics results from before and after implementation to be directly
550 12th Street SW compared. These changes included adding more questions
Washington, DC 20202 on algebra, data analysis, and probability to reflect changes
aaliyeva@air.org in high school mathematics standards and coursework;
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds merging the measurement and geometry content

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 183 
areas; and changing the reporting scale from 0–500 subjects, as well as information on school and student
to 0–300. For more information regarding the 2005 participation rates and sample tasks and student responses,
mathematics framework revisions, see https://nces.ed.gov/ are also presented.
nationsreportcard/mathematics/frameworkcomparison.asp.
In 2014, the first administration of the NAEP
Results are available for the reading assessments Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL) Assessment
administered in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, asked 8th-graders to respond to questions aimed at
2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. In 2009, a new framework assessing their knowledge and skill in understanding
was developed for the 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade NAEP technological principles, solving technology and
reading assessments. engineering-related problems, and using technology
to communicate and collaborate. The online report
Both a content alignment study and a reading trend, or The Nation’s Report Card: Technology and Engineering
bridge, study were conducted to determine if the new Literacy (NCES 2016-119) presents national results for
reading assessment was comparable to the prior assessment. 8th-graders on the TEL assessment.
Overall, the results of the special analyses suggested
that the assessments were similar in terms of their item The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Mathematics and Reading
and scale characteristics and the results they produced Assessments (NCES 2015-136) is an online interactive
for important demographic groups of students. Thus, report that presents national and state results for 4th- and
it was determined that the results of the 2009 reading 8th-graders on the NAEP 2015 mathematics and reading
assessment could still be compared to those from earlier assessments. The report also presents TUDA results
assessment years, thereby maintaining the trend lines first in mathematics and reading for 4th- and 8th-graders.
established in 1992. For more information regarding the The online interactive report The Nation’s Report Card:
2009 reading framework revisions, see https://nces.ed.gov/ 2015 Mathematics and Reading at Grade 12 (NCES
nationsreportcard/reading/whatmeasure.asp. 2016‑018) presents grade 12 results from the NAEP 2015
mathematics and reading assessments.
In spring 2013, NAEP released results from the NAEP
2012 economics assessment in The Nation’s Report Card: Results from the 2015 NAEP science assessment are
Economics 2012 (NCES 2013-453). First administered presented in the online report The Nation’s Report Card:
in 2006, the NAEP economics assessment measures 2015 Science at Grades 4, 8, and 12 (NCES 2016-162).
12th-graders’ understanding of a wide range of topics The assessment measures the knowledge of 4th-, 8th-,
in three main content areas: market economy, national and 12th-graders in the content areas of physical science,
economy, and international economy. The 2012 assessment life science, and Earth and space sciences, as well as their
is based on a nationally representative sample of nearly understanding of four science practices (identifying
11,000 students in the 12th grade. science principles, using science principles, using scientific
inquiry, and using technological design). National results
In The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look—2013 are reported for grades 4, 8, and 12, and results from 46
Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451), NAEP participating states and one jurisdiction are reported for
released the results of the 2013 mathematics and reading grades 4 and 8. Since a new NAEP science framework
assessments. Results can also be accessed using the was introduced in 2009, results from the 2015 science
interactive graphics and downloadable data available assessment can be compared to results from the 2009 and
at the online Nation’s Report Card website (http:// 2011 science assessments, but cannot be compared to the
nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/). science assessments conducted prior to 2009.
The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look—2013 Mathematics NAEP is in the process of transitioning from paper-
and Reading Trial Urban District Assessment (NCES based assessments to technology-based assessments;
2014-466) provides the results of the 2013 mathematics consequently, data are needed regarding students’ access
and reading TUDA, which measured the reading and to and familiarity with technology, at home and at school.
mathematics progress of 4th- and 8th-graders from The Computer Access and Familiarity Study (CAFS) is
21 urban school districts. Results from the 2013 designed to fulfill this need. CAFS was conducted as part
mathematics and reading TUDA can also be accessed using of the main administration of the 2015 NAEP. A subset of
the interactive graphics and downloadable data available at the grade 4, 8, and 12 students who took the main NAEP
the online TUDA website (http://nationsreportcard.gov/ were chosen to take the additional CAFS questionnaire.
reading_math_tuda_2013/#/). The main 2015 NAEP was administered in a paper-and-
pencil format to some students and a digital-based format
The online interactive report The Nation’s Report Card: to others, and CAFS participants were given questionnaires
2014 U.S. History, Geography, and Civics at Grade 8 in the same format as their NAEP questionnaires.
(NCES 2015-112) provides grade 8 results for the 2014
NAEP U.S. history, geography, and civics assessments. The online Highlights report 2017 NAEP Mathematics and
Trend results for previous assessment years in these three Reading Assessments: Highlighted Results at Grades 4 and

184 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

8 for the Nation, States, and Districts (NCES 2018‑037) In the School Safety and Discipline Survey, about
presents an overview of results from the NAEP 2017 12,700 parents of children in grades 3 to 12 and about
mathematics and reading reports. Highlighted results 6,500 youth in grades 6 to 12 were interviewed about
include key findings for the nation, states/jurisdictions, their school experiences. Topics included the school
and 27 districts that participated in the Trial Urban learning environment, discipline policy, safety at school,
District Assessment (TUDA) in mathematics and reading victimization, the availability and use of alcohol/drugs,
at grades 4 and 8. and alcohol/drug education. Peer norms for behavior in
school and substance use were also included in this topical
Further information on NAEP may be obtained from component. Extensive family and household background
information was collected, as well as characteristics of the
Daniel McGrath
school attended by the child.
Reporting and Dissemination Branch
Assessments Division In NHES:1995, the Early Childhood Program
National Center for Education Statistics Participation Survey and the Adult Education Survey were
550 12th Street SW similar to those fielded in 1991. In the Early Childhood
Washington, DC 20202 component, about 14,000 parents of children from birth
daniel.mcgrath@ed.gov to 3rd grade were interviewed out of 16,000 sampled, for
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard a completion rate of 90.4 percent. In the Adult Education
Survey, about 24,000 adults were sampled and 82.3
National Household Education Surveys percent (20,000) completed the interview.
Program
NHES:1996 covered parent and family involvement in
The National Household Education Surveys Program education and civic involvement. Data on homeschooling
(NHES) is a data collection system that is designed to and school choice also were collected. The 1996 survey
address a wide range of education-related issues. Surveys screened about 56,000 households. For the Parent and
have been conducted in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, Family Involvement in Education Survey, nearly 21,000
2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2012, and 2016. NHES targets parents of children in grades 3 to 12 were interviewed.
specific populations for detailed data collection. It is For the Civic Involvement Survey, about 8,000 youth
intended to provide more detailed data on the topics in grades 6 to 12, about 9,000 parents, and about 2,000
and populations of interest than are collected through adults were interviewed. The 1996 survey also addressed
supplements to other household surveys. public library use. Adults in almost 55,000 households
were interviewed to support state-level estimates of
The topics addressed by NHES:1991 were early childhood household public library use.
education and adult education. About 60,000 households
were screened for NHES:1991. In the Early Childhood NHES:1999 collected end-of-decade estimates of key
Education Survey, about 14,000 parents/guardians of 3- to indicators from the surveys conducted throughout the
8-year-olds completed interviews about their children’s 1990s. Approximately 60,000 households were screened
early educational experiences. Included in this component for a total of about 31,000 interviews with parents of
were participation in nonparental care/education; care children from birth through grade 12 (including about
arrangements and school; and family, household, and 6,900 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers) and adults
child characteristics. In the NHES:1991 Adult Education age 16 or older not enrolled in grade 12 or below.
Survey, about 9,800 people 16 years of age and over, Key indicators included participation of children in
nonparental care and early childhood programs, school
identified as having participated in an adult education
experiences, parent/family involvement in education at
activity in the previous 12 months, were questioned
home and at school, youth community service activities,
about their activities. Data were collected on programs
plans for future education, and adult participation in
and up to four courses, including the subject matter, educational activities and community service.
duration, sponsorship, purpose, and cost. Information
on the household and the adult’s background and current NHES:2001 included two surveys that were largely repeats
employment was also collected. of similar surveys included in earlier NHES collections.
The Early Childhood Program Participation Survey
In NHES:1993, nearly 64,000 households were screened. was similar in content to the Early Childhood Program
Approximately 11,000 parents of 3- to 7-year-olds Participation Survey fielded as part of NHES:1995, and
completed interviews for the School Readiness Survey. the Adult Education and Lifelong Learning Survey was
Topics included the developmental characteristics of similar in content to the Adult Education Survey of
preschoolers; school adjustment and teacher feedback to NHES:1995. The Before- and After-School Programs
parents for kindergartners and primary students; center- and Activities Survey, while containing items fielded in
based program participation; early school experiences; earlier NHES collections, had a number of new items
home activities with family members; and health status. that collected information about what school-age children

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 185 
were doing during the time they spent in child care or the School Readiness Survey were questions that collected
in other activities, what parents were looking for in care details about TV programs watched by the sampled
arrangements and activities, and parent evaluations of children. For the Parent and Family Involvement Survey,
care arrangements and activities. Parents of approximately interviews were completed with parents of 10,680 sampled
6,700 children from birth through age 6 who were not children in kindergarten through grade 12, including
yet in kindergarten completed Early Childhood Program 10,370 students enrolled in public or private schools and
Participation Survey interviews. Nearly 10,900 adults 310 homeschooled children. For the School Readiness
completed Adult Education and Lifelong Learning Survey, interviews were completed with parents of 2,630
Survey interviews, and parents of nearly 9,600 children sampled children ages 3 to 6 and not yet in kindergarten.
in kindergarten through grade 8 completed Before- and Parents who were interviewed about children in
After-School Programs and Activities Survey interviews. kindergarten through 2nd grade for the Parent and Family
Involvement Survey were also asked some questions about
NHES:2003 included two surveys: the Parent and these children’s school readiness.
Family Involvement in Education Survey and the Adult
Education for Work-Related Reasons Survey (the first The 2007 and earlier administrations of NHES used
administration). Whereas previous adult education surveys a random-digit-dial sample of landline phones and
were more general in scope, this survey had a narrower computer-assisted telephone interviewing to conduct
focus on occupation-related adult education programs. interviews. However, due to declining response rates for
It collected in-depth information about training and all telephone surveys and the increase in households that
education in which adults participated specifically for only or mostly use a cell phone instead of a landline,
work-related reasons, either to prepare for work or a the data collection method was changed to an address-
career or to maintain or improve work-related skills and based sample survey for NHES:2012. Because of this
knowledge they already had. The Parent and Family change in survey mode, readers should use caution when
Involvement Survey expanded on the first survey fielded comparing NHES:2012 estimates to those of prior NHES
on this topic in 1996. In 2003, screeners were completed administrations.
with 32,050 households. About 12,700 of the 16,000
sampled adults completed the Adult Education for NHES:2012 included the Parent and Family Involvement
Work-Related Reasons Survey, for a weighted response in Education Survey and the Early Childhood Program
rate of 76 percent. For the Parent and Family Involvement Participation Survey. The Parent and Family Involvement
in Education Survey, interviews were completed by the in Education Survey gathered data on students age 20 or
parents of about 12,400 of the 14,900 sampled children in younger who were enrolled in kindergarten through grade
kindergarten through grade 12, yielding a weighted unit 12 or who were homeschooled at equivalent grade levels.
response rate of 83 percent. Survey questions that pertained to students enrolled in
kindergarten through grade 12 requested information on
NHES:2005 included surveys that covered adult various aspects of parent involvement in education (such
education, early childhood program participation, and as help with homework, family activities, and parent
after-school programs and activities. Data were collected involvement at school) and survey questions pertaining
from about 8,900 adults for the Adult Education Survey, to homeschooled students requested information on the
from parents of about 7,200 children for the Early student’s homeschooling experiences, the sources of the
Childhood Program Participation Survey, and from parents curriculum, and the reasons for homeschooling.
of nearly 11,700 children for the After-School Programs
and Activities Survey. These surveys were substantially The 2012 Parent and Family Involvement in Education
similar to the surveys conducted in 2001, with the Survey questionnaires were completed for 17,563
exceptions that the Adult Education Survey addressed (397 homeschooled and 17,166 enrolled) children, for a
a new topic—informal learning activities for personal weighted unit response rate of 78.4 percent. The overall
interest—and the Early Childhood Program Participation estimated unit response rate (the product of the screener
Survey and After-School Programs and Activities Survey unit response rate of 73.8 percent and the Parent and
did not collect information about before-school care for Family Involvement in Education Survey unit response
school-age children. rate) was 57.8 percent.
NHES:2007 fielded the Parent and Family Involvement The 2012 Early Childhood Program Participation Survey
in Education Survey and the School Readiness Survey. collected data on the early care and education arrangements
These surveys were similar in design and content to and early learning of children from birth through the
surveys included in the 2003 and 1993 collections, age of 5 who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten.
respectively. New features added to the Parent and Family Questionnaires were completed for 7,893 children, for a
Involvement Survey were questions about supplemental weighted unit response rate of 78.7 percent. The overall
education services provided by schools and school districts estimated weighted unit response rate (the product of the
(including use of and satisfaction with such services), as screener weighted unit response rate of 73.8 percent and
well as questions that would efficiently identify the school the Early Childhood Program Participation Survey unit
attended by the sampled students. New features added to weighted response rate) was 58.1 percent.

186 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

NHES:2016 used a nationally representative address- experience programs. The survey’s data, when weighted,
based sample covering the 50 states and the District of were nationally representative of noninstitutionalized
Columbia. The 2016 administration of NHES included adults ages 16 to 65, not enrolled in grades 12 or below.
a screener survey and three topical surveys: The Parent The total number of completed questionnaires was 47,744,
and Family Involvement in Education Survey, the Early representing a population of 196.3 million. The survey had
Childhood Program Participation Survey, and the Adult a weighted response rate of 73.1 percent and an overall
Training and Education Survey. The screener survey response rate of 48.5 percent.
questionnaire identified households with children or youth
under age 20 and adults ages 16 to 65. A total of 206,000 Data for the three topical surveys in the 2016
households were selected based on this screener, and the administration of NHES are available in Parent and
screener response rate was 66.4 percent. All sampled Family Involvement in Education: Results From the National
households received initial contact by mail. Although the Household Education Surveys Program of 2016 (NCES
majority of respondents completed paper questionnaires, 2017-102); Early Childhood Program Participation, Results
a small sample of cases was part of a web experiment with From the National Household Education Surveys Program
mailed invitations to complete the survey online. of 2016 (NCES 2017-101); and Adult Training and
Education: Results From the National Household Education
The 2016 Parent and Family Involvement in Education Surveys Program of 2016 (NCES 2017-103rev).
Survey, like its predecessor in 2012, gathered data
about students age 20 or under who were enrolled Further information on NHES may be obtained from
in kindergarten through grade 12 or who were being Sarah Grady
homeschooled for the equivalent grades. The 2016 survey’s Andrew Zukerberg
questions also covered aspects of parental involvement in Sample Surveys Division
education similar to those in the 2012 survey. The total National Center for Education Statistics
number of completed questionnaires in the 2016 survey 550 12th Street SW
was 14,075 (13,523 enrolled and 552 homeschooled Washington, DC 20202
children), representing a population of 53.2 million sarah.grady@ed.gov
students either homeschooled or enrolled in a public or andrew.zukerberg@ed.gov
private school in 2015–16. The survey’s weighted unit https://nces.ed.gov/nhes
response rate was 74.3 percent, and the overall response
rate was 49.3 percent. National Postsecondary Student
Aid Study
The 2016 Early Childhood Program Participation Survey
collected data about children from birth through age 6 The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study
who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten. The survey (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide study of
asked about children’s participation in relative care, how students and their families pay for postsecondary
nonrelative care, and center-based care arrangements. It education. Data gathered from the study are used to
also requested information such as the main reason for help guide future federal student financial aid policy.
choosing care, factors that were important to parents The study covers nationally representative samples of
when choosing a care arrangement, the primary barriers to undergraduates, graduates, and first-professional students
finding satisfactory care, activities the family does with the in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
child, and what the child is learning. Questionnaires were Rico, including students attending less-than-2-year
completed for 5,844 children, for a weighted unit response institutions, community colleges, and 4-year colleges
rate of 73.4 percent and an overall estimated weighted unit and universities. Participants include students who do
response rate of 48.7 percent. not receive aid and those who do receive financial aid.
Since NPSAS identifies nationally representative samples
The third topical survey of NHES:2016 was a new NHES of student subpopulations of interest to policymakers
survey, the Adult Training and Education Survey. The and obtains baseline data for longitudinal study of these
survey collected information from noninstitutionalized subpopulations, data from the study provide the base-year
adults ages 16 to 65 not enrolled in high school—it also sample for the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS)
collected information from adults living at residential longitudinal study and the Baccalaureate and Beyond
addresses associated with educational institutions such (B&B) longitudinal study.
as colleges (thus, it collected information from enrolled
college students). One of the main goals of the Adult Originally, NPSAS was conducted every 3 years. Beginning
Training and Education Survey is to capture the prevalence with the 1999–2000 study (NPSAS:2000), NPSAS has
of nondegree credentials, including estimates of adults been conducted every 4 years. NPSAS:08 included a new
with occupational certifications or licenses, as well as set of instrument items to obtain baseline measures of the
to capture the prevalence of postsecondary educational awareness of two new federal grants introduced in 2006:
certificates. A further goal is to learn more about work the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and the

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 187 
National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent National Teacher and Principal Survey
(SMART) grant.
The National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) is a
The first NPSAS (NPSAS:87) was conducted during the set of related questionnaires that collect descriptive data
1986–87 school year. Data were gathered from about on the context of elementary and secondary education.
1,100 colleges, universities, and other postsecondary Data reported by schools, principals, and teachers provide
institutions; 60,000 students; and 14,000 parents. These a variety of statistics on the condition of education in the
data provided information on the cost of postsecondary United States that may be used by policymakers and the
education, the distribution of financial aid, and the general public. The NTPS system covers a wide range of
characteristics of both aided and nonaided students and topics, including teacher demand, teacher and principal
their families. characteristics, teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of
school climate and problems in their schools, teacher
For NPSAS:93, information on 77,000 undergraduates
and principal compensation, district hiring and retention
and graduate students enrolled during the school year was
collected at 1,000 postsecondary institutions. The sample practices, general conditions in schools, and basic
included students who were enrolled at any time between characteristics of the student population.
July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993. About 66,000 students The NTPS was first conducted during the 2015–16 school
and a subsample of their parents were interviewed by year. The survey is a redesign of the Schools and Staffing
telephone. NPSAS:96 contained information on more Survey (SASS), which was conducted from the 1987–88
than 48,000 undergraduate and graduate students from school year to the 2011–12 school year. Although the
about 1,000 postsecondary institutions who were enrolled
NTPS maintains the SASS survey’s focus on schools,
at any time during the 1995–96 school year. NPSAS:2000
teachers, and administrators, the NTPS has a different
included nearly 62,000 students (50,000 undergraduates
structure and sample than SASS. In addition, whereas
and almost 12,000 graduate students) from 1,000
SASS operated on a 4-year survey cycle, the NTPS
postsecondary institutions. NPSAS:04 collected data
operates on a 2-year survey cycle.
on about 80,000 undergraduates and 11,000 graduate
students from 1,400 postsecondary institutions. For The school sample for the 2015–16 NTPS was based on
NPSAS:08, about 114,000 undergraduate students an adjusted public school universe file from the 2013–14
and 14,000 graduate students who were enrolled in Common Core of Data (CCD), a database of all the
postsecondary education during the 2007–08 school nation’s public school districts and public schools. The
year were selected from more than 1,730 postsecondary NTPS definition of a school is the same as the SASS
institutions. definition of a school—an institution or part of an
NPSAS:12 sampled about 95,000 undergraduates and institution that provides classroom instruction to students,
16,000 graduate students from approximately 1,500 has one or more teachers to provide instruction, serves
postsecondary institutions. Public access to the data is students in one or more of grades 1–12 or the ungraded
available online through PowerStats (https://nces.ed.gov/ equivalent, and is located in one or more buildings apart
datalab/). from a private home.

NPSAS:16 sampled about 89,000 undergraduate and The 2015–16 NTPS universe of schools is confined to
24,000 graduate students attending approximately the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. It excludes
1,800 Title IV eligible postsecondary institutions in the Department of Defense dependents schools overseas,
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto schools in U.S. territories overseas, and CCD schools that
Rico. The sample represents approximately 20 million do not offer teacher-provided classroom instruction in
undergraduate and 4 million graduate students enrolled in grades 1–12 or the ungraded equivalent. Bureau of Indian
postsecondary education at Title IV eligible institutions at Education schools are included in the NTPS universe, but
any time between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2016. these schools were not oversampled and the data do not
support separate BIE estimates.
Further information on NPSAS may be obtained from
The NTPS includes three key components: school
Aurora D’Amico questionnaires, principal questionnaires, and teacher
Tracy Hunt-White questionnaires. NTPS data are collected by the U.S.
Longitudinal Surveys Branch
Sample Surveys Division Census Bureau through a mail questionnaire with
National Center for Education Statistics telephone and in-person field follow-up. The school and
550 12th Street SW principal questionnaires were sent to sampled schools, and
Washington, DC 20202 the teacher questionnaire was sent to a sample of teachers
aurora.damico@ed.gov working at sampled schools. The NTPS school sample
tracy.hunt-white@ed.gov consisted of about 8,300 public schools; the principal
https://nces.ed.gov/npsas sample consisted of about 8,300 public school principals;

188 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

and the teacher sample consisted of about 40,000 public 1999–2000, 2001–02, 2003–04, 2005–06, 2007–08,
school teachers. 2009–10, 2011–12, 2013–14, and 2015–16 school years
have been released. The First Look report Characteristics
The school questionnaire asks knowledgeable school staff of Private Schools in the United States: Results From the
members about grades offered, student attendance and 2015–16 Private School Universe Survey (NCES 2017‑073)
enrollment, staffing patterns, teaching vacancies, programs presents selected findings from the 2015–16 PSS.
and services offered, curriculum, and community service
requirements. In addition, basic information is collected The PSS produces data similar to that of the Common
about the school year, including the beginning time of Core of Data for public schools, and can be used for
students’ school days and the length of the school year. The public-private comparisons. The data are useful for a
weighted unit response rate for the 2015–16 school survey variety of policy- and research-relevant issues, such as
was 72.5 percent. the growth of religiously affiliated schools, the number
of private high school graduates, the length of the school
The principal questionnaire collects information about year for various private schools, and the number of private
principal/school head demographic characteristics, training, school students and teachers.
experience, salary, goals for the school, and judgments
about school working conditions and climate. Information The target population for this universe survey is all private
is also obtained on professional development opportunities schools in the United States that meet the PSS criteria of
for teachers and principals, teacher performance, barriers to a private school (i.e., the private school is an institution
dismissal of underperforming teachers, school climate and that provides instruction for any of grades K through
safety, parent/guardian participation in school events, and 12, has one or more teachers to give instruction, is not
attitudes about educational goals and school governance. administered by a public agency, and is not operated in a
The weighted unit response rate for the 2015–16 principal private home).
survey was 71.8 percent.
The survey universe is composed of schools identified from
The teacher questionnaire collects data from teachers about a variety of sources. The main source is a list frame initially
their current teaching assignment, workload, education developed for the 1989–90 PSS. The list is updated
history, and perceptions and attitudes about teaching. regularly by matching it with lists provided by nationwide
Questions are also asked about teacher preparation, private school associations, state departments of education,
induction, organization of classes, computers, and and other national guides and sources that list private
professional development. The weighted response rate for schools. The other source is an area frame search in
the 2015–16 teacher survey was 67.8 percent. approximately 124 geographic areas, conducted by the
U.S. Census Bureau.
Further information about the NTPS is available in User’s
Manual for the 2015–16 National Teacher and Principal Of the 40,302 schools included in the 2009–10 sample,
Survey, Volumes 1–4 (NCES 2017-131 through NCES 10,229 were found ineligible for the survey. Those not
2017-134). responding numbered 1,856, and those responding
numbered 28,217. The unweighted response rate for the
For additional information about the NTPS program, 2009–10 PSS survey was 93.8 percent.
please contact
Of the 39,325 schools included in the 2011–12 sample,
Maura Spiegelman
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch 10,030 cases were considered as out-of-scope (not eligible
Sample Surveys Division for the PSS). A total of 26,983 private schools completed
National Center for Education Statistics a PSS interview (15.8 percent completed online), while
550 12th Street SW 2,312 schools refused to participate, resulting in an
Washington, DC 20202 unweighted response rate of 92.1 percent.
maura.spiegelman@ed.gov
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps There were 40,298 schools in the 2013–14 sample; of these,
10,659 were considered as out-of-scope (not eligible for the
Private School Universe Survey PSS). A total of 24,566 private schools completed a PSS
interview (34.1 percent completed online), while 5,073
The purposes of the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) schools refused to participate, resulting in an unweighted
data collection activities are (1) to build an accurate and response rate of 82.9 percent.
complete list of private schools to serve as a sampling
frame for NCES sample surveys of private schools and The 2015–16 PSS included 42,389 schools, of which
(2) to report data on the total number of private schools, 12,754 were considered as out-of-scope (not eligible for
teachers, and students in the survey universe. Begun in the PSS). A total of 22,428 private schools completed a
1989, the PSS has been conducted every 2 years, and data PSS interview and 7,207 schools failed to respond, which
for the 1989–90, 1991–92, 1993–94, 1995–96, 1997–98, resulted in an unweighted response rate of 75.7 percent.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 189 
Further information on the PSS may be obtained from known as the OCR Elementary and Secondary School
(E&S) Survey; in 2004, it was renamed the Civil Rights
Steve Broughman Data Collection (CRDC). The survey collects data on
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch
Sample Surveys Division school discipline, access to and participation in high-level
National Center for Education Statistics mathematics and science courses, teacher characteristics,
550 12th Street SW school finances, and other school characteristics. These
Washington, DC 20202 data are reported by race/ethnicity, sex, and disability.
stephen.broughman@ed.gov
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss Data in the survey are collected pursuant to 34 C.F.R.
Section 100.6(b) of the Department of Education
Projections of Education Statistics regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. The requirements are also incorporated by reference
Since 1964, NCES has published projections of key in Department regulations implementing Title IX of the
statistics for elementary and secondary schools and higher Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the
education institutions. The latest report is Projections Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination
of Education Statistics to 2026 (NCES 2018-019). The
Act of 1975. School, district, state, and national data are
Projections of Education Statistics series uses projection
currently available. Data from individual public schools
models for elementary and secondary enrollment, high
school graduates, elementary and secondary teachers, and districts are used to generate national and state data.
expenditures for public elementary and secondary The CRDC has generally been conducted biennially
education, enrollment in postsecondary degree-granting in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
institutions, and postsecondary degrees conferred to
The 2009–10 CRDC was collected from a sample of
develop national and state projections. These models
approximately 7,000 school districts and over 72,000
are described more fully in the report’s appendix on
projection methodology. schools in those districts. It was made up of two parts: part
1 contained beginning-of-year “snapshot” data and part 2
Differences between the reported and projected values contained cumulative, or end-of-year, data.
are, of course, almost inevitable. An evaluation of
past projections revealed that, at the elementary and The 2011–12 CRDC survey, which collected data from
secondary level, projections of public school enrollments approximately 16,500 school districts and 97,000 schools,
have been quite accurate: mean absolute percentage was the first CRDC survey since 2000 that included data
differences for enrollment in public schools ranged from from every public school district and school in the nation.
0.3 to 1.2 percent for projections from 1 to 5 years in The 2013–14 CRDC survey also collected information
the future, while those for teachers in public schools from a universe of every public school district and school
were 3.1 percent or less. At the higher education level, in the nation.
projections of enrollment have been fairly accurate: mean
absolute percentage differences were 5.9 percent or less for Further information on the Civil Rights Data Collection
projections from 1 to 5 years into the future. may be obtained from

Further information on Projections of Education Statistics Office for Civil Rights

may be obtained from U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW
William Hussar Washington, DC 20202
Annual Reports and Information Staff
OCR@ed.gov
National Center for Education Statistics
550 12th Street SW https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html
Washington, DC 20202
william.hussar@ed.gov Office of Special Education Programs
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018019.pdf
Annual Report to Congress on the
Other Department of Education Implementation of the Individuals with
Agencies Disabilities Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Office for Civil Rights
is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities
Civil Rights Data Collection throughout the nation. IDEA governs how states and
public agencies provide early intervention, special
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil education, and related services to more than 6.8 million
Rights (OCR) has surveyed the nation’s public elementary eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
and secondary schools since 1968. The survey was first disabilities.

190 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

IDEA, formerly the Education of the Handicapped Act influence health. The YRBSS focuses on priority health-
(EHA), requires the Secretary of Education to transmit, risk behaviors established during youth that result in the
on an annual basis, a report to Congress describing most significant mortality, morbidity, disability, and social
the progress made in serving the nation’s children with problems during both youth and adulthood. The YRBSS
disabilities. This annual report contains information on includes a national school-based Youth Risk Behavior
children served by public schools under the provisions of Survey (YRBS), as well as surveys conducted in states and
Part B of IDEA and on children served in state-operated large urban school districts.
programs for persons with disabilities under Chapter I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The national YRBS uses a three-stage cluster sampling
design to produce a nationally representative sample of
Statistics on children receiving special education and related students in grades 9–12 in the United States. The target
services in various settings, and school personnel providing population consists of all public and private school
such services, are reported in an annual submission of students in grades 9–12 in the 50 states and the District of
data to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Columbia. The first-stage sampling frame includes selecting
by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Bureau of primary sampling units (PSUs) from strata formed on the
Indian Education schools, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, basis of urbanization and the relative percentage of Black
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin and Hispanic students in the PSU. These PSUs are either
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of counties; subareas of large counties; or groups of smaller,
Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The child adjacent counties. At the second stage, schools were selected
count information is based on the number of children with with probability proportional to school enrollment size.
disabilities receiving special education and related services
on December 1 of each year. Count information is available The final stage of sampling consists of randomly selecting,
from http://www.ideadata.org. in each chosen school and in each of grades 9–12, one
or two classrooms from either a required subject, such
Since all participants in programs for persons with as English or social studies, or a required period, such as
disabilities are reported to OSEP, the data are not subject homeroom or second period. All students in selected classes
to sampling error. However, nonsampling error can arise are eligible to participate. In surveys conducted before
from a variety of sources. Some states only produce counts 2013, three strategies were used to oversample Black and
of students receiving special education services by disability Hispanic students: (1) larger sampling rates were used to
category because Part B of the EHA requires it. In those select PSUs that are in high-Black and high-Hispanic strata;
states that typically produce counts of students receiving (2) a modified measure of size was used that increased the
special education services by disability category without probability of selecting schools with a disproportionately
regard to EHA requirements, definitions and labeling high minority enrollment; and (3) two classes per grade,
practices vary. rather than one, were selected in schools with a high
percentage of combined Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific
Further information on this annual report to Congress
may be obtained from Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment. In
2013, only selection of two classes per grade was needed
Office of Special Education Programs to achieve an adequate precision with minimum variance.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Approximately 16,300 students participated in the 1993
U.S. Department of Education survey, 10,900 students participated in the 1995 survey,
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202-7100 16,300 students participated in the 1997 survey, 15,300
https://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index. students participated in 1999, 13,600 students participated
html in 2001, 15,200 students participated in 2003, 13,900
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ participated in 2005, 14,000 participated in 2007, 16,400
https://www.ideadata.org participated in 2009, 15,400 participated in 2011, 13,600
participated in 2013, and 15,600 participated in 2015.
Other Governmental Agencies and
Programs The overall response rate was 70 percent for the 1993
survey, 60 percent for the 1995 survey, 69 percent for the
Centers for Disease Control and 1997 survey, 66 percent in 1999, 63 percent in 2001,
Prevention 67 percent in 2003, 67 percent in 2005, 68 percent in
2007, 71 percent in 2009, 71 percent in 2011, 68 percent
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 2013, and 60 percent in 2015. NCES standards call for
response rates of 85 percent or greater for cross-sectional
The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) surveys, and bias analyses are required by NCES when
is an epidemiological surveillance system developed by that percentage is not achieved. For YRBS data, a full
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nonresponse bias analysis has not been done because the
to monitor the prevalence of youth behaviors that most data necessary to do the analysis are not available. The

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 191 
weights were developed to adjust for nonresponse and the and overall response rates ranged from 60 percent to
oversampling of Black and Hispanic students in the sample. 84 percent. Among the large urban school districts, school
The final weights were constructed so that only weighted response rates ranged from 90 percent to 100 percent,
proportions of students (not weighted counts of students) student response rates ranged from 66 percent to
in each grade matched national population projections. 88 percent, and overall response rates ranged from
64 percent to 88 percent.
State-level data were downloaded from the Youth Online:
Comprehensive Results web page (https://nccd.cdc.gov/ In 2013, a total of 42 states and 21 districts had weighted
Youthonline/App/Default.aspx). Each state and district data. Not all of the districts were contained in the
school-based YRBS employs a two-stage, cluster sample 42 states. For example, California was not one of the
design to produce representative samples of students in 42 states that obtained weighted data, but it contained
grades 9–12 in their jurisdiction. All except a few state several districts that did. In sites with weighted data, the
samples, and all district samples, include only public student sample sizes for the state and district YRBS ranged
schools, and each district sample includes only schools in from 1,107 to 53,785. School response rates ranged from
the funded school district (e.g., San Diego Unified School 70 to 100 percent, student response rates ranged from
District) rather than in the entire city (e.g., greater San 60 to 94 percent, and overall response rates ranged from
Diego area). 60 to 87 percent.
In the first sampling stage in all except a few states and Readers should note that reports of these data published
districts, schools are selected with probability proportional by the CDC and in this report do not include percentages
to school enrollment size. In the second sampling stage, for which the denominator includes fewer than 100
intact classes of a required subject or intact classes during a unweighted cases.
required period (e.g., second period) are selected randomly.
All students in sampled classes are eligible to participate. In 1999, in accordance with changes to the Office of
Certain states and districts modify these procedures to Management and Budget’s standards for the classification
meet their individual needs. For example, in a given state of federal data on race and ethnicity, the YRBS item on
or district, all schools, rather than a sample of schools, race/ethnicity was modified. The version of the race and
might be selected to participate. State and local surveys ethnicity question used in 1993, 1995, and 1997 was
that have a scientifically selected sample, appropriate
documentation, and an overall response rate greater than How do you describe yourself?
or equal to 60 percent are weighted. The overall response
1. White—not Hispanic
rate reflects the school response rate multiplied by the
student response rate. These three criteria are used to 2. Black—not Hispanic
ensure that the data from those surveys can be considered 3. Hispanic or Latino
representative of students in grades 9–12 in that 4. Asian or Pacific Islander
jurisdiction. A weight is applied to each record to adjust 5. American Indian or Alaskan Native
for student nonresponse and the distribution of students 6. Other
by grade, sex, and race/ethnicity in each jurisdiction.
The version used in 1999, 2001, 2003, and in the 2005,
Therefore, weighted estimates are representative of
all students in grades 9–12 attending schools in each 2007, and 2009 state and local district surveys was
jurisdiction. Surveys that do not have an overall response How do you describe yourself? (Select one or more
rate of greater than or equal to 60 percent and that do not responses.)
have appropriate documentation are not weighted and are
not included in this report. 1. American Indian or Alaska Native
2. Asian
For the 2015 YRBS, data from 37 states and 19 large 3. Black or African American
urban districts were weighted. (For information on the 4. Hispanic or Latino
location of the districts, please see https://www.cdc.gov/ 5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
healthyyouth/data/yrbs/participation.htm.) In 36 states 6. White
and all large urban school districts, weighted estimates
are representative of all students in grades 9–12 attending In the 2005 national survey and in all 2007, 2009, 2011,
public schools in each jurisdiction. In one state (South 2013, and 2015 surveys, race/ethnicity was computed
Dakota), weighted estimates are representative of all from two questions: (1) “Are you Hispanic or Latino?”
students in grades 9–12 attending public and private (response options were “Yes” and “No”), and (2) “What
schools. Student sample sizes ranged from 1,313 to 55,596 is your race?” (response options were “American Indian
across the states and from 1,052 to 10,419 across the large or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” “Black or African American,”
urban school districts. Among the states, school response “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” or “White”).
rates ranged from 70 percent to 100 percent, student For the second question, students could select more
response rates ranged from 64 percent to 90 percent, than one response option. For this report, students

192 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

were classified as “Hispanic” if they answered “Yes” to Census, which requires more intensive distribution in
the first question, regardless of how they answered the these areas. The ACS covers the U.S. resident population,
second question. Students who answered “No” to the which includes the entire civilian, noninstitutionalized
first question and selected more than one race/ethnicity population; incarcerated persons; institutionalized persons;
in the second category were classified as “More than one and the active duty military who are in the United States.
race.” Students who answered “No” to the first question In 2006, the ACS began interviewing residents in group
and selected only one race/ethnicity were classified as that quarter facilities. Institutionalized group quarters include
race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity was classified as missing for adult and juvenile correctional facilities, nursing facilities,
students who did not answer the first question and for and other health care facilities. Noninstitutionalized group
students who answered “No” to the first question but did quarters include college and university housing, military
not answer the second question. barracks, and other noninstitutional facilities such as
workers and religious group quarters and temporary shelters
CDC has conducted two studies to understand the for the homeless.
effect of changing the race/ethnicity item on the YRBS.
Brener, Kann, and McManus (Public Opinion Quarterly, National-level data from the ACS are available from
67:227–226, 2003) found that allowing students to select 2000 onward. The ACS produces 1-year estimates for
more than one response to a single race/ethnicity question jurisdictions with populations of 65,000 and over and
on the YRBS had only a minimal effect on reported race/ 5-year estimates for jurisdictions with smaller populations.
ethnicity among high school students. Eaton, Brener, The 1-year estimates for 2016 used data collected
Kann, and Pittman (Journal of Adolescent Health, 41: between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, and
488–494, 2007) found that self-reported race/ethnicity the 5-year estimates for 2012–2016 used data collected
was similar regardless of whether the single-question or a between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. The
two-question format was used. ACS produced 3-year estimates (for jurisdictions with
populations of 20,000 or over) for the periods 2005–2007,
Further information on the YRBSS may be obtained from 2006–2008, 2007–2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011,
2010–2012, and 2011–2013. Three-year estimates for
Laura Kann these periods will continue to be available to data users,
Division of Adolescent and School Health but no further 3-year estimates will be produced.
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD,
and TB Prevention Further information about the ACS is available at http://
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.census.gov/acs/www/.
Mailstop E-75
1600 Clifton Road NE Census of Population—Education in the
Atlanta, GA 30329-4027 United States
(404) 718-8132
lkk1@cdc.gov Some NCES tables are based on a part of the decennial
www.cdc.gov/info census that consisted of questions asked of a 1 in 6 sample
http://www.cdc.gov/yrbs of people and housing units in the United States. This
sample was asked more detailed questions about income,
Census Bureau occupation, and housing costs, as well as questions about
general demographic information. This decennial census
American Community Survey “long form” has been discontinued and has been replaced
by the American Community Survey (ACS).
The Census Bureau introduced the American Community
Survey (ACS) in 1996. Fully implemented in 2005, School enrollment. People classified as enrolled in school
it provides a large monthly sample of demographic, reported attending a “regular” public or private school
socioeconomic, and housing data comparable in content or college. They were asked whether the institution they
to the Long Forms of the Decennial Census up to and attended was public or private and what level of school
including the 2000 long form. Aggregated over time, they were enrolled in.
these data serve as a replacement for the Long Form of the
Decennial Census. The survey includes questions mandated Educational attainment. Data for educational attainment
by federal law, federal regulations, and court decisions. were tabulated for people ages 15 and over and classified
according to the highest grade completed or the highest
Since 2011, the survey has been mailed to approximately degree received. Instructions were also given to include the
295,000 addresses in the United States and Puerto Rico level of the previous grade attended or the highest degree
each month, or about 3.5 million addresses annually. A received for people currently enrolled in school.
larger proportion of addresses in small governmental units
(e.g., American Indian reservations, small counties, and Poverty status. To determine poverty status, answers to
towns) also receive the survey. The monthly sample size income questions were used to make comparisons to the
is designed to approximate the ratio used in the 2000 appropriate poverty threshold. All people except those

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 193 
who were institutionalized, people in military group who graduated from high school with a diploma as well
quarters and college dormitories, and unrelated people as those who completed high school through equivalency
under age 15 were considered. If the total income of each programs, such as a GED program.
family or unrelated individual in the sample was below
the corresponding cutoff, that family or individual was A major redesign of the CPS was implemented in January
classified as “below the poverty level.” 1994 to improve the quality of the data collected. Survey
questions were revised, new questions were added, and
Further information on the 1990 and 2000 Census of computer-assisted interviewing methods were used for
Population may be obtained from the survey data collection. Further information about
Population Division the redesign is available in Current Population Survey,
Census Bureau October 1995: (School Enrollment Supplement) Technical
U.S. Department of Commerce Documentation at http://www.census.gov/prod/techdoc/
4600 Silver Hill Road cps/cpsoct95.pdf.
Washington, DC 20233
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html Caution should be used when comparing data from 1994
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html through 2001 with data from 1993 and earlier. Data from
1994 through 2001 reflect 1990 census-based population
Current Population Survey controls, while data from 1993 and earlier reflect 1980
or earlier census-based population controls. Changes
The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey in population controls generally have relatively little
of about 54,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census impact on summary measures such as means, medians,
Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPS is and percentage distributions; they can, however, have a
the primary source of labor force statistics on the U.S. significant impact on population counts. For example, use
population. In addition, supplemental questionnaires of the 1990 census-based population controls resulted in
are used to provide further information about the U.S. about a 1 percent increase in the civilian noninstitutional
population. The March supplement (also known as population and in the number of families and households.
the Annual Social and Economic [ASEC] supplement) Thus, estimates of levels for data collected in 1994 and
contains detailed questions on topics such as income, later years will differ from those for earlier years by more
employment, and educational attainment; additional than what could be attributed to actual changes in the
questions, such as items on disabilities, have also been population. These differences could be disproportionately
included. In the July supplement, items on computer greater for certain subpopulation groups than for the total
and internet use are the principal focus. The October population.
supplement also contains some questions about computer
and internet use, but most of its questions relate to school Beginning in 2003, the race/ethnicity questions were
enrollment and school characteristics. expanded. Information on people of Two or more races
were included, and the Asian and Pacific Islander race
CPS samples are initially selected based on results from category was split into two categories—Asian and Native
the decennial census and are periodically updated to reflect Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. In addition, questions
new housing construction. The current sample design were reworded to make it clear that self-reported data on
for the main CPS, last revised in July 2015, includes race/ethnicity should reflect the race/ethnicity with which
about 74,000 households. Each month, about 54,000 of the responder identifies, rather than what may be written
the 74,000 households are interviewed. Information is in official documentation.
obtained each month from those in the household who
are 15 years of age and over, and demographic data are The estimation procedure employed for monthly CPS
collected for children 0–14 years of age. In addition, data involves inflating weighted sample results to
supplemental questions regarding school enrollment are independent estimates of characteristics of the civilian
asked about eligible household members age 3 and over in noninstitutional population in the United States by age,
the October CPS supplement. sex, and race. These independent estimates are based on
statistics from decennial censuses; statistics on births,
In January 1992, the CPS educational attainment variable deaths, immigration, and emigration; and statistics on the
was changed. The “Highest grade attended” and “Year population in the armed services. Generalized standard
completed” questions were replaced by the question “What error tables are provided in the Current Population
is the highest level of school . . . has completed or the Reports; methods for deriving standard errors can be
highest degree . . . has received?” Thus, for example, while found within the CPS technical documentation at
the old questions elicited data for those who completed http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-
more than 4 years of high school, the new question elicited documentation/complete.html. The CPS data are subject
data for those who were high school completers, i.e., those to both nonsampling and sampling errors.

194 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

Standard errors were estimated using the generalized within sample households. Overall CPS undercoverage
variance function prior to 2005 for March CPS data and for October 2016 is estimated to be about 11 percent.
prior to 2010 for October CPS data. The generalized CPS coverage varies with age, sex, and race. Generally,
variance function is a simple model that expresses the coverage is larger for females than for males and larger for
variance as a function of the expected value of a survey non-Blacks than for Blacks. This differential coverage is a
estimate. Standard errors were estimated using replicate general problem for most household-based surveys. Further
weight methodology beginning in 2005 for March CPS information on CPS methodology may be found in the
data and beginning in 2010 for October CPS data. Those technical documentation at http://www.census.gov/cps.
interested in using CPS household-level supplement
replicate weights to calculate variances may refer to Further information on the calculation of dropouts and
Estimating Current Population Survey (CPS) Household- dropout rates may be obtained from the Trends in High
Level Supplement Variances Using Replicate Weights at http:// School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States
thedataweb.rm.census.gov/pub/cps/supps/HH-level_Use_ report at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/dropout/index.asp
of_the_Public_Use_Replicate_Weight_File.doc. or by contacting

Further information on the CPS may be obtained from Joel McFarland

Annual Reports and Information Staff
Education and Social Stratification Branch National Center for Education Statistics
Population Division 550 12th Street SW
Census Bureau Washington, DC 20202
U.S. Department of Commerce joel.mcfarland@ed.gov
4600 Silver Hill Road
Washington, DC 20233 Educational Attainment
http://www.census.gov/cps
Reports documenting educational attainment are produced
Dropouts by the Census Bureau using the March Current Population
Survey (CPS) supplement (Annual Social and Economic
Each October, the Current Population Survey (CPS) supplement [ASEC]).
includes supplemental questions on the enrollment
status of the population age 3 years and over as part of Currently, the ASEC supplement consists of approximately
the monthly basic survey on labor force participation. 70,000 interviewed households. Both recent and earlier
In addition to gathering the information on school editions of Educational Attainment in the United States
enrollment, with the limitations on accuracy as noted may be downloaded at https://www.census.gov/topics/
below under “School Enrollment,” the survey data permit education/educational-attainment/data/tables.All.html.
calculations of dropout rates. Both status and event
dropout rates are tabulated from the October CPS. Event In addition to the general constraints of CPS, some
rates describe the proportion of students who leave school data indicate that the respondents have a tendency
each year without completing a high school program. to overestimate the educational level of members of
Status rates provide cumulative data on dropouts among their household. Some inaccuracy is due to a lack of
all young adults within a specified age range. Status the respondent’s knowledge of the exact educational
rates are higher than event rates because they include all attainment of each household member and the hesitancy
dropouts ages 16 through 24, regardless of when they last to acknowledge anything less than a high school education.
attended school.
Further information on educational attainment data from
In addition to other survey limitations, dropout rates CPS may be obtained from
may be affected by survey coverage and exclusion of the Education and Social Stratification Branch
institutionalized population. The incarcerated population Census Bureau
has grown rapidly and has a high dropout rate. Dropout U.S. Department of Commerce
rates for the total population might be higher than those 4600 Silver Hill Road
for the noninstitutionalized population if the prison Washington, DC 20233
and jail populations were included in the dropout rate https://www.census.gov/topics/education/educational-
calculations. On the other hand, if military personnel, attainment/data.html
who tend to be high school graduates, were included, it
might offset some or all of the impact from the theoretical School Enrollment
inclusion of the jail and prison populations.
Each October, the Current Population Survey (CPS)
Another area of concern with tabulations involving young includes supplemental questions on the enrollment status
people in household surveys is the relatively low coverage of the population age 3 years and over. Currently, the
ratio compared to older age groups. CPS undercoverage October supplement consists of approximately 54,000
results from missed housing units and missed people interviewed households, the same households interviewed

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 195 
in the basic Current Population Survey. The main sources and Hispanic origin) for the nation, states, and counties,
of nonsampling variability in the responses to the as well as national and state projections for the resident
supplement are those inherent in the survey instrument. population. The reference date for population estimates
The question of current enrollment may not be answered is July 1 of the given year. With each new issue of July 1
accurately for various reasons. Some respondents may not estimates, the Census Bureau revises estimates for each
know current grade information for every student in the year back to the last census. Previously published estimates
household, a problem especially prevalent for households are superseded and archived.
with members in college or in nursery school. Confusion
over college credits or hours taken by a student may make Census respondents self-report race and ethnicity. The race
it difficult to determine the year in which the student questions on the 1990 and 2000 censuses differed in some
is enrolled. Problems may occur with the definition of significant ways. In 1990, the respondent was instructed
nursery school (a group or class organized to provide to select the one race “that the respondent considers
educational experiences for children) where respondents’ himself/herself to be,” whereas in 2000, the respondent
interpretations of “educational experiences” vary. could select one or more races that the person considered
himself or herself to be. American Indian, Eskimo, and
For the October 2016 basic CPS, the household-level Aleut were three separate race categories in 1990; in 2000,
nonresponse rate was 12.7 percent. The person-level the American Indian and Alaska Native categories were
nonresponse rate for the school enrollment supplement combined, with an option to write in a tribal affiliation.
was an additional 8.0 percent. Since the basic CPS This write-in option was provided only for the American
nonresponse rate is a household-level rate and the school Indian category in 1990. There was a combined Asian and
enrollment supplement nonresponse rate is a person-level Pacific Islander race category in 1990, but the groups were
rate, these rates cannot be combined to derive an overall separated into two categories in 2000.
nonresponse rate. Nonresponding households may have
fewer persons than interviewed ones, so combining these The census question on ethnicity asks whether the
rates may lead to an overestimate of the true overall respondent is of Hispanic origin, regardless of the race
nonresponse rate for persons for the school enrollment option(s) selected; thus, persons of Hispanic origin may
supplement. be of any race. In the 2000 census, respondents were first
asked, “Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?” and then
Although the principal focus of the October supplement given the following options: No, not Spanish/Hispanic/
is school enrollment, in some years the supplement has Latino; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, Mexican, Mexican
included additional questions on other topics. In 2010 American, Chicano; Yes, Cuban; and Yes, other Spanish/
and 2012, for example, the October supplement included Hispanic/Latino (with space to print the specific group).
additional questions on computer and internet use. In the 2010 census, respondents were asked “Is this person
Further information on CPS methodology may be of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” The options given
obtained from http://www.census.gov/cps. were No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin; Yes,
Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes,
Further information on the CPS School Enrollment Cuban; and Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
Supplement may be obtained from origin—along with instructions to print “Argentinean,
Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran,
Education and Social Stratification Branch Spaniard, and so on” in a specific box.
Census Bureau
U.S. Department of Commerce The 2000 and 2010 censuses each asked the respondent
4600 Silver Hill Road “What is this person’s race?” and allowed the respondent
Washington, DC 20233
https://www.census.gov/topics/education/school- to select one or more options. The options provided were
enrollment.html largely the same in both the 2000 and 2010 censuses: White;
Black, African American, or Negro; American Indian or
Decennial Census, Population Estimates, Alaska Native (with space to print the name of enrolled or
and Population Projections principal tribe); Asian Indian; Japanese; Native Hawaiian;
Chinese; Korean; Guamanian or Chamorro; Filipino;
The decennial census is a universe survey mandated Vietnamese; Samoan; Other Asian; Other Pacific Islander;
by the U.S. Constitution. It is a questionnaire sent to and Some other race. The last three options included space
every household in the country, and it is composed of to print the specific race. Two significant differences between
seven questions about the household and its members the 2000 and 2010 census questions on race were that no
(name, sex, age, relationship, Hispanic origin, race, and race examples were provided for the “Other Asian” and
whether the housing unit is owned or rented). The Census “Other Pacific Islander” responses in 2000, whereas the race
Bureau also produces annual estimates of the resident examples of “Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian,
population by demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, and so on” and “Fijian, Tongan, and so on,” were provided

196 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

for the “Other Asian” and “Other Pacific Islander” responses, estimates of the number of times the victimizations
respectively, in 2010. occurred over the past 6 months, capping the number of
victimizations within each series at a maximum of 10.
The census population estimates program modified the This strategy for counting series victimizations balances
enumerated population from the 2010 census to produce the desire to estimate national rates and account for
the population estimates base for 2010 and onward. As the experiences of persons who have been subjected to
part of the modification, the Census Bureau recoded
repeat victimizations against the desire to minimize the
the “Some other race” responses from the 2010 census
estimation errors that can occur when repeat victimizations
to one or more of the five OMB race categories used in
are reported. Including series victimizations in national
the estimates program (for more information, see http://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical- rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent
documentation/methodology.html). victimization; however, trends in violence are generally
similar regardless of whether series victimizations are
Further information on the decennial census may be included. For more information on the new counting
obtained from http://www.census.gov. strategy and supporting research, see Methods for Counting
High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime
Department of Justice Victimization Survey at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/mchfrv.pdf.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Readers should note that in 2003, in accordance with
A division of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of changes to the Office of Management and Budget’s
Justice Programs, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) standards for the classification of federal data on race
collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates statistical and ethnicity, the NCVS item on race/ethnicity was
information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of
modified. A question on Hispanic origin is now followed
crime, and the operations of the justice system at all
by a new question on race. The new question about
levels of government and internationally. It also provides
race allows the respondent to choose more than one
technical and financial support to state governments for
development of criminal justice statistics and information race and delineates Asian as a separate category from
systems on crime and justice. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. An analysis
conducted by the Demographic Surveys Division at the
For information on the BJS, see https://www.bjs.gov/. U.S. Census Bureau showed that the new race question
had very little impact on the aggregate racial distribution
National Crime Victimization Survey of the NCVS respondents, with one exception: There
was a 1.6 percentage point decrease in the percentage of
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),
administered for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) respondents who reported themselves as White. Due to
by the U.S. Census Bureau, is the nation’s primary source of changes in race/ethnicity categories, comparisons of race/
information on crime and the victims of crime. Initiated in ethnicity across years should be made with caution.
1972 and redesigned in 1992 and 2016, the NCVS collects
There were changes in the sample design and survey
detailed information on the frequency and nature of the
methodology in the 2006 NCVS that may have affected
crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple
survey estimates. Caution should be used when comparing
assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft
experienced by Americans and American households each the 2006 estimates to estimates of other years. Data from
year. The survey measures both crimes reported to the police 2007 onward are comparable to earlier years. Analyses
and crimes not reported to the police. of the 2007 estimates indicate that the program changes
made in 2006 had relatively small effects on NCVS
NCVS estimates presented may differ from those in estimates. For more information on the 2006 NCVS data,
previous published reports. This is because a small number see Criminal Victimization, 2006, at https://www.bjs.gov/
of victimizations, referred to as series victimizations, are content/pub/pdf/cv06.pdf; the NCVS 2006 technical
included using a new counting strategy. High-frequency notes, at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv06tn.
repeat victimizations, or series victimizations, are six or pdf; and Criminal Victimization, 2007, at https://bjs.gov/
more similar but separate victimizations that occur with content/pub/pdf/cv07.pdf.
such frequency that the victim is unable to recall each
individual event or describe each event in detail. As part of The NCVS sample was redesigned in 2016 in order to
ongoing research efforts associated with the redesign of the account for changes in the U.S. population identified
NCVS, BJS investigated ways to include high-frequency through the 2010 Decennial Census and to make it
repeat victimizations, or series victimizations, in estimates possible to produce state- and local-level victimization
of criminal victimization. Including series victimizations estimates for the largest 22 states and specific metropolitan
results in more accurate estimates of victimization. BJS has areas within those states. Because of this redesign, 2016
decided to include series victimizations using the victim’s victimization data are not comparable to data from 2015

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 197 
and prior years. For more information on the 2016 NCVS and local levels, to make informed decisions concerning
data, see Criminal Victimization, 2016, at https://www.bjs. crime in schools. The survey asks students a number
gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf, and the technical notes, at of key questions about their experiences with and
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncvstd16.pdf. perceptions of crime and violence that occurred inside
their school, on school grounds, on the school bus, or on
The number of NCVS-eligible households in the sample in the way to or from school. Students are asked additional
2016 was about 134,690. Households were selected using questions about security measures used by their school,
a stratified, multistage cluster design. In the first stage, students’ participation in after-school activities, students’
the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting of counties perceptions of school rules, the presence of weapons and
or groups of counties, were selected. In the second stage, gangs in school, the presence of hate-related words and
smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts (EDs), were graffiti in school, student reports of bullying and reports
selected from each sampled PSU. Finally, from selected of rejection at school, and the availability of drugs and
EDs, clusters of four households, called segments, were alcohol in school. Students are also asked attitudinal
selected for interview. At each stage, the selection was questions relating to fear of victimization and avoidance
done proportionate to population size in order to create behavior at school.
a self-weighting sample. The final sample was augmented
to account for households constructed after the decennial The SCS survey was conducted for a 6-month period from
census. Within each sampled household, the U.S. Census January through June in all households selected for the
Bureau interviewer attempts to interview all household NCVS (see discussion above for information about the
members age 12 and over to determine whether they NCVS sampling design and changes to the race/ethnicity
had been victimized by the measured crimes during the variable beginning in 2003). Within these households,
6 months preceding the interview. the eligible respondents for the SCS were those household
members who had attended school at any time during
The first NCVS interview with a housing unit is
conducted in person. Subsequent interviews are conducted the 6 months preceding the interview, were enrolled in
by telephone, if possible. Households remain in the sample grades 6–12, and were not home schooled. In 2007,
for 3 years and are interviewed seven times at 6-month the questionnaire was changed and household members
intervals. Since the survey’s inception, the initial interview who attended school sometime during the school year of
at each sample unit has been used only to bound future the interview were included. The age range of students
interviews to establish a time frame to avoid duplication covered in this report is 12–18 years of age. Eligible
of crimes uncovered in these subsequent interviews. respondents were asked the supplemental questions in the
Beginning in 2006, data from the initial interview have SCS only after completing their entire NCVS interview.
been adjusted to account for the effects of bounding It should be noted that the first or unbounded NCVS
and have been included in the survey estimates. After interview has always been included in analysis of the SCS
a household has been interviewed its seventh time, it data and may result in the reporting of events outside of
is replaced by a new sample household. In 2016, the the requested reference period.
household response rate was about 78 percent and the
completion rate for persons within households was about The prevalence of victimization for 1995, 1999, 2001,
84 percent. Weights were developed to permit estimates 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 was
for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. calculated by using NCVS incident variables appended
to the SCS data files of the same year. The NCVS type
Further information on the NCVS may be obtained from of crime variable was used to classify victimizations
of students in the SCS as serious violent, violent, or
Rachel E. Morgan theft. The NCVS variables asking where the incident
Victimization Statistics Branch
happened (at school) and what the victim was doing
Bureau of Justice Statistics
rachel.morgan@usdoj.gov when it happened (attending school or on the way to or
http://www.bjs.gov/ from school) were used to ascertain whether the incident
happened at school. Only incidents that occurred inside
the United States are included.
School Crime Supplement

Created as a supplement to the NCVS and co-designed In 2001, the SCS survey instrument was modified from
by the National Center for Education Statistics and previous collections. First, in 1995 and 1999, “at school”
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the School Crime Supplement was defined for respondents as in the school building,
(SCS) survey has been conducted in 1989, 1995, and on the school grounds, or on a school bus. In 2001, the
biennially since 1999 to collect additional information definition for “at school” was changed to mean in the
about school-related victimizations on a national level. school building, on school property, on a school bus,
The SCS was designed to assist policymakers, as well as or going to and from school. This change was made to
academic researchers and practitioners at federal, state, the 2001 questionnaire in order to be consistent with

198 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

the definition of “at school” as it is constructed in the respondents and nonrespondents—sex, race/ethnicity,
NCVS and was also used as the definition in subsequent household income, and urbanicity—all of which are
SCS collections. Cognitive interviews conducted by the associated with student victimization. To the extent that
U.S. Census Bureau on the 1999 SCS suggested that there are differential responses by respondents in these
modifications to the definition of “at school” would not groups, nonresponse bias is a concern.
have a substantial impact on the estimates.
In 2005, the analysis of unit nonresponse bias found
In terms of the numbers of students participating in the evidence of bias for the race, household income, and
SCS, 6,300 participated in 2005, 6,500 participated in urbanicity variables. White (non-Hispanic) and Other
2007, 5,000 participated in 2009, 6,500 in 2011, 5,700 (non-Hispanic) respondents had higher response rates
in 2013, and 4,700 in 2015. than Black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic respondents.
Respondents from households with an income of
In the 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 SCS, $35,000–$49,999 and $50,000 or more had higher
the household completion rates were 91 percent, response rates than those from households with incomes
90 percent, 92 percent, 91 percent, 86 percent, and of less than $7,500, $7,500–$14,999, $15,000–$24,999,
83 percent, respectively, and the student completion rates and $25,000–$34,999. Respon¬dents who live in urban
were 62 percent, 58 percent, 56 percent, 63 percent, areas had lower response rates than those who live in rural
60 percent, and 58 percent, respectively. The overall or suburban areas. Although the extent of nonresponse
SCS unit response rates (calculated by multiplying the bias cannot be determined, weighting adjustments, which
household completion rate by the student completion corrected for differential response rates, should have
rate) were about 56 percent in 2005, 53 percent in 2007, reduced the problem.
51 percent in 2009, 57 percent in 2011, 51 percent in
2013, and 48 percent in 2015. (Starting in 2011, overall In 2007, the analysis of unit nonresponse bias found
SCS unit response rates are weighted.) evidence of bias by the race/ethnicity and household
income variables. Hispanic respondents had lower
There are two types of nonresponse: unit and item response rates than other races/ethnicities. Respondents
nonresponse. NCES requires that any stage of data from households with an income of $25,000 or more had
collection within a survey that has a unit base-weighted higher response rates than those from households with
response rate of less than 85 percent be evaluated for
incomes of less than $25,000. However, when responding
the potential magnitude of unit nonresponse bias before
students are compared to the eligible NCVS sample, there
the data or any analysis using the data may be released
were no measurable differences between the responding
(NCES Statistical Standards, 2002, at https://nces.ed.gov/
statprog/2002/std4_4.asp). Due to the low unit response students and the eligible students, suggesting that the
rate in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, a nonresponse bias has little impact on the overall estimates.
unit nonresponse bias analysis was done. Unit response In 2009, the analysis of unit nonresponse bias found
rates indicate how many sampled units have completed
evidence of potential bias for the race/ethnicity and
interviews. Because interviews with students could only
urbanicity variables. White students and students of other
be completed after households had responded to the
races/ethnicities had higher response rates than did Black
NCVS, the unit completion rate for the SCS reflects both
the household interview completion rate and the student and Hispanic respondents. Respondents from households
interview completion rate. Nonresponse can greatly affect located in rural areas had higher response rates than those
the strength and application of survey data by leading from households located in urban areas. However, when
to an increase in variance as a result of a reduction in responding students are compared to the eligible NCVS
the actual size of the sample and can produce bias if the sample, there were no measurable differences between the
nonrespondents have characteristics of interest that are responding students and the eligible students, suggesting
different from the respondents. that the nonresponse bias has little impact on the overall
estimates.
In order for response bias to occur, respondents must
have different response rates and responses to particular In 2011, the analysis of unit nonresponse bias
survey variables. The magnitude of unit nonresponse bias found evidence of potential bias for the age variable.
is determined by the response rate and the differences Respondents 12 to 17 years old had higher response
between respondents and nonrespondents on key survey rates than did 18-year-old respondents in the NCVS and
variables. Although the bias analysis cannot measure SCS interviews. Weighting the data adjusts for unequal
response bias since the SCS is a sample survey and it is selection probabilities and for the effects of nonresponse.
not known how the population would have responded, The weighting adjustments that correct for differential
the SCS sampling frame has four key student or school response rates are created by region, age, race, and sex,
characteristic variables for which data are known for and should have reduced the effect of nonresponse.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 199 
In 2013, the analysis of unit nonresponse bias found For most survey items in most years of the SCS survey,
evidence of potential bias for the age variable in the SCS however, response rates have been high—typically over
respondent sample. Students age 14 and those from 97 percent of all eligible respondents, meaning there is
the western region showed percentage bias exceeding little potential for item nonresponse bias for most items
5 percent; however, both subgroups had the highest in the survey. Weights have been developed to compensate
response rate out of their respective categories. All for differential probabilities of selection and nonresponse.
other subgroups evaluated showed less than 1 percent The weighted data permit inferences about the eligible
nonresponse bias and had between 0.3 and 2.6 percent student population who were enrolled in schools in all
difference between the response population and the SCS data years.
eligible population.
Further information about the SCS may be obtained from
In the 2015 SCS, evidence of potential nonresponse
bias was found in the race, urbanicity, region, and age Rachel Hansen
subgroups. In addition, respondents in the age 14 and Sample Surveys Division
rural subgroups had significantly higher nonresponse Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch
bias estimates compared to other age and urbanicity National Center for Education Statistics
subgroups, while respondents who were Asian and 550 12th Street SW
respondents who were from the Northeast had Washington, DC 20202
significantly lower response bias estimates compared (202) 245-7082
to other race and region subgroups. Thus, the analysis rachel.hansen@ed.gov
indicates that there are significant nonresponse biases in https://nces.ed.gov/programs/crime
the 2015 SCS data and that caution should be used when
comparing responses among subgroups in the SCS.

200 Appendix A. Guide to Sources

Appendix B.
Glossary
A was originally published in 1980 and was revised in 1985,
1990, 2000, and 2010.
Achievement gap See Gap.
College A postsecondary school that offers general or
Advanced Placement (AP) A program of tertiary-level liberal arts education, usually leading to an associate’s,
courses and examinations, taught by specially qualified bachelor’s, master’s, or doctor’s degree. Junior colleges and
teachers, that provides opportunities for secondary school community colleges are included under this terminology.
students to earn undergraduate credits for university
courses. The schools and teachers offering AP programs Constant dollars Dollar amounts that have been adjusted
must meet College Board requirements and are monitored by means of price and cost indexes to eliminate inflationary
by the College Board. factors and allow direct comparison across years.

Associate’s degree A degree granted for the successful Consumer Price Index (CPI) This price index measures
completion of a sub-baccalaureate program of studies, the average change in the cost of a fixed market basket
usually requiring at least 2 years (or equivalent) of full- of goods and services purchased by consumers. Indexes
time college-level study. This includes degrees granted in a vary for specific areas or regions, periods of time, major
cooperative or work-study program. groups of consumer expenditures, and population groups.
The CPI reflects spending patterns for two population
B groups: (1) all urban consumers and urban wage earners
and (2) clerical workers. CPIs are calculated for both the
Bachelor’s degree A degree granted for the successful calendar year and the school year using the U.S. All Items
completion of a baccalaureate program of studies, usually CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The calendar year
requiring at least 4 years (or equivalent) of full-time CPI is the same as the annual CPI-U. The school year
college-level study. This includes degrees granted in a CPI is calculated by adding the monthly CPI-U figures,
cooperative or work-study program. beginning with July of the first year and ending with June
of the following year, and then dividing that figure by 12.
C
D
Career and technical education (CTE) In high
school, encompasses occupational education, which Degree-granting institutions Postsecondary institutions
teaches skills required in specific occupations or that are eligible for Title IV federal financial aid
occupational clusters, as well as nonoccupational CTE, programs and grant an associate’s or higher degree. For an
which includes family and consumer sciences education institution to be eligible to participate in Title IV financial
(i.e., courses that prepare students for roles outside the aid programs it must offer a program of at least 300 clock
paid labor market) and general labor market preparation hours in length, have accreditation recognized by the U.S.
(i.e., courses that teach general employment skills such as Department of Education, have been in business for at
word processing and introductory technology skills). least 2 years, and have signed a participation agreement
with the Department.
Certificate A formal award certifying the satisfactory
completion of a postsecondary education program. Disabilities, children with Those children evaluated
Certificates can be awarded at any level of postsecondary as having any of the following impairments and who,
education and include awards below the associate’s degree by reason thereof, receive special education and related
level. services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) according to an Individualized Education
Charter school See Public charter school. Program (IEP), Individualized Family Service Plan
(IFSP), or a services plan. There are local variations in the
Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) The determination of disability conditions, and not all states
CIP is a taxonomic coding scheme that contains titles use all reporting categories.
and descriptions of primarily postsecondary instructional
programs. It was developed to facilitate NCES’ collection Autism Having a developmental disability
and reporting of postsecondary degree completions by significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal
major field of study using standard classifications that communication and social interaction, generally
capture the majority of reportable program activity. It evident before age 3, that adversely affects

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 201 
 educational performance. Other characteristics often Orthopedic impairment Having a severe
associated with autism are engagement in repetitive orthopedic impairment which adversely affects a
activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to student’s educational performance. The term includes
environmental change or change in daily routines, impairment resulting from congenital anomaly,
and unusual responses to sensory experiences. A child disease, or other causes.
is not considered autistic if the child’s educational
performance is adversely affected primarily because of Other health impairment Having limited strength,
an emotional disturbance. vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute health
problems, such as a heart condition, tuberculosis,
Deaf-blindness Having concomitant hearing rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia,
and visual impairments which cause such severe hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia,
communication and other developmental and or diabetes which adversely affect the student’s
educational problems that the student cannot be educational performance.
accommodated in special education programs solely
Specific learning disability Having a disorder
for deaf or blind students.
in one or more of the basic psychological processes
Developmental delay Having developmental involved in understanding or in using spoken or
delays, as defined at the state level, and as measured by written language, which may manifest itself in an
appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
one or more of the following cognitive areas: physical spell, or do mathematical calculations. The term
development, cognitive development, communication includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities,
development, social or emotional development, or brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia,
adaptive development. Applies only to 3- through and developmental aphasia. The term does not
9-year-old children. include children who have learning problems which
are primarily the result of visual, hearing, motor, or
Emotional disturbance Exhibiting one or more intellectual disabilities, or of environmental, cultural,
of the following characteristics over a long period or economic disadvantage.
of time, to a marked degree, and adversely affecting
Speech or language impairment Having
educational performance: an inability to learn which
a communication disorder, such as stuttering,
cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health impaired articulation, language impairment, or voice
factors; an inability to build or maintain satisfactory impairment, which adversely affects the student’s
interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; educational performance.
inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under
normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of Traumatic brain injury Having an acquired injury
unhappiness or depression; or a tendency to develop to the brain caused by an external physical force,
physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or resulting in total or partial functional disability or
school problems. This term does not include children psychosocial impairment or both, that adversely affects
who are socially maladjusted, unless they also display the student’s educational performance. The term
one or more of the listed characteristics. applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in
impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition;
Hearing impairment Having a hearing impairment, language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract
whether permanent or fluctuating, which adversely thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory,
affects the student’s educational performance, but perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior;
which is not included under the definition of “deaf ” physical functions; information processing; and
in this section. speech. The term does not apply to brain injuries that
are congenital or degenerative or to brain injuries
Intellectual disability Having significantly induced by birth trauma.
subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing
concurrently with defects in adaptive behavior and Visual impairment Having a visual impairment
manifested during the developmental period, which which, even with correction, adversely affects the
adversely affects the child’s educational performance. student’s educational performance. The term includes
partially seeing and blind children.
Multiple disabilities Having concomitant
impairments (such as intellectually disabled-blind, Doctor’s degree The highest award a student can earn
intellectually disabled-orthopedically impaired, for graduate study. Includes such degrees as the Doctor
etc.), the combination of which causes such severe of Education (Ed.D.); the Doctor of Juridical Science
educational problems that the student cannot be (S.J.D.); the Doctor of Public Health (Dr.P.H.); and
accommodated in special education programs solely the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in any field, such as
for one of the impairments. Term does not include agronomy, food technology, education, engineering,
deaf-blind students. public administration, ophthalmology, or radiology.

202 Appendix B. Glossary

Dropout The term is used to describe both the event of the English language to be denied the opportunity to
leaving school before completing high school and the learn successfully in classrooms where the language of
status of an individual who is not in school and who is instruction is English or to participate fully in the larger
not a high school completer. High school completers U.S. society. Such an individual (1) was not born in the
include both graduates of school programs as well as those United States or has a native language other than English;
completing high school through equivalency programs (2) comes from environments where a language other
such as the GED program. Transferring from a public than English is dominant; or (3) is an American Indian
school to a private school, for example, is not regarded as or Alaska Native and comes from environments where a
a dropout event. A person who drops out of school may language other than English has had a significant impact
later return and graduate but is called a “dropout” at the on the individual’s level of English language proficiency.
time he or she leaves school. Measures to describe these
behaviors include the event dropout rate (or the closely Enrollment The total number of students registered in
related school persistence rate), the status dropout rate, a given school unit at a given time, generally in the fall
and the high school completion rate. of a year. At the postsecondary level, separate counts are
also available for full-time and part-time students, as well
E as full-time-equivalent enrollment. See also Full-time
enrollment and Part-time enrollment.
Educational attainment The highest grade of regular
Expulsion Removing a student from his or her regular
school attended and completed.
school for an extended length of time or permanently for
Educational attainment (Current Population disciplinary purposes.
Survey) This measure uses March CPS data to estimate
the percentage of civilian, noninstitutionalized people F
who have achieved certain levels of educational
attainment. Estimates of educational attainment do not Fields of study The primary field of concentration in
differentiate between those who graduated from public postsecondary certificates and degrees. In the Integrated
schools, those who graduated from private schools, and Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), refers to
those who earned a GED; these estimates also include degree programs that are broken out only to the 2-digit
individuals who earned their credential or completed level of the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP).
their highest level of education outside of the United
States. Respondents are asked to report their highest level Financial aid Grants, loans, assistantships, scholarships,
of school completed or their highest degree received by fellowships, tuition waivers, tuition discounts, veteran’s
choosing one of the following categories: benefits, employer aid (tuition reimbursement), and other
monies (other than from relatives or friends) provided
ƒƒ High school graduate, high school diploma, or the
to students to help them meet expenses. Except where
equivalent (e.g., GED)
ƒƒ S ome college but no degree designated, includes Title IV subsidized and unsubsidized
ƒƒ A ssociate’s degree in college, occupational/ loans made directly to students.
vocational program
ƒƒ A ssociate’s degree in college, academic program First-time student (undergraduate) A student who
(e.g., A.A., A.S., A.A.S.) has no prior postsecondary experience (except as noted
ƒƒ B achelor’s degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S.) below) attending any institution for the first time at the
ƒƒ Master’s degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M.Eng., M.Ed., undergraduate level. Includes students enrolled in the fall
M.S.W., M.B.A.) term who attended college for the first time in the prior
ƒƒ Professional school degree (e.g., M.D., D.D.S., summer term, and students who entered with advanced
D.V.M., LL.B., J.D.) standing (college credits earned before graduation from
ƒƒ Doctor’s degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) high school).

Elementary school A school classified as elementary For-profit institution See Private institution.
by state and local practice and composed of any span of
grades not above grade 8. Full-time enrollment The number of students enrolled
in postsecondary education courses with total credit load
Employment status A classification of individuals as equal to at least 75 percent of the normal full-time course
employed (either full or part time), unemployed (looking for load. At the undergraduate level, full-time enrollment
work or on layoff), or not in the labor force (due to being typically includes students who have a credit load of 12 or
retired, having unpaid employment, or some other reason). more semester or quarter credits. At the postbaccalaureate
level, full-time enrollment includes students who typically
English language learner (ELL) An individual who, have a credit load of 9 or more semester or quarter credits,
due to any of the reasons listed below, has sufficient as well as other students who are considered full time by
difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding their institutions.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 203 
G Institutionalized group quarters Include adult and
juvenile correctional facilities, nursing facilities, and
Gap Occurs when an outcome—for example, average test other health care facilities.
score or level of educational attainment—is higher for one
group than for another group, and the difference between H
the two groups’ outcomes is statistically significant.
High school completer An individual who has
GED certificate This award is received following successful been awarded a high school diploma or an equivalent
completion of the GED test. The GED program— credential, including a GED certificate.
sponsored by the GED Testing Service (a joint venture of
the American Council on Education and Pearson)—enables High school diploma A formal document regulated
individuals to demonstrate that they have acquired a level by the state certifying the successful completion of a
of learning comparable to that of high school graduates. See prescribed secondary school program of studies. In
also High school equivalency certificate. some states or communities, high school diplomas are
differentiated by type, such as an academic diploma, a
Geographic region One of the four regions of the
United States used by the U.S. Census Bureau, as follows: general diploma, or a vocational diploma.

High school equivalency certificate A formal

Northeast Midwest document certifying that an individual has met the state
Connecticut (CT) Illinois (IL)
Maine (ME) Indiana (IN) requirements for high school graduation equivalency by
Massachusetts (MA) Iowa (IA) obtaining satisfactory scores on an approved examination
New Hampshire (NH) Kansas (KS)
New Jersey (NJ) Michigan (MI)
and meeting other performance requirements (if any) set
New York (NY) Minnesota (MN) by a state education agency or other appropriate body.
Pennsylvania (PA) Missouri (MO) One particular version of this certificate is the GED test.
Rhode Island (RI) Nebraska (NE)
Vermont (VT) North Dakota (ND) The GED test is a comprehensive test used primarily to
Ohio (OH) appraise the educational development of students who
South Dakota (SD) have not completed their formal high school education
Wisconsin (WI)
and who may earn a high school equivalency certificate
South West by achieving satisfactory scores. GEDs are awarded by
Alabama (AL) Alaska (AK)
Arkansas (AR) Arizona (AZ) the states or other agencies, and the test is developed and
Delaware (DE) California (CA) distributed by the GED Testing Service (a joint venture of
District of Columbia (DC) Colorado (CO) the American Council on Education and Pearson).
Florida (FL) Hawaii (HI)
Georgia (GA) Idaho (ID)
Kentucky (KY)
Louisiana (LA)
Montana (MT)
Nevada (NV)
I
Maryland (MD) New Mexico (NM)
Mississippi (MS) Oregon (OR) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
North Carolina (NC) Utah (UT) IDEA is a federal law enacted in 1990 and reauthorized
Oklahoma (OK) Washington (WA)
South Carolina (SC) Wyoming (WY) in 1997 and 2004. IDEA requires services to children
Tennessee (TN) with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs
Texas (TX) how states and public agencies provide early intervention,
Virginia (VA)
West Virginia (WV) special education, and related services to eligible infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Infants and
Graduate An individual who has received formal toddlers with disabilities (birth–age 2) and their families
recognition for the successful completion of a prescribed receive early intervention services under IDEA, Part C.
program of studies. Children and youth (ages 3–21) receive special education
and related services under IDEA, Part B.
Group quarters Living arrangements where people live
or stay in a group situation that is owned or managed
International Baccalaureate (IB) A recognized
by an entity or organization providing housing and/or
international program of primary, middle, and secondary
services for the residents. Group quarters include such
studies leading to the International Baccalaureate (IB)
places as college residence halls, residential treatment
Diploma. This diploma (or certificate) is recognized in
centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military
barracks, correctional facilities, and workers’ dormitories. Europe and elsewhere as qualifying holders for direct
access to university studies. Schools offering the IB
Noninstitutionalized group quarters Include program are approved by the International Baccalaureate
college and university housing, military quarters, Organization (IBO) and their regional office and may use
facilities for workers and religious groups, and IBO instructional materials, local school materials, or a
temporary shelters for the homeless. combination.

204 Appendix B. Glossary

L Postbaccalaureate enrollment The number of
students working towards advanced degrees and of
Labor force People employed (either full time or part students enrolled in graduate-level classes but not enrolled
time) as civilians, unemployed but looking for work, or in in degree programs.
the armed services during the survey week. The “civilian
labor force” comprises all civilians classified as employed Postsecondary education The provision of formal
or unemployed. instructional programs with a curriculum designed
primarily for students who have completed the
requirements for a high school diploma or equivalent.
M This includes programs of an academic, vocational, and
continuing professional education purpose, and excludes
Master’s degree A degree awarded for successful
avocational and adult basic education programs.
completion of a program generally requiring 1 or 2 years
of full-time college-level study beyond the bachelor’s Postsecondary institutions (basic classification by
degree. One type of master’s degree, including the level)
Master of Arts degree, or M.A., and the Master of
Science degree, or M.S., is awarded in the liberal arts 4-year institution An institution offering at least
and sciences for advanced scholarship in a subject field or a 4-year program of college-level studies wholly or
principally creditable toward a baccalaureate degree.
discipline and demonstrated ability to perform scholarly
research. A second type of master’s degree is awarded for 2-year institution An institution offering at least
the completion of a professionally oriented program, for a 2-year program of college-level studies which
example, an M.Ed. in education, an M.B.A. in business terminates in an associate degree or is principally
administration, an M.F.A. in fine arts, an M.M. in creditable toward a baccalaureate degree. Data prior to
music, an M.S.W. in social work, and an M.P.A. in public 1996 include some institutions that have a less-than-
administration. Some master’s degrees—such as divinity 2-year program, but were designated as institutions
degrees (M.Div. or M.H.L./Rav), which were formerly of higher education in the Higher Education General
classified as “first-professional”—may require more than Information Survey.
2 years of full-time study beyond the bachelor’s degree. Less-than-2-year An institution that offers programs
of less than 2 years’ duration below the baccalaureate
Median earnings The amount which divides the income level. Includes occupational and vocational schools
distribution into two equal groups, half having income with programs that do not exceed 1,800 contact hours.
above that amount and half having income below that
amount. Earnings include all wage and salary income. Poverty (official measure) The U.S. Census Bureau
Unlike mean earnings, median earnings either do not uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family
change or change very little in response to extreme size and composition. A family, along with each individual
observations. in it, is considered poor if the family’s total income is
less than that family’s threshold. The poverty thresholds
do not vary geographically and are adjusted annually for
N inflation using the Consumer Price Index. The official
poverty definition counts money income before taxes and
Nonprofit institution See Private institution.
does not include capital gains and noncash benefits (such
Nursery school An instructional program for groups of as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). See also
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
children during the year or years preceding kindergarten
that provides educational experiences under the direction Prekindergarten Preprimary education for children
of teachers. typically ages 3–4 who have not yet entered kindergarten.
It may offer a program of general education or special
P education and may be part of a collaborative effort with
Head Start.
Part-time enrollment The number of students enrolled
in postsecondary education courses with a total credit load Preschool An instructional program enrolling children
less than 75 percent of the normal full-time credit load. generally younger than 5 years of age and organized to
At the undergraduate level, part-time enrollment typically provide children with educational experiences under
includes students who have a credit load of less than professionally qualified teachers during the year or years
12 semester or quarter credits. At the postbaccalaureate immediately preceding kindergarten (or prior to entry into
level, part-time enrollment typically includes students who elementary school when there is no kindergarten). See also
have a credit load of less than 9 semester or quarter credits. Nursery school and Prekindergarten.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 205 
Private institution An institution that is controlled by Nonsectarian Schools that do not have a religious
an individual or agency other than a state, a subdivision orientation or purpose and are categorized according
of a state, or the federal government, which is usually to program emphasis, provided by respondents, into
supported primarily by other than public funds, and the regular, special emphasis, and special education
operation of whose program rests with other than publicly schools. Regular schools are those that have a regular
elected or appointed officials. elementary/secondary or early childhood program
emphasis. Special emphasis schools are those that have
Private nonprofit institution An institution in a Montessori, vocational/technical, alternative, or
which the individual(s) or agency in control receives special program emphasis. Special education schools are
no compensation other than wages, rent, or other those that have a special education program emphasis.
expenses for the assumption of risk. These include
Public charter school A school providing free public
both independent nonprofit institutions and those
affiliated with a religious organization. elementary and/or secondary education to eligible students
under a specific charter granted by the state legislature
Private for-profit institution An institution in or other appropriate authority, and designated by such
which the individual(s) or agency in control receives authority to be a charter school.
compensation other than wages, rent, or other
Public school or institution A school or institution
expenses for the assumption of risk (e.g., proprietary
schools). controlled and operated by publicly elected or appointed
officials and deriving its primary support from public funds.
Private school Private elementary/secondary schools
surveyed by the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) R
are assigned to one of three major categories (Catholic,
other religious, or nonsectarian) and, within each major Racial/ethnic group Classification indicating general
category, one of three subcategories based on the school’s racial or ethnic heritage. Race/ethnicity data are based
religious affiliation provided by respondents. on the Hispanic ethnic category and the race categories
listed below (five single-race categories, plus the Two or
Catholic Schools categorized according to more races category). Race categories exclude persons of
governance, provided by Catholic school respondents, Hispanic ethnicity unless otherwise noted.
into parochial, diocesan, and private schools.
White A person having origins in any of the original
Other religious Schools that have a religious peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
orientation or purpose but are not Roman Catholic.
Black or African American A person having origins
Other religious schools are categorized according
in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Used
to religious association membership, provided by interchangeably with the shortened term Black.
respondents, into Conservative Christian, other
affiliated, and unaffiliated schools. Conservative Hispanic or Latino A person of Cuban, Mexican,
Christian schools are those “Other religious” schools Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other
with membership in at least one of four associations: Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Used
Accelerated Christian Education, American interchangeably with the shortened term Hispanic.
Association of Christian Schools, Association of
Christian Schools International, and Oral Roberts Asian A person having origins in any of the original
University Education Fellowship. Affiliated schools peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian
are those “Other religious” schools not classified subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia,
as Conservative Christian with membership in at China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the
least 1 of 11 associations—Association of Christian Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Prior
Teachers and Schools, Christian Schools International, to 2010–11, the Common Core of Data (CCD)
Evangelical Lutheran Education Association, Friends combined Asian and Pacific Islander categories.
Council on Education, General Conference of the
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander A
Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Islamic School League
person having origins in any of the original peoples
of America, National Association of Episcopal Schools,
of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
National Christian School Association, National Prior to 2010–11, the Common Core of Data (CCD)
Society for Hebrew Day Schools, Solomon Schechter combined Asian and Pacific Islander categories. Used
Day Schools, and Southern Baptist Association of interchangeably with the shortened term Pacific Islander.
Christian Schools—or indicating membership in
“other religious school associations.” Unaffiliated American Indian or Alaska Native A person having
schools are those “Other religious” schools that have a origins in any of the original peoples of North and
religious orientation or purpose but are not classified as South America (including Central America), and who
Conservative Christian or affiliated. maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

206 Appendix B. Glossary

 Two or more races A person identifying himself or STEM fields Science, Technology, Engineering, and
herself as of two or more of the following race groups: Mathematics (STEM) fields of study that are considered
White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific to be of particular relevance to advanced societies. For the
Islander, or American Indian or Alaska Native. Some, purposes of Status and Trends in the Education of Racial
but not all, reporting districts use this category. “Two and Ethnic Groups 2018, STEM fields include biological
or more races” was introduced in the 2000 Census and biomedical sciences, computer and information
and became a regular category for data collection in sciences, engineering and engineering technologies,
mathematics and statistics, and physical sciences and
the Current Population Survey (CPS) in 2003. The science technologies. STEM occupations include
category is sometimes excluded from a historical computer scientists and mathematicians; engineers and
series of data with constant categories. It is sometimes architects; life, physical, and social scientists; medical
included within the category “Other.” professionals; and managers of STEM activities.
Retention in grade Retaining a student in the same Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) An alternative
grade from one school year to the next. measure of poverty that supplements the U.S. Census
Bureau’s official poverty measure by adding to family
S income the value of benefits—including nutritional
assistance, housing subsidies, and home energy
Secondary school A school comprising any span assistance—from many government programs designed
of grades beginning with the next grade following an to assist those with low incomes, subtracting taxes and
elementary or middle school (usually 7, 8, or 9) and necessary expenses such as child care costs (for working
families) and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and
ending with or below grade 12. Both junior high schools adjusting poverty thresholds for geographic differences in
and senior high schools are included. housing costs. See also Poverty (official measure).
Status dropout rate (American Community Survey) Suspension Temporarily removing a student from his or
Similar to the status dropout rate (Current Population her regular classroom (an in-school suspension) or from
Survey), except that institutionalized persons, incarcerated his or her regular school (an out-of-school suspension)
persons, and active duty military personnel living in generally for disciplinary purposes.
barracks in the United States may be included in this
calculation. T
Status dropout rate (Current Population Survey) The Traditional public school Publicly funded schools other
percentage of civilian, noninstitutionalized young people than public charter schools. See also Public school or
ages 16–24 who are not in school and have not earned a institution and Charter school.
high school credential (either a diploma or equivalency Transcript An official list of all courses taken by a student
credential such as a GED certificate). The numerator of at a school or college showing the final grade received for
the status dropout rate for a given year is the number of each course, with definitions of the various grades given at
individuals ages 16–24 who, as of October of that year, the institution.
have not completed a high school credential and are not
currently enrolled in school. The denominator is the total U
number of individuals ages 16–24 in the United States in
Undergraduate students Students registered at an
October of that year. Status dropout rates also count the
institution of postsecondary education who are working in
following individuals as dropouts: those who never attended a baccalaureate degree program or other formal program
school and immigrants who did not complete the equivalent below the baccalaureate, such as an associate’s degree,
of a high school education in their home country. vocational, or technical program.

Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018 207 
This page intentionally left blank.
www.ed.gov ies.ed.gov