University of California
Agricultura y Recursos Naturales

Posts Tagged: poverty

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that real median household income increased by 3.2 percent between 2015 and 2016, while the official poverty rate decreased 0.8 percentage points. At the same time, the percentage of people without health insurance coverage decreased.

Median household income in the United States in 2016 was $59,039, an increase in real terms of 3.2 percent from the 2015 median income of $57,230. This is the second consecutive annual increase in median household income.

The nation's official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.7 percent, with 40.6 million people in poverty, 2.5 million fewer than in 2015. The 0.8 percentage point decrease from 2015 to 2016 represents the second consecutive annual decline in poverty. The 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from the 2007 rate (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession.

The percentage of people without health insurance coverage for the entire 2016 calendar year was 8.8 percent, down from 9.1 percent in 2015. The number of people without health insurance declined to 28.1 million from 29.0 million over the period.

These findings are contained in two reports: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016. This year's income and poverty report marks the 50th anniversary of the first poverty estimates released by the Census Bureau in the Current Population report series.

Another Census Bureau report, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2016, was also released today. The supplemental poverty rate in 2016 was 13.9 percent, a decrease from 14.5 percent in 2015. With support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Supplemental Poverty Measure shows a different way of measuring poverty in the United States and serves as an additional indicator of economic well-being. The Census Bureau has published poverty estimates using the supplemental poverty measure annually since 2011.

The Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, is conducted every month and is the primary source of labor force statistics for the U.S. population; it is used to calculate the monthly unemployment rate estimates. Supplements are added in most months; the Annual Social and Economic Supplement questionnaire is designed to give annual, national estimates of income, poverty and health insurance numbers and rates. The most recent Annual Social and Economic Supplementwas conducted nationwide and collected information about income and health insurance coverage during the 2016 calendar year.

The Current Population Survey-based income and poverty report includes comparisons with the previous year and historical tables in the report contain statistics back to 1959. The health insurance report is based on both the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey. State and local income, poverty and health insurance estimates will be released Thursday, Sept. 14, from the American Community Survey.

Income

  • Real median incomes in 2016 for family households ($75,062) and nonfamily households ($35,761) increased 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, from their 2015 medians. This is the second consecutive annual increase in median household income for both types of households. The differences between the 2015 to 2016 percentage changes in median income for family and nonfamily households was not statistically significant.  

Race and Hispanic Origin

(Race data refer to people reporting a single race only; Hispanics can be of any race.)

  • The real median income of non-Hispanic white ($65,041), black ($39,490), and Hispanic ($47,675) households increased 2.0 percent, 5.7 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, between 2015 and 2016. This is the second annual increase in median household income for these households.
  • Among the race groups, Asian households had the highest median income in 2016 ($81,431). The 2015 to 2016 percentage change in their real median income was not statistically significant.
  • The differences between the 2015 to 2016 percentage changes in median income for non-Hispanic white, black, Hispanic, and Asian households were not statistically significant.

Regions

  • Households in the South and West experienced an increase in real median income of 3.9 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively, between 2015 and 2016. The changes in incomes of households in the Northeast and Midwest were not statistically significant.  
  • Households with the highest median household incomes were in the Northeast ($64,390) and the West ($64,275), followed by the Midwest ($58,305) and the South ($53,861). The difference between the median household incomes for the Northeast and West was not statistically significant.
  • The difference between the 2015 to 2016 percentage changes in median income for households in all regions were not statistically significant.

Earnings

  • The 2016 real median earnings of men ($51,640) and women ($41,554) who worked full- time, year-round were not statistically different from their respective 2015 medians.   
  • The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.805, an increase of 1.1 percent from the 2015 ratio of 0.796. This is the first time the female-to-male earnings ratio has experienced an annual increase since 2007.
  • Between 2015 and 2016, the total number of people with earnings increased by about 1.2 million. In addition, the total number of full-time, year-round workers increased by 2.2 million between 2015 and 2016, suggesting a shift from part-year, part-time work status to full-time, year-round work status. The difference between the 2015 to 2016 increases in the number of men and women full-time, year-round workers was not statistically significant.
  • An estimated 74.8 percent of working men with earnings and 62.2 percent of working women with earnings worked full-time, year-round in 2016; both percentages were higher than the 2015 estimates of 73.9 percent and 61.3 percent, respectively.

Income Inequality

  •  The Gini index was 0.481 in 2016; the change from 2015 was not statistically significant. Developed more than a century ago, the Gini index is the most common measure of household income inequality used by economists, with 0.0 representing total income equality and 1.0 equivalent to total inequality.
  • The share of aggregate household income in the fourth quintile decreased 1.3 percent between 2015 and 2016, while changes in the shares of other quintiles were not statistically significant.

Poverty

  • The poverty rate for families in 2016 was 9.8 percent, representing 8.1 million families, a decline from 10.4 percent and 8.6 million families in 2015.
  • For most demographic groups, the number of people in poverty decreased from 2015. Adults age 65 and older were the only major population group to see an increase in the number of people in poverty.

Thresholds

Sex

  • In 2016, 11.3 percent of males were in poverty, down from 12.2 percent in 2015. About 14.0 percent of females were in poverty in 2016, down from 14.8 percent in 2015.
  • Gender differences in poverty rates were more pronounced for those ages 18 to 64. The poverty rate for women ages 18 to 64 was 13.4 percent, while the poverty rate for men ages 18 to 64 was 9.7 percent. The poverty rate for women age 65 and older was 10.6 percent, while the poverty rate for men age 65 and older was 7.6 percent. 

Race and Hispanic Origin

(Race data refer to people reporting a single race only; Hispanics can be of any race.)

  • The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was 8.8 percent in 2016 with 17.3 million individuals in poverty. Neither the poverty rate nor the number in poverty was statistically different from 2015. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 61.0 percent of the total population and 42.5 percent of the people in poverty.
  • The poverty rate for blacks decreased to 22.0 percent in 2016, from 24.1 percent in 2015. The number of blacks in poverty decreased to 9.2 million, down from 10.0 million.
  • The poverty rate for Hispanics decreased to 19.4 percent in 2016, down from 21.4 percent in 2015. The number of Hispanics in poverty decreased to 11.1 million, down from 12.1 million.
  • Asians did not experience a statistically significant change in their poverty rates nor in the number of people in poverty between 2015 and 2016.

Age

  • In 2016, 18.0 percent of children under age 18 (13.3 million) were in poverty, down from 19.7 percent and 14.5 million in 2015. Children represented 23.0 percent of the total population and 32.6 percent of the people in poverty.
  • In 2016, 11.6 percent of people ages 18 to 64 (22.8 million) were in poverty, down from 12.4 percent and 24.4 million in 2015.
  • In 2016, 9.3 percent of people age 65 and older were in poverty, statistically unchanged from 2015. The number in poverty increased from 4.2 million to 4.6 million between 2015 and 2016.

Regions

  • In 2016, the poverty rate and the number in poverty decreased in the Northeast from 12.4 percent (6.9 million) in 2015 to 10.8 percent (6.0 million) and in the South from 15.3 percent (18.3 million) in 2015 to 14.1 percent (17.0 million). The Midwest and West did not experience a significant change in the poverty rate or the number in poverty between 2015 and 2016.

Shared Households

Shared households are defined as households that include at least one “additional” adult, a person age 18 or older, who is not the householder, spouse or cohabiting partner of the householder. Adults ages 18 to 24 who are enrolled in school are not counted as additional adults.

  • In 2017, the number and percentage of shared households remained higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. In 2007, 17.0 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 19.7 million households. In 2017, 19.4 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 24.6 million households.
  • Of young adults ages 25 to 34, 16.1 percent (7.1 million) lived with their parents in 2017, neither estimate was statistically different from 2016.

Supplemental Poverty Measure

The supplemental poverty measure extends the official poverty measure by taking into account many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure.

The supplemental poverty measure released today shows:

  • The supplemental poverty rate decreased 0.6 percentage points in 2016 to 13.9 percent, from 14.5 percent in 2015.
  • The supplemental poverty rate for 2016 was 1.2 percentage points higher than the official poverty rate of 12.7 percent.
  • There were 44.6 million people in poverty in 2016 using the supplemental poverty measure (13.9 percent), higher than the 40.7 million (12.7 percent) using the official poverty definition with the supplemental poverty measure universe.
  • While the supplemental poverty rate declined for many groups, individuals age 65 and over experienced a statistically significant increase, from 13.7 percent in 2015 to 14.5 percent in 2016.
  • When tax credits and noncash benefits results are included, this results in lower poverty rates for some groups. For instance, the supplemental poverty rate was lower for children than the official rate: 15.1 percent compared with 18.0 percent.

While the official poverty measure includes only pretax money income, the supplemental poverty measure adds the value of in-kind benefits, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, school lunches, housing assistance and refundable tax credits.

Additionally, the supplemental poverty measure deducts necessary expenses for critical goods and services from income. Expenses that are deducted include: taxes, child care, commuting expenses, contributions toward the cost of medical care and health insurance premiums and child support paid to another household. The supplemental poverty measure permits the examination of the effects of government transfers on poverty estimates. For example, not including refundable tax credits (the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit) in resources, the poverty rate for all people would have been 16.5 percent rather than 13.9 percent. The supplemental poverty measure does not replace the official poverty measure and will not be used to determine eligibility for government programs.

Health Insurance Coverage

  • The Current Population Survey shows that the percentage of people with health insurance coverage for all or part of 2016 was 91.2 percent, 0.3 percentage points higher than the rate in 2015 (90.9 percent). Over time, changes in the rate of health insurance coverage and the distribution of coverage types may reflect economic trends, shifts in the demographic composition of the population, and policy changes that affect access to health care. Several such policy changes occurred in 2014 when many provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act went into effect.
  • In 2016, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than government coverage, at 67.5 percent and 37.3 percent, respectively. Neither the private coverage rate nor government coverage rate had a statistically significant change from 2015.
  • Of the subtypes of health insurance coverage, employer-based insurance covered 55.7 percent of the population for some or all of the calendar year, followed by Medicaid (19.4 percent), Medicare (16.7 percent), direct-purchase (16.2 percent) and military coverage (4.6 percent).
  • Medicare was the only subtype of health insurance that experienced a statistically significant change between 2015 and 2016. The rate of Medicare coverage increased by 0.4 percentage points, from 16.3 percent in 2015 to 16.7 percent in 2016. This increase was likely due to growth in the number of people age 65 and over and not to changes in Medicare coverage rates within any particular age group.

Age

  • According to the American Community Survey, between 2015 and 2016, the percentage of people without health insurance coverage dropped for most ages under 65, with generally larger decreases for working-age adults (ages 19 to 64).

Race and Hispanic Origin

(Race data refer to people reporting a single race only; Hispanics can be of any race.)

  • In 2016, non-Hispanic whites had the lowest uninsured rate among race and Hispanic origin groups at 6.3 percent. The uninsured rates for blacks and Asians were 10.5 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively. Hispanics had the highest uninsured rate at 16.0 percent. 
  • According to the American Community Survey, in 2016, the state with the lowest percentage of people without health insurance at the time of the interview was Massachusetts (2.5 percent), while the highest uninsured rate was in Texas (16.6 percent).
  • The American Community Survey also showed that between 2015 and 2016, the uninsured rate decreased in 39 states. The declines for the states ranged from 0.3 percentage points (Massachusetts) to 3.5 percentage points (Montana). Eleven states and the District of Columbia did not have a statistically significant change in their uninsured rate.

States

  • According to the American Community Survey, in 2016, the state with the lowest percentage of people without health insurance at the time of the interview was Massachusetts (2.5 percent), while the highest uninsured rate was in Texas (16.6 percent).
  • The American Community Survey also showed that between 2015 and 2016, the uninsured rate decreased in 39 states. The declines for the states ranged from 0.3 percentage points (Massachusetts) to 3.5 percentage points (Montana). Eleven states and the District of Columbia did not have a statistically significant change in their uninsured rate.

State and Local Estimates From the American Community Survey

On Thursday, Sept. 14, the Census Bureau will release 2016 single-year estimates of median household income, poverty and health insurance for all states, counties, places and other geographic units with populations of 65,000 or more from the American Community Survey. These statistics will include numerous social, economic and housing characteristics, such as language, education, commuting, employment, mortgage status and rent. Later today, subscribers will be able to access these estimates on an embargoed basis.

The American Community Survey provides a wide range of important statistics about people and housing for every community (i.e., census tracts or neighborhoods) across the nation. The results are used by everyone from town and city planners to retailers and homebuilders. The survey is the only source of local estimates for most of the 40 topics it covers.

The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement is subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the report have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

For additional information on the source of the data and accuracy of the Income, Poverty and Health Insurance estimates, visit <www2.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259sa.pdf>.

 

Source: Published originally on United States Census Bureau,Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016 ,  Release Number: CB17-156

Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 10:27 AM
  • Author: United States Census Bureau

Poverty increasing for Latinos in Sonoma

Latinos are twice as likely to live in poverty as white residents in Sonoma County, where one in five Latinos live at or below the federal poverty level in the aftermath of the recession, according to new estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

During the five-year period ending in 2014, an average of 19.6 percent of Latinos in Sonoma County lived at or below the poverty line, compared to 9.3 percent of white residents. In 2014, the federal poverty level was $14,580 for an individual and $29,820 for a family of four.

The figures show that poverty increased in Sonoma County for both Latinos and whites. During the previous five-year period, between 2005 and 2009, an average of 15.1 percent of Latinos and 7.4 percent of whites lived at or below the government's official poverty threshold.

The statistics alone do not adequately shed light on the issue of poverty in Sonoma County, said Tim Reese, executive director of Community Action Partnership of Sonoma County, a local nonprofit group that provides services to low-income residents.

“Many of the poor in our community are hidden from our view,” Reese said, adding that some may be agricultural workers who live in “out-of-sight” rural housing, while others may be undocumented immigrants who are living “off the grid” because of their status.

Meanwhile, poverty and living- wage advocates argue that the official poverty threshold doesn't adequately describe the size of the local population, Latino and otherwise, who are struggling economically.

One southwest Santa Rosa mother said the $28,000 a year her husband makes working as a landscaper often leaves the family of four unable to cover their $1,450 monthly rent.

“The rest goes to pay bills like water, electricity, garbage, cellphone,” said Veronica, who spoke on condition that her last name be withheld because she is an undocumented immigrant. “What little is left goes to pay for food. There's no money for extras such as eating out.”

The couple, who are originally from Mexico, have a 19-month-old girl and a 2-year-old boy. Both have asthma, and the boy suffers from a severe skin condition. Veronica participates in Community Action Partnership's AVANCE program, which teaches her crucial parenting skills, while her boy is in a program called Pasitos, aimed at providing toddlers with the necessary tools to succeed in preschool and beyond.

Oscar Chavez, assistant director of the county Human Services Department, predicted that economic disparities between white and Latino residents will have increasingly adverse effects on the local community as Latinos continue to become a larger share of the overall population. Education is the single most important battlefront in efforts to reduce poverty in Sonoma County, he said.

“Latinos earn $15,000 less than whites and are further behind in educational attainment,” Chavez said, citing a 2014 county report, titled “A Portrait of Sonoma County.”

In 2013, 23 percent of Latinos in Sonoma County between the ages of 19 and 24 did not have a high school diploma compared to 3 percent of white residents in the same age group.

“Closing the achievement gap is not only key to help our youth realize their full potential but also crucial to the well-being of our community and economic competitiveness,” Chavez said.

Chavez said that a continued decline in middle-wage jobs has created a “bifurcated job market, where we are seeing wage growth at the top and stagnation at the bottom, leaving little opportunity for the working poor to climb the wage ladder.”

He said that investing in early childhood education, raising high school graduation rates and providing the necessary training for Latinos to access higher-skilled jobs will greatly improve economic opportunities for Latinos in the county.

Veronica said that as hard as life is in the United States, she remains here because she believes her U.S.-born children can have a better life, free of the type of violence currently plaguing Mexico. To that end, she said, she and her children are learning the skills necessary to get ahead.

Source: Published originally on The Press Democrat as Poverty increasing for Latinos in Sonoma byMartin Espinoza, December 28, 2015.

Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:20 AM

Foreign-born share falls among 14 largest U.S. Hispanic origin groups

The nation's Hispanic population has long been characterized by its immigrant roots. But as immigration from Latin America slows, the immigrant share among each of the nation's Hispanic origin groups is in decline, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

The foreign-born share of Salvadorans, for example, fell from 76% in 2000 to 59% in 2013—the largest percentage point decline of any of the six largest Hispanic origin groups. Similarly, Dominicans, Guatemalans, and Colombians all had decreases of over 13 percentage points in their foreign-born shares over the same period. Mexicans, the nation's largest Hispanic origin group, also saw a decline, though it was only 8 percentage points since 2000. A decline is underway among smaller Hispanic origin groups, too. Overall, the share of the Hispanic population that is foreign born has decreased from 40% in 2000 to 35% in 2013.

Despite falling immigrant shares across all Latino origin groups, fast Latino population growth has led to continued growth in the number of Latino immigrants (though growth has slowed in recent years). Among all Latinos, there were 14.1 million immigrants in 2000. By 2005, that number reached 16.8 million, and by 2013, there were 19 million Latino immigrants in the U.S. The same pattern is present among all Latino origin groups, though for three—Ecuadorians, Mexicans and Nicaraguans—the number of immigrants has declined since 2010.

Diverse Origins

The nation's Latino population is its largest minority group, numbering more than 53 million, or 17.1% of the U.S. population, in 2013.

It is also diverse in a number of ways. While Mexicans are by far the largest origin group at 34.6 million (making up 64.1% of all U.S. Latinos), the nation's Latinos trace their roots to every part of Latin America. For example, Puerto Ricans are the second-largest Latino origin group and represent about 9.5% of all U.S. Latinos. Beyond these two groups, no other makes up more than 5% of the U.S. Latino population. Cubans and Salvadorans, the two next largest groups, each make up just under 4% of the Latino population, with populations of about 2 million each.

Even though the foreign-born share is declining among each Hispanic origin group, the share that is foreign born varies widely across them. Venezuelans had the highest foreign-born share, at 69% in 2013. They are followed by Peruvians at 65%, Guatemalans at 64% and Hondurans at 63%. Only Mexicans (33%), Spaniards (14%) and Puerto Ricans (2%) have foreign-born shares of less than half of their total population.

When it comes to U.S. citizenship, about three-in-four Hispanics (76%) are either U.S.-born (65%) or naturalized U.S. citizens (11%). Among the origin groups, those with the highest citizenship rates are Puerto Ricans (99%), Spaniards (93%), Cubans (76%) and Mexicans (75%). By comparison, Hondurans and Guatemalans have the lowest rates of citizenship, at about 50%.

The 14 largest Hispanic origin groups differ in other ways, too. Mexicans, for example, have the lowest median age, at 26 in 2013, while Cubans are the oldest with a median age of 40. Hispanics on the whole are younger than the general U.S. population, with median ages of 28 and 37, respectively.

In terms of educational attainment, Venezuelans are the most likely to be college-educated, with half of Venezuelans ages 25 and older having completed a bachelor's degree or more. By comparison, Salvadorans (8%), Hondurans (9%) and Guatemalans (9%) have the lowest share of adults ages 25 and older with a college degree. The U.S. population overall is twice as likely as Hispanics overall to have earned a bachelor's degree or more—at 30% and 14%, respectively.

On language use, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, fully 68% of all U.S. Hispanics ages 5 and older speak only English in their homes or speak English “very well”—a new high reflecting the rise in English proficiency among Hispanics. Among Hispanic adults, one-quarter indicate they are English-dominant, 38% are Spanish-dominant, and 36% are bilingual, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey of Hispanics. 

Argentineans have the highest median household income at $63,000, about $20,000 higher than the median household income of all Hispanics ($41,000). Overall, one-quarter of Hispanics live below the poverty line—higher than the 16% poverty rate among the general U.S. population. Guatemalans, Hondurans and Dominicans have the highest share of people living below the poverty line, at 28% each.

Source: Published originally on Pew Research Center as The impact of slowing immigration: Foreign-born share falls among 14 largest U.S. Hispanic origin groups, by Gustavo López and Eileen Patten, September 15, 2015.

Posted on Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:30 AM

Nearly 25 percent of U.S. infants Hispanic have higher risk of poverty

Hispanics account for the majority of U.S. population growth, with nearly 25 percent of all infants now being born to Hispanics, according to a new report from the University of New Hampshire's Carsey School of Public Policy.

With Hispanics driving population growth, the Carsey School researchers highlight that Hispanic infants are nearly 2.8 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be born into poverty.

“Today, over 5.4 million U.S. Latino children live in poverty, a number that exceeds the number of poor white children and the number for every other racial or ethnic minority group,” the report reads. “Latino children comprise 23.1 percent of America's children but 37.3 percent of its poor children.”

Hispanic fertility rates are 20 percent higher than non-Hispanics. However, according to the researchers, the poorest, least educated women — “for example non-citizens or non-English speakers” — disproportionately contribute to the number of Hispanic births.

The areas with the highest Hispanic fertility, the report notes, are those regions considered destinations for immigrants.

“High rates of Hispanic fertility in nonmetro areas are driven largely (but not entirely) by the high fertility of Mexican-origin Hispanics, who tend to be the least educated and skilled, and who typically have poverty rates well in excess of the native-born white population,” the report reads. “Hispanic fertility rates are particularly high in the new destinations that are receiving significant net inflows of Hispanic migrants.”

The fertility phenomena is contributing to significant demographic shifts where researchers expect younger, poorer Hispanics to overtake the older, non-poor white population.

“This racial and ethnic transformation will occur first and most rapidly in today's established and new Hispanic boomtowns, which are rapidly diversifying from the ‘bottom up,'” the report reads.

According to the Carsey School researchers, Hispanic mothers disproportionately have high indicators for poverty. For example, one in four begin childbearing in their teens, 70 percent have a high school education or less, and 40 percent are unmarried.

“Poverty risks are also higher among infants with foreign-born mothers and those with limited English. Hispanic infants are much more likely to have foreign-born mothers (52 percent), and those who do have a poverty rate of 38 percent. A disproportionately large share (12 percent) of Hispanic infants also have mothers who speak no English or poor English compared to all mothers (3 percent),” the report reads. “Poverty rates are exceptionally high for Hispanic infants whose mothers have limited English (52.4 percent).”

The report takes issue with the fact that just half of the families of poor Hispanic children are on food stamps and just 12 percent are accepting other forms of welfare, arguing that it reflects an unmet need.

“Poverty among recent Hispanic infants clearly raises the specter of new rural Hispanic ghettos and growing physical, social, and cultural isolation from the mainstream,” the researchers conclude.

“The results suggest that the prospect of full incorporation into American society is jeopardized for many Hispanic infants. Indeed, our analysis reveals especially large disadvantages among rural Hispanic infants and those in new destinations. The substantive implication is that the lack of income from work and government (for example, cash assistance) in new destinations is experienced disproportionately by Hispanics,” the researchers add.

Source: Published originally on http://www.breitbart.com/ as Nearly 25 percent of U.S. infants Hispanic ,have higher risk of poverty, by Caroline May, August 24, 2015.

Posted on Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:05 AM

Black and Latino students in California score better on AP tests than peers elsewhere

Black and Latino students in California who passed Advanced Placement exams outperformed their peers elsewhere, but a gap persists between them and their white and Asian counterparts, according to new test score results.

In addition, the number of underrepresented minorities — black, Latino and Native American students — who took the tests is higher in California than elsewhere: 38.9% of test takers in the state compared with 26.2% of all test takers, according to 2015 results from the College Board.

The AP program allows high school students to take high-level classes for college credit. It also provides a boost for college admission and can help students more quickly place in advanced classes in college.

Black students in California performed significantly better than their counterparts outside the state: Nearly 43% in California had a passing score of 3 or higher out of 5 on at least one exam, compared with 32.3% elsewhere. California Latinos also did better: 53.1% received a 3 or higher on at least one test, compared with 50% elsewhere.

White students in the state also outperformed their peers elsewhere: 73% had a score of 3 or higher on a test, compared with 66% outside the state.

About 71.5% of Asians in the state scored a 3 or higher on a test, compared with 72.2% elsewhere.

The number of students, particularly minorities, taking AP classes and tests is growing, both in California and the country. Districts are removing stringent entrance requirements such as grades, admission tests and teacher recommendations that disproportionately keep students of color out of these classes.

Making these classes available to more minority students is a positive move despite the fact that scores may decrease when that happens, said Nicole Mirra, an assistant professor in English education at the University of Texas at El Paso who has studied disparities among California high schools.

Whether or not they pass the test, the students are exposed to higher academic standards and classrooms in which college is considered a viable option for them, she said.

To ensure that these students succeed, however, districts should start preparing low-income students and students of color for AP classes as early as elementary school and continue that support in AP classrooms, Mirra said.

The racial makeup of AP classes in L.A. Unified has changed from 60% Latino in 2007-2008, to 68% in 2014-2015, while the white and Asian populations have decreased. Black students continue to represent only 7% of AP students, even though they are 10% of the student population.

In L.A. Unified, the pass rate was lower for black and Latino students: 21.7% and 33.5%, respectively.

It's difficult to explain the discrepancies without more data, said Patricia Gandara, an education professor and co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.

Gandara said she would like to see data that show the income levels of the racial groups taking the tests; the College Board said that information will be available next month.

“We have tremendous wealth and we have tremendous poverty” in California, Gandara said.

Students from higher-income black and Latino families could account for the better results because the number of those students taking AP classes remains relatively low. Additionally, Gandara said, they may have the parental support to encourage them to enroll in AP classes.

L.A. Unified's performance might rely on a number of factors, Gandara said. The district has a much higher poor population than the state: three-fourths of L.A. Unified students are on free or reduced-price lunch, a poverty indicator, compared with 59% in the 
state.

Additionally, the L.A. Unified numbers don't include results from independent charter high schools, which had nearly 43,000 students last year and are growing. Those independently run campuses have been shown to take better-performing students from low-income and minority communities, Gandara said, adding that that trend could skew the district's results downward. 

Source: Published originally on The Los Angeles as Black and Latino students in California score better on AP tests than peers elsewhere by Sonali Kohli, September 2, 2015.

Posted on Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:27 AM

Read more

 
E-mail
 
Webmaster Email: lisa.rawleigh@ucr.edu