Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Comparison of American Community Survey Estimates and State Counts
5 Comparison of American Community Survey Estimates and State Counts
Pages 103-132
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 103... ...
CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO SOURCES The ACS estimates and state-provided counts of ELL students are two very different mechanisms for determining the number of school-age children in a state likely to have difficulty with English. As shown in Table 5-1, they differ along a number of dimensions.
|
From page 104... ...
for which Consolidated State Performance Reports are submitted by state education agencies (i.e., public schools including charter schools) Assessment Method Single question regarding Comprehensive assessment that spoken English ability incorporates information from multiple sources Mode of Response Indirect and subjective Direct evaluation based on a measure, based on the response student's performance in acquiring of a parent (or other adult English proficiency in the household)
|
From page 105... ...
In order to facilitate comparisons be tween the ACS estimates and state-provided counts we limit the ACS population to those aged 5-18 and only to those enrolled in public school. It is important to point out that by limiting the ACS estimate to this comparison group, we have created an ACS-based variable that is more limited than the legal definition of ELL students used by the U.S.
|
From page 106... ...
TABLE 5-2 Shares of ELL Students Based on ACS and State-Provided Counts (in percentage) 106 State-Provided Count ACS Estimate All ELLa Tested Not, Proficientb State 2006 2007 2008 2006-2008 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2007-2008 2008-2009 Alabama 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.43 0.53 0.40 Alaska 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.48 0.37 0.27 0.46 0.44 Arizona 3.66 3.90 3.69 3.74 3.56 3.31 2.79 4.15 2.86 Arkansas 0.45 0.48 0.37 0.44 0.55 0.57 0.61 0.77 0.80 Californiac 29.12 28.31 27.25 28.12 36.35 34.32 33.68 29.37 28.63c Colorado 1.70 1.74 1.66 1.70 2.10 1.89 1.98 1.75 2.70 Connecticut 0.88 0.65 0.58 0.71 0.61 0.66 0.66 0.61 0.54 Delaware 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.16 District of Columbia 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.15 Florida 5.54 5.51 5.25 5.38 5.47 5.11 5.03 5.42 5.16 Georgia 2.10 2.20 1.97 2.09 1.73 1.77 1.80 2.05 2.01 Hawaii 0.30 0.22 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.41 0.41 0.49 0.50 Idaho 0.28 0.25 0.32 0.29 0.39 0.37 0.39 0.46 0.34 Illinois 4.52 4.81 4.74 4.67 4.03 4.20 4.55 3.56 3.24 Indiana 0.91 0.81 0.89 0.88 0.99 1.02 1.02 1.26 1.33 Iowa 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.45 Kansas 0.51 0.49 0.54 0.52 0.67 0.70 0.76 0.93 0.86 Kentucky 0.31 0.39 0.45 0.41 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.38 0.41 Louisiana 0.26 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.38 0.33 Maine 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.12 Maryland 0.96 1.10 0.98 1.03 0.80 0.89 0.89 0.65 1.07 Massachusetts 1.71 1.57 1.61 1.64 1.26 1.23 1.09 0.86 1.16 Michigan 1.56 1.51 1.40 1.49 1.63 1.14 1.35 1.86 1.23 Minnesota 1.18 1.22 1.35 1.27 1.49 1.35 1.37 1.17 1.67 Mississippi 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.04 0.18
|
From page 107... ...
bThe number of tested, not proficient students was computed for each state from the state Consolidated State Performance Reports by subtracting the number of all LEP students proficient or above on state annual ELP assessments (1.6.3.1.2) from the number of all LEP students tested on state annual ELP assessments (1.6.3.1.1)
|
From page 108... ...
The differences are shown in Table 5-4. The left-hand side of the table shows the values for the differences between ACS estimates and the state-provided counts of all ELL students, for both 1-year and 3-year ACS estimates; the right-hand side of the table shows the values of the differences between ACS estimates and the stateprovided counts of tested, not proficient students.
|
From page 109... ...
TABLE 5-3 Ratio of State Shares Based on ACS Estimate to Shares Based on State-Provided Counts All ELL Studentsa Tested, Not Proficient Studentsb ACS 2006 to ACS 2007 to ACS 2008 to ACS 2006-2008 to ACS 2007 to ACS 2008 to ACS 2006-2008 to State State 2006-2007 State 2007-2008 State 2008-2009 State 2008-2009 State 2007-2008 State 2008-2009 State 2008-2009 Alabama 1.00 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.99 0.99 Alaska 0.35 0.47 0.56 0.65 0.37 0.34 0.39 Arizona 1.03 1.18 1.32 1.34 0.94 1.29 1.31 Arkansas 0.81 0.84 0.61 0.72 0.62 0.47 0.55 Californiac 0.80 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.96 0.95 0.98c Colorado 0.81 0.93 0.84 0.86 1.00 0.61 0.63 Connecticut 1.43 0.98 0.87 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.33 Delaware 1.10 1.01 0.93 1.02 1.60 0.93 1.02 District of Columbia 0.71 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.45 0.40 Florida 1.01 1.08 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.04 Georgia 1.21 1.25 1.10 1.16 1.07 0.98 1.04 Hawaii 0.83 0.54 0.92 0.71 0.45 0.76 0.58 Idaho 0.72 0.68 0.80 0.74 0.54 0.94 0.87 Illinois 1.12 1.15 1.04 1.03 1.35 1.46 1.44 Indiana 0.92 0.79 0.88 0.87 0.65 0.67 0.66 Iowa 1.04 0.93 0.89 0.96 0.86 0.89 0.96 Kansas 0.76 0.69 0.71 0.69 0.52 0.62 0.61 Kentucky 1.22 1.38 1.40 1.27 1.04 1.11 1.01 Louisiana 1.27 1.52 1.41 1.30 1.02 1.20 1.11 Maine 1.68 1.19 0.88 1.30 1.03 0.68 1.01 Maryland 1.20 1.23 1.10 1.16 1.70 0.92 0.96 Massachusetts 1.36 1.28 1.48 1.50 1.83 1.39 1.41 Michigan 0.96 1.32 1.04 1.10 0.81 1.15 1.22 Minnesota 0.79 0.90 0.99 0.93 1.04 0.81 0.76 Mississippi 1.53 1.34 1.07 1.37 4.24 0.86 1.11 Missouri 1.08 1.63 1.66 1.77 1.72 1.16 1.23 Montana 0.35 0.34 0.39 0.61 0.99 1.19 1.84 109 continued
|
From page 110... ...
bThe number of tested, not proficient students was computed for each state from the state Consolidated State Performance Reports by subtracting the number of all LEP (ELL) students proficient or above on state annual ELP assessments (1.6.3.1.2)
|
From page 111... ...
The first four columns on the left-hand side of the table show the rates based on the ACS estimates, including 1-year estimates for 2006, 2007, and 2008 and the 3-year estimate across these years. For the state-provided counts, two types of rates calculated are shown: the rates based on state-provided counts of all ELL students for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years and the rates based on the state-provided counts of tested, not proficient students for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years.
|
From page 112... ...
TABLE 5-5 Rate of ELL Students by State Based on ACS Estimates and State-Provided Counts (in percentage) 112 State-Provided Count ACS Estimate All ELLa Tested, Not Proficientb State 2006 2007 2008 2006-2008 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2007-2008 2008-2009 Alabama 1.44 1.36 1.31 1.33 2.47 2.81 2.62 2.16 1.68 Alaska 3.34 3.56 3.09 3.53 15.66 12.84 9.21 10.82 10.61 Arizona 8.50 8.82 8.01 8.40 14.30 13.77 11.55 11.65 8.23 Arkansas 2.40 2.54 1.94 2.32 4.96 5.41 5.77 4.93 5.24 Californiac 11.34 11.13 10.54 11.00 24.34 24.48 24.23 14.13 14.34c Colorado 5.55 5.53 5.14 5.37 11.32 10.64 10.86 6.65 10.34 Connecticut 3.90 2.91 2.55 3.16 4.58 5.26 5.25 3.25 2.98 Delaware 3.51 3.20 2.93 3.26 5.44 5.92 5.73 2.52 3.99 District of Columbia 2.91 2.60 2.57 2.34 6.47 6.54 8.52 5.94 6.79 Florida 5.35 5.33 4.99 5.16 8.78 8.68 8.59 6.20 6.15 Georgia 3.24 3.31 2.89 3.15 4.55 4.85 4.89 3.79 3.80 Hawaii 4.40 3.40 5.60 4.36 8.66 10.38 10.34 8.39 8.72 Idaho 2.69 2.30 2.84 2.70 6.25 6.13 6.42 5.20 3.83 Illinois 5.41 5.72 5.57 5.54 8.16 8.99 9.66 5.15 4.79 Indiana 2.24 1.98 2.12 2.13 4.07 4.42 4.37 3.66 3.97 Iowa 2.24 2.07 2.03 2.22 3.75 4.01 4.17 2.93 2.91 Kansas 2.75 2.60 2.85 2.81 6.16 6.78 7.24 6.08 5.73 Kentucky 1.18 1.48 1.67 1.54 1.58 1.94 2.18 1.73 1.91 Louisiana 0.96 1.44 1.40 1.29 1.28 1.68 1.82 1.68 1.49 Maine 1.81 1.35 1.05 1.55 1.90 2.06 2.19 1.60 1.97 Maryland 2.85 3.25 2.87 3.02 4.03 4.78 4.75 2.33 3.97 Massachusetts 4.51 4.16 4.15 4.27 5.58 5.79 5.12 2.72 3.79 Michigan 2.27 2.23 2.06 2.18 4.05 3.04 3.67 3.36 2.31 Minnesota 3.52 3.67 4.07 3.81 7.60 7.31 7.35 4.28 6.27 Mississippi 0.87 0.79 0.74 0.98 1.01 1.10 1.33 0.23 1.15
|
From page 113... ...
from the number of all LEP students tested on state annual ELP assessments (1.6.3.1.1)
|
From page 114... ...
TABLE 5-6 Ratio of Rates Based on ACS Estimates to Rates Based on State-Provided Counts 114 All ELL Studentsa Tested, Not Proficient Studentsb ACS 2006 to ACS 2007 to ACS 2008 to ACS 2006-2008 to ACS 2007 to ACS 2008 to ACS 2006-2008 to State State 2006-2007 State 2007-2008 State 2008-2009 State 2008-2009 State 2007-2008 State 2008-2009 State 2008-2009 Alabama 0.58 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.63 0.78 0.80 Alaska 0.21 0.28 0.34 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.33 Arizona 0.59 0.64 0.69 0.73 0.76 0.97 1.02 Arkansas 0.48 0.47 0.34 0.40 0.52 0.37 0.44 Californiac 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.79 0.74c 0.77c Colorado 0.49 0.52 0.47 0.49 0.83 0.50 0.52 Connecticut 0.85 0.55 0.49 0.60 0.89 0.86 1.06 Delaware 0.64 0.54 0.51 0.57 1.27 0.74 0.82 District of Columbia 0.45 0.40 0.30 0.27 0.44 0.38 0.34 Florida 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.60 0.86 0.81 0.84 Georgia 0.71 0.68 0.59 0.64 0.87 0.76 0.83 Hawaii 0.51 0.33 0.54 0.42 0.41 0.64 0.50 Idaho 0.43 0.37 0.44 0.42 0.44 0.74 0.70 Illinois 0.66 0.64 0.58 0.57 1.11 1.16 1.16 Indiana 0.55 0.45 0.49 0.49 0.54 0.53 0.54 Iowa 0.60 0.52 0.49 0.53 0.71 0.70 0.76 Kansas 0.45 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.50 0.49 Kentucky 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.71 0.86 0.88 0.81 Louisiana 0.75 0.85 0.77 0.71 0.86 0.94 0.87 Maine 0.95 0.66 0.48 0.71 0.85 0.54 0.79 Maryland 0.71 0.68 0.60 0.64 1.40 0.72 0.76 Massachusetts 0.81 0.72 0.81 0.83 1.53 1.09 1.13 Michigan 0.56 0.73 0.56 0.59 0.66 0.89 0.94 Minnesota 0.46 0.50 0.55 0.52 0.86 0.65 0.61 Mississippi 0.86 0.71 0.56 0.73 3.35 0.65 0.85
|
From page 115... ...
students proficient or above on the state annual ELP assessment from the number of all LEP (ELL) students tested on the state annual ELP assessment.
|
From page 116... ...
The overall ratio of the ACS 3-year estimate to the state-provided estimate of all ELL students for 2008-2009 is 0.56, with a range from 0.27 for the District of Columbia to 1.73 for West Virginia. The overall ratio for the ACS 3-year estimate to the state-provided counts of tested, not proficient students for 2008-2009 is 0.80, with a range from 0.33 for Alaska to 3.29 for West Virginia.
|
From page 117... ...
FIGURE 5-1 Comparison of ACS 3-year rate and state-provided rate of all ELL students for the 2008-2009 school year. Figure 5-1 Figures 5-1 and 5-2)
|
From page 118... ...
State Practices As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, states use different tests, procedures, and criteria for classifying and reclassifying ELL students and for exiting them from programs. These differences might contribute to differential discrepancies between ACS estimates and state counts.
|
From page 119... ...
. Model 1, the baseline model, included the 3-year ACS estimate as the only predictor of the state counts.2 As shown in Table 5-7, the R2 (the fraction of variance in state-provided rates explained by the predictor variable)
|
From page 120... ...
* Percent unauthorized immigrants –.1358 (.5039)
|
From page 121... ...
cut-point on the relationship between the ACS estimates and the state counts, the cut point of "less than very well" 4 Two models were run. In the first, the dependent variable was the state provided count of ELL students divided by all public school enrollees for the 2007-2008 school year.
|
From page 122... ...
* Percent unauthorized immigrants 0.5396 (.4201)
|
From page 123... ...
. This analysis could be conducted only with rates based on state counts of all ELL students, since LEA counts of tested, not proficient students were not available.
|
From page 124... ...
The eighth column presents the ratio of the ACS rate to the state-provided rate. The final column shows the sample correlation of the rates based on ACS estimates and state-provided counts for the unified school districts within a state.
|
From page 125... ...
(%) ACS/State Correlation Alabama 579,913 58 3.0 2.8 0.4 4.7 1.3 0.44 0.697 Alaska 93,838 5 7.4 5.8 2.4 10.6 2.6 0.34 0.207 Arizona 872,395 72 14.2 14.5 3.7 26.2 9.6 0.68 0.798 Arkansas 227,292 30 8.7 5.9 0.6 7.3 3.1 0.36 0.918 Colorado 684,657 35 11.3 11.9 2.5 21.4 5.8 0.51 0.920 Connecticut 378,744 56 7.3 5.3 1.4 10.1 3.9 0.54 0.877 Delaware 102,396 13 6.7 5.8 2.1 9.0 3.3 0.49 0.529 District of Columbia 57,877 1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 2.3 0.33 NA Florida 2,619,362 54 8.8 5.2 0.9 9.4 5.2 0.59 0.682 Georgia 1,487,247 97 5.2 3.5 0.7 5.4 3.3 0.64 0.885 Hawaii 179,897 1 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 4.4 0.42 NA Idaho 180,200 20 5.2 5.5 0.3 11.3 2.4 0.46 0.904 Illinois 1,519,448 202 11.4 7.2 0.8 10.6 6.4 0.56 0.769 Indiana 705,862 87 5.5 4.9 1.0 7.5 2.4 0.44 0.776 Iowa 220,538 29 6.0 4.8 0.8 7.2 2.5 0.42 0.646 Kansas 272,573 28 9.6 9.2 1.6 12.9 4.1 0.42 0.907 Kentucky 463,556 54 2.4 1.4 0.2 1.8 1.6 0.67 0.647 Louisiana 606,547 49 1.8 1.2 0.1 1.6 1.4 0.76 0.418 Maine 45,917 12 5.8 4.3 0.4 6.3 3.7 0.63 0.797 Maryland 843,426 23 4.8 2.6 0.6 3.4 3.0 0.63 0.862 Massachusetts 639,309 110 8.1 4.8 0.6 9.3 5.3 0.65 0.819 Michigan 830,996 103 4.6 3.5 0.4 5.1 2.6 0.55 0.718 Minnesota 537,291 60 9.2 6.5 1.3 10.1 4.7 0.51 0.779 Mississippi 300,235 44 1.4 1.4 0.3 2.1 1.0 0.71 0.069 125 continued
|
From page 126... ...
(%) ACS/State Correlation Missouri 551,434 65 2.7 2.2 0.5 2.9 2.1 0.79 0.671 Montana 58,413 15 2.3 1.9 0.2 3.5 1.3 0.54 0.290 Nebraska 169,074 15 8.6 7.2 1.4 11.8 4.0 0.47 0.781 Nevada 419,488 8 10.9 12.5 10.3 13.9 6.9 0.63 –0.550 New Hampshire 86,972 17 2.8 1.7 0.3 2.6 1.6 0.56 0.407 New Mexico 270,081 22 18.8 18.3 6.0 33.8 6.6 0.35 0.658 New York 1,063,809 175 4.9 4.2 0.8 7.1 3.1 0.64 0.746 North Carolina 1,373,592 89 9.1 8.0 2.9 12.4 3.5 0.39 0.826 North Dakota 44,279 6 4.2 3.6 0.3 7.0 1.9 0.45 0.782 Ohio 1,026,648 151 2.9 2.1 0.3 2.8 1.6 0.56 0.726 Oklahoma 325,060 30 8.4 5.6 2.3 8.1 2.7 0.32 0.717 Oregon 430,730 45 12.2 11.4 2.2 18.7 5.9 0.48 0.921 Pennsylvania 107,022 18 4.5 2.6 0.2 5.3 3.1 0.70 0.841 Rhode Island 112,975 19 5.3 3.0 0.6 3.7 4.9 0.92 0.801 South Carolina 649,424 53 4.2 3.5 1.2 5.1 2.1 0.50 0.685 Tennessee 848,210 70 2.9 1.8 0.3 3.0 1.9 0.65 0.733 Texas 3,770,908 207 16.4 12.3 4.4 19.0 11.0 0.67 0.901 Utah 513,430 19 8.7 9.2 3.1 16.1 3.4 0.39 0.950 Virginia 1,125,896 77 7.2 4.3 0.5 5.7 3.0 0.42 0.738 Washington 837,945 78 7.5 6.4 1.5 9.9 5.4 0.72 0.859 West Virginia 239,577 32 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.06 –0.163 Wisconsin 498,915 66 7.3 4.6 0.7 7.1 3.8 0.52 0.729 Wyoming 43,609 6 1.8 2.2 0.5 4.5 1.3 0.73 0.951 NOTE: Data include only eligible LEAs, as described in the text.
|
From page 127... ...
TABLE 5-10 Results of Within-State Regressions Model with Intercept, State Data Rate No-Intercept Model Ratio of Intercept State Adjusted State Number RMSE Coefficient Coefficient RMSE Correlation Coefficient RMSE of LEAs Estimates Alabama 0.0026 0.2508 0.0036 0.9040 0.3084 0.0033 58 0.93 Arizona 0.0216 0.3852 0.0316 0.8433 0.4765 0.0346 72 1.09 Arkansas 0.0049 0.2747 0.0003 0.9999 0.3099 0.0003 30 1.11 Colorado 0.0029 0.4477 0.0004 1.0000 0.4693 0.0013 35 3.20 Connecticut 0.0043 0.4038 0.0065 0.9596 0.4602 0.0067 56 1.03 Delaware 0.0171 0.1587 0.0027 0.8904 0.3816 0.0069 13 2.56 Florida 0.0073 0.4762 0.0127 0.8737 0.5540 0.0134 54 1.06 Georgia 0.0044 0.5006 0.0043 0.9814 0.5723 0.0048 97 1.13 Idaho 0.0053 0.3292 0.0005 0.9997 0.3958 0.0036 20 7.73 Illinois 0.0139 0.3808 0.0189 0.8834 0.4739 0.0220 202 1.17 Indiana 0.0034 0.2750 0.0035 0.9778 0.3224 0.0033 87 0.92 Iowa 0.0095 0.1688 0.0066 0.8514 0.2623 0.0096 29 1.46 Kansas 0.0017 0.3394 0.0102 0.9675 0.3508 0.0102 28 1.00 Kentucky 0.0046 0.4069 0.0033 0.9360 0.5251 0.0021 54 0.65 Louisiana 0.0061 0.2929 0.0020 0.9192 0.4801 0.0047 49 2.38 Maine 0.0037 0.3091 0.0054 0.9590 0.3769 0.0043 12 0.79 Maryland 0.0049 0.4777 0.0067 0.8872 0.5681 0.0074 23 1.11 Massachusetts 0.0064 0.4551 0.0042 0.9891 0.5173 0.0047 110 1.11 Michigan 0.0075 0.2692 0.0052 0.9318 0.3665 0.0068 103 1.31 Minnesota 0.0092 0.3170 0.0107 0.9038 0.3984 0.0123 60 1.16 Mississippi 0.0051 0.0874 0.0024 0.6004 0.2673 0.0001 44 0.04 Missouri 0.0068 0.3750 0.0019 0.9820 0.5429 0.0038 65 2.04 Montana 0.0045 0.1244 0.0013 0.8678 0.2576 0.0038 15 2.91 Nebraska 0.0081 0.3081 0.0006 0.9996 0.3758 0.0063 15 10.44 127 continued
|
From page 128... ...
TABLE 5-10 Continued 128 Model with Intercept, State Data Rate No-Intercept Model Ratio of Intercept State Adjusted State Number RMSE Coefficient Coefficient RMSE Correlation Coefficient RMSE of LEAs Estimates New Hampshire 0.0060 0.3166 0.0004 0.9976 0.4780 0.0003 17 0.80 New Mexico 0.0118 0.1972 0.0271 0.7143 0.2418 0.0284 22 1.05 New York 0.0086 0.3293 0.0058 0.9533 0.4390 0.0078 175 1.33 North Carolina 0.0002 0.3369 0.0056 0.9625 0.3393 0.0056 89 1.00 Ohio 0.0057 0.2022 0.0028 0.9620 0.3289 0.0039 151 1.42 Oklahoma –0.0014 0.2894 0.0045 0.9483 0.2735 0.0048 30 1.05 Oregon 0.0026 0.4207 0.0040 0.9963 0.4425 0.0021 45 0.52 Pennsylvania 0.0021 0.5318 0.0058 0.9485 0.5606 0.0058 18 1.00 Rhode Island 0.0019 0.7080 0.0022 0.9960 0.7493 0.0030 19 1.36 South Carolina 0.0047 0.2788 0.0035 0.9254 0.3800 0.0035 53 0.99 Tennessee 0.0030 0.3389 0.0037 0.8840 0.4274 0.0042 70 1.14 Texas 0.0018 0.6058 0.0197 0.9603 0.6152 0.0197 207 1.00 Utah 0.0020 0.3175 0.0077 0.9591 0.3352 0.0079 19 1.02 Virginia 0.0082 0.2299 0.0059 0.9420 0.2931 0.0084 77 1.42 Washington 0.0024 0.5805 0.0097 0.9715 0.6075 0.0095 78 0.98 West Virginia 0.0069 –0.0525 0.0020 0.2609 0.2488 0.0036 32 1.79 Wisconsin 0.0100 0.2911 0.0061 0.9139 0.4134 0.0070 66 1.15 NOTE: Data include only eligible LEAs, as described in the text.
|
From page 129... ...
Sampling variation contributes to purely random volatility in the ACS estimates. State data could become volatile when a state changes its tests, standards, or procedures from one year to the next or when there is an error or change in the mechanisms for reporting ELL counts from school districts to states to the DoEd.
|
From page 130... ...
Medium States: Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minne sota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. Small States: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia.
|
From page 131... ...
The evidence is ambiguous on comparative stability of single-year ACS estimates and state-based estimates. CONCLUSION 5-4 The superior precision and stability of the 3-year American Community Survey (ACS)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.