Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 American Community Survey Estimates
2 American Community Survey Estimates
Pages 21-58
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 21... ...
The third section presents the ACS estimates, and the last section describes the properties of the estimates in terms of their sampling properties, precision, consistency, sensitivity, and coverage. THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY Characteristics Although the ACS is a new survey -- its first products were released in 2006, after a decade of testing and development by the Census Bureau -- it is a very important one.
|
From page 22... ...
Later this is illustrated in Table 2-2, which shows that standard errors are proportionally largest for the smallest states with re gard to the critical data element used in the allocation of Title III funds. The relative lack of precision for smaller states suggests the need to accumulate data for 3-year and 5-year periods, rather than using 1-year estimates, in order to achieve sufficient precision for some data elements, such as English speaking ability.
|
From page 23... ...
. This continuous measurement survey was named the American Community Survey, and the Census Bureau set a goal of conducting a short-form-only census in 2010 and to fully implement the ACS by then.
|
From page 24... ...
Following the law, the Census Bureau pledges to respondents that their responses will be used only for statistical purposes and not for any kind of administrative or enforcement activity that affects the household members as individuals. This confidentiality protection is one reason for the high response rate to the ACS, even on somewhat sensitive topics.
|
From page 25... ...
to increase the precision of the estimates, as well as to correct for differential coverage by geography and demographic detail. This method also produces ACS estimates consistent with the estimates of population characteristics from the Population Estimates Program of the Census Bureau and the estimates of total number of housing units for each county in the United States.
|
From page 26... ...
26 ALLOCATING FEDERAL FUNDS TABLE 2-1 ACS Sample Sizes: Initial Addresses and Final Interviews, by Type of Unit ACS 2005 ACS 2006 Housing Units Housing Units Group Quarters Initial Initial Initial Addresses Final Addresses Final Sample Final State Selected Interview Selected Interview Selected Interview Alabama 51,050 31,274 51,063 32,647 2,767 1,997 Alaska 9,740 5,759 9,739 5,835 485 337 Arizona 51,685 32,749 52,511 33,718 2,609 1,971 Arkansas 32,648 20,052 32,608 20,825 1,873 1,567 California 266,324 172,287 265,521 178,666 19,583 14,783 Colorado 45,086 29,612 45,053 30,623 2,523 1,974 Connecticut 28,885 20,652 28,651 21,357 2,651 2,266 Delaware 9,722 6,208 9,951 6,411 557 467 District of Columbia 5,941 3,684 5,884 3,672 889 587 Florida 157,536 99,565 159,011 103,089 9,256 6,894 Georgia 77,261 47,171 78,573 49,925 5,805 4,269 Hawaii 12,295 7,627 12,054 7,629 833 598 Idaho 15,165 9,953 15,070 10,378 785 476 Illinois 118,210 80,473 117,521 82,815 7,692 6,076 Indiana 60,872 42,812 60,382 43,302 4,355 3,520 Iowa 38,852 28,729 38,680 29,264 2,592 2,034 Kansas 32,644 22,391 32,338 23,097 2,022 1,580 Kentucky 41,734 27,883 41,834 28,658 2,916 2,214 Louisiana 46,953 27,324 46,815 28,573 3,349 2,487 Maine 24,443 14,842 24,167 15,954 865 582 Maryland 45,975 31,474 45,698 32,435 3,266 2,467 Massachusetts 53,543 37,037 52,988 37,990 5,374 3,950 Michigan 123,933 85,771 123,111 88,400 5,817 4,287 Minnesota 77,962 55,645 77,828 57,762 3,313 2,634 Mississippi 28,396 16,177 28,350 16,829 2,407 1,652 Missouri 64,438 43,493 64,434 44,640 3,962 3,241 Montana 14,248 9,076 14,302 9,482 601 478 Nebraska 25,458 18,002 25,254 18,307 1,252 1,036 Nevada 20,360 12,660 21,334 13,498 815 686 New Hampshire 14,933 9,877 15,078 10,352 858 662 New Jersey 72,896 49,132 72,297 50,641 4,802 3,783 New Mexico 19,901 11,862 19,895 12,397 897 674 New York 183,793 116,910 181,711 121,011 14,249 11,484 North Carolina 83,176 53,038 84,642 55,417 6,225 4,592 North Dakota 11,643 8,066 11,622 8,258 592 502 Ohio 110,366 78,913 109,651 80,011 7,341 5,852 Oklahoma 46,827 28,358 46,478 29,492 2,691 2,184 Oregon 33,884 23,379 33,893 23,785 1,873 1,347
|
From page 27... ...
27 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ESTIMATES ACS 2007 ACS 2008 Housing Units Group Quarters Housing Units Group Quarters Initial Initial Initial Initial Addresses Final Sample Final Addresses Final Sample Final Selected Interview Selected Interview Selected Interview Selected Interview 51,179 32,345 2,699 1,999 51,817 31,973 2,533 2,109 9,751 5,908 465 347 9,749 5,684 901 640 54,928 34,527 2,591 2,062 54,841 34,135 2,735 2,163 31,152 19,422 1,854 1,414 31,571 19,392 1,808 1,376 266,419 176,508 19,498 14,890 265,428 176,249 18,828 15,039 45,155 30,257 2,557 2,009 45,723 30,826 2,459 1,903 28,413 20,762 2,705 2,236 28,158 20,677 2,621 2,203 10,273 6,359 573 447 10,461 6,344 851 699 5,849 3,601 910 582 5,857 3,604 1,043 732 160,855 101,953 9,385 6,685 162,667 102,339 9,284 7,051 79,486 49,623 5,627 4,092 81,535 50,205 5,468 4,349 11,924 7,473 807 457 11,721 7,303 918 590 15,199 10,263 733 446 15,295 10,307 990 641 117,290 81,653 7,233 5,734 117,943 81,731 7,053 5,534 60,320 42,801 4,397 3,256 60,467 42,745 4,253 3,490 38,506 28,584 2,512 2,038 38,901 28,472 2,449 1,965 32,238 22,737 1,927 1,394 32,304 22,409 1,865 1,499 41,916 28,175 2,938 2,277 42,179 28,250 2,843 2,210 46,722 27,905 3,269 2,392 47,083 27,324 3,189 2,254 24,055 15,550 836 539 23,718 15,279 1,010 729 45,627 31,886 3,260 2,284 45,429 31,915 3,088 2,247 52,658 37,141 5,432 4,083 52,596 37,577 5,031 3,963 122,195 86,470 5,835 4,182 121,074 84,987 5,836 4,189 77,808 56,694 3,267 2,601 77,323 56,473 3,182 2,556 28,323 16,369 2,393 1,677 28,934 16,612 2,255 1,773 64,541 43,942 4,011 3,193 64,995 43,767 3,890 3,203 14,259 9,271 587 402 14,294 9,087 979 725 24,841 17,694 1,195 1,016 24,677 17,526 1,192 1,008 21,663 13,403 829 692 22,050 13,540 1,101 946 14,974 10,062 849 680 14,913 10,104 1,098 851 71,804 49,594 4,778 3,696 70,886 49,363 4,820 3,711 20,936 12,588 923 575 21,216 12,792 1,031 801 180,144 118,562 13,610 11,079 178,282 117,120 13,017 10,762 83,367 54,072 6,228 4,672 84,535 54,422 6,071 4,722 11,509 8,083 568 474 11,419 7,841 1,060 836 109,120 78,439 7,261 5,705 108,931 77,738 7,248 5,635 46,598 28,847 2,533 2,089 46,622 28,645 2,560 2,085 33,911 23,489 2,017 1,290 34,068 23,687 2,032 1,437 continued
|
From page 28... ...
In addition to the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimates, the Census Bureau has also released ACS 1-year and 3-year PUMS files, and the 5-year PUMS files are scheduled for release early in 2011. PUMS files contain individual and household records, with confidentiality protected through the following means: • deleting names and addresses from the records; • limiting geographic and identification to large areas, known as public-use microdata areas, which are defined to include about 100,000 people; and • limiting the detail that is provided for sensitive variables: for example, as signing a catchall code to income amounts over a certain threshold, such as $100,000 or more, and not identifying the specific amount.
|
From page 29... ...
Based on responses to these questions, household members between 5 and 21 years old are categorized as English language learners if the respondent reports that the person speaks a language other than English at home and speaks English less than "very well." 2 Puerto Rico has a cap; the total amount is not to exceed 0.5 percent of the total amount allotted to all states in a fiscal year.
|
From page 30... ...
Indeed, the decennial census has collected information on the ability of the population to speak the English language for well over a century, and the question has evolved over time: see Box 2-2. The census question evolved from a simple English speaking ability question to one which focused on "mother" tongue, and finally in 1980, to the multipart language question that was adopted to fulfill requirements of legislation that sought to identify language limitations which were a source of disadvantage in learning, voting, and access to public services (Kominski, 1989, p.
|
From page 31... ...
Census Bureau (personal communication, June 15, 2009)
|
From page 32... ...
Several findings were reported: • individuals who spoke a language other than English with friends or at home were more likely to have lower English speaking ability than others; • individuals who spoke a language other than English either not at all or only at work or school reported speaking English "very well;" • the frequency with which a language was used influenced the speaking abil ity of the speaker, so that people who reported speaking ability less than "well" were more likely to use English less frequently or not at all; and • spoken ability in English was found to be positively correlated with reading and writing ability in English. However, the data analysis did not provide strong evidence that the language questions are able to differentiate between the lower two levels of English speaking ability ("not well" and "not at all")
|
From page 33... ...
were offered only in English and Spanish. Relationship Between ACS Responses and Tested Proficiency To evaluate the validity of ACS estimates, it is useful to assess the relationship of responses to the ACS English language proficiency questions with tested profi ciency.
|
From page 34... ...
Although, unfortunately, there was not a direct analysis of the state-based rela tionship between the English speaking ability question and the language proficiency test results, a comparison between the percent of national totals for the estimate 4 The census households were sampled on the basis of their responses to the questions on spoken lan guage, with language minority households oversampled by a factor of five to develop reliable estimates for the group.
|
From page 35... ...
It is difficult to state with confidence that the conclusions drawn from this 30-year-old data collection directly bear on the task of this panel. However, it should be observed that, in the only test of the relationship between the English speaking ability question that now appears on the ACS and a somewhat objective test of language proficiency, the patterns of responses between the states seemed to indicate a strong correlation between the results (keeping in mind that the estimate of the number of LEP students was quite different)
|
From page 36... ...
ACS ESTIMATES Numbers The ACS estimates in this section are derived from special tabulations prepared for the use of the panel by the Census Bureau under the sponsorship of the DoEd. Table 2-2 shows ACS 1-year estimates of ELL children and youth along with
|
From page 37... ...
For purposes of this report, we define the percentage of children and youth who receive Title III services as the ratio of ELL children and youth to all children and youth in each state. More specifically, the ratio is that of the ACS estimate of the population of ELL children and youth aged 5-18 years old enrolled in public school and the ACS estimate of all such children and youth aged 5-18: see Table 2-6.
|
From page 38... ...
TABLE 2-2 English Language Learning Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State, 2005-2008 38 ACS 2005 ACS 2006 ACS 2007 ACS 2008 State EST SE CV EST SE CV EST SE CV EST SE CV Alabama 18,745 1,806 0.10 20,740 1,639 0.08 21,725 1,928 0.09 18,055 1,443 0.08 Alaska 4,225 902 0.21 6,400 799 0.12 7,015 1,031 0.15 4,740 559 0.12 Arizona 121,895 4,702 0.04 135,310 4,718 0.03 141,980 5,701 0.04 131,480 4,796 0.04 Arkansas 17,095 1,432 0.08 17,565 1,433 0.08 18,280 1,661 0.09 17,230 1,499 0.09 California 1,097,205 16,272 0.01 1,038,305 11,935 0.01 1,003,915 11,379 0.01 948,515 12,331 0.01 Colorado 61,675 3,116 0.05 65,380 3,532 0.05 67,120 3,373 0.05 59,030 3,076 0.05 Connecticut 33,165 2,383 0.07 32,420 2,262 0.07 25,870 1,803 0.07 24,770 1,754 0.07 Delaware 8,355 802 0.10 7,340 915 0.12 6,900 1,017 0.15 5,625 875 0.16 District of Columbia 3,490 617 0.18 3,955 735 0.19 3,385 735 0.22 2,700 619 0.23 Florida 234,505 7,672 0.03 236,570 6,917 0.03 231,810 5,808 0.03 213,005 6,449 0.03 Georgia 85,275 3,514 0.04 91,010 3,587 0.04 92,605 3,434 0.04 76,245 3,186 0.04 Hawaii 14,230 1,660 0.12 12,900 1,406 0.11 10,745 1,102 0.10 16,865 1,919 0.11 Idaho 9,860 1,215 0.12 10,880 1,283 0.12 10,340 1,127 0.11 11,285 1,222 0.11 Illinois 182,730 6,211 0.03 175,625 5,652 0.03 178,480 5,381 0.03 169,395 4,835 0.03 Indiana 40,740 2,204 0.05 41,135 2,236 0.05 37,395 2,143 0.06 39,705 1,942 0.05 Iowa 16,015 1,081 0.07 18,510 1,410 0.08 15,415 1,235 0.08 15,440 1,325 0.09 Kansas 21,115 1,455 0.07 20,405 1,683 0.08 19,820 1,310 0.07 20,165 1,845 0.09 Kentucky 17,160 1,515 0.09 16,625 1,244 0.07 20,830 1,786 0.09 18,255 1,588 0.09 Louisiana 14,165 1,353 0.10 13,440 1,304 0.10 15,425 1,321 0.09 17,445 1,364 0.08 Maine 3,535 693 0.20 4,620 833 0.18 3,755 726 0.19 2,650 466 0.18 Maryland 47,550 2,819 0.06 42,010 2,213 0.05 46,010 2,350 0.05 40,730 2,549 0.06 Massachusetts 64,815 4,140 0.06 67,250 2,791 0.04 61,345 2,884 0.05 63,520 2,766 0.04 Michigan 62,675 2,904 0.05 57,345 2,629 0.05 57,275 2,451 0.04 52,615 2,869 0.05 Minnesota 39,575 2,251 0.06 45,730 2,783 0.06 42,200 2,056 0.05 46,910 2,629 0.06 Mississippi 7,870 1,175 0.15 7,725 915 0.12 8,100 780 0.10 8,035 902 0.11 Missouri 21,765 2,003 0.09 24,400 2,025 0.08 28,095 2,024 0.07 24,775 1,818 0.07
|
From page 39... ...
Montana 2,185 522 0.24 2,010 472 0.23 2,240 419 0.19 2,280 484 0.21 Nebraska 14,935 1,242 0.08 16,930 1,365 0.08 14,080 1,335 0.09 14,305 1,386 0.10 Nevada 38,540 2,669 0.07 43,680 2,437 0.06 46,440 2,416 0.05 49,670 2,526 0.05 New Hampshire 5,000 806 0.16 3,200 594 0.19 4,050 694 0.17 3,925 644 0.16 New Jersey 107,955 3,620 0.03 104,210 3,394 0.03 97,980 3,877 0.04 101,215 3,697 0.04 New Mexico 28,805 2,298 0.08 34,825 3,041 0.09 27,700 1,770 0.06 24,925 2,353 0.09 New York 275,230 7,116 0.03 302,040 6,232 0.02 279,875 6,728 0.02 290,170 7,273 0.03 North Carolina 70,970 4,095 0.06 85,770 3,482 0.04 79,025 2,892 0.04 83,400 3,584 0.04 North Dakota 1,700 388 0.23 2,210 553 0.25 2,660 523 0.20 2,440 499 0.20 Ohio 48,005 2,530 0.05 47,905 2,328 0.05 44,645 2,756 0.06 47,275 2,963 0.06 Oklahoma 21,085 1,781 0.08 20,205 1,293 0.06 20,595 1,667 0.08 18,995 1,379 0.07 Oregon 49,910 3,066 0.06 45,650 2,724 0.06 47,150 2,612 0.06 41,520 2,616 0.06 Pennsylvania 74,245 3,602 0.05 68,215 3,426 0.05 70,835 2,923 0.04 71,820 3,237 0.05 Puerto Rico 835,520 5,343 0.01 845,825 4,945 0.01 841,715 5,308 0.01 820,655 4,956 0.01 Rhode Island 12,130 1,687 0.14 9,260 980 0.11 10,510 1,340 0.13 10,880 1,147 0.11 South Carolina 22,940 1,518 0.07 24,430 1,771 0.07 23,810 1,914 0.08 22,000 2,005 0.09 South Dakota 4,065 993 0.24 3,255 492 0.15 2,620 545 0.21 2,805 741 0.26 Tennessee 28,635 2,156 0.08 28,460 1,968 0.07 31,520 2,025 0.06 28,925 2,230 0.08 Texas 570,145 9,866 0.02 586,090 8,899 0.02 599,265 9,096 0.02 595,070 10,881 0.02 Utah 21,050 1,626 0.08 28,115 2,036 0.07 29,035 1,954 0.07 27,080 2,220 0.08 Vermont 1,900 430 0.23 1,515 401 0.26 1,565 355 0.23 1,725 345 0.20 Virginia 57,440 2,645 0.05 65,565 3,296 0.05 49,795 2,537 0.05 54,860 2,783 0.05 Washington 78,270 3,068 0.04 80,355 3,707 0.05 87,725 4,165 0.05 85,105 3,164 0.04 West Virginia 3,250 526 0.16 3,935 647 0.16 3,565 494 0.14 3,275 638 0.19 Wisconsin 38,855 1,957 0.05 39,655 2,100 0.05 43,430 2,022 0.05 35,845 1,912 0.05 Wyoming 2,130 516 0.24 1,625 372 0.23 1,875 414 0.22 1,475 401 0.27 United States 3,828,820 25,849 0.01 3,862,675 20,298 0.01 3,797,820 20,240 0.01 3,670,185 23,813 0.01 NOTES: CV = coefficients of variation; EST = estimated number; SE = standard error.
|
From page 40... ...
40 ALLOCATING FEDERAL FUNDS TABLE 2-3 Average Number of ELL Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State ACS 2005-2007 ACS 2006-2008 State Estimate SE CV Estimate SE CV Alabama 19,295 865 0.04 18,665 766 0.04 Alaska 5,915 496 0.08 6,170 425 0.07 Arizona 132,520 2,906 0.02 134,520 2,549 0.02 Arkansas 18,185 869 0.05 17,360 797 0.05 California 1,045,820 6,993 0.01 988,085 6,728 0.01 Colorado 63,905 1,643 0.03 63,210 1,969 0.03 Connecticut 31,060 1,207 0.04 28,020 1,066 0.04 Delaware 7,530 526 0.07 6,565 520 0.08 District of Columbia 3,785 375 0.10 2,950 376 0.13 Florida 233,140 3,732 0.02 224,250 3,081 0.01 Georgia 89,105 1,986 0.02 84,940 1,973 0.02 Hawaii 12,465 815 0.07 13,160 832 0.06 Idaho 11,215 789 0.07 11,180 702 0.06 Illinois 179,805 3,433 0.02 172,420 2,855 0.02 Indiana 39,085 1,170 0.03 38,755 1,225 0.03 Iowa 16,910 798 0.05 16,745 724 0.04 Kansas 20,780 1,084 0.05 19,690 1,038 0.05 Kentucky 19,225 839 0.04 18,885 890 0.05 Louisiana 15,760 886 0.06 16,375 930 0.06 Maine 4,125 418 0.10 3,870 488 0.13 Maryland 45,820 1,489 0.03 43,625 1,317 0.03 Massachusetts 65,915 1,906 0.03 63,735 1,856 0.03 Michigan 60,600 1,797 0.03 55,390 1,496 0.03 Minnesota 43,365 1,534 0.04 45,155 1,381 0.03 Mississippi 8,805 606 0.07 8,755 581 0.07 Missouri 25,695 1,160 0.05 25,985 1,100 0.04 Montana 2,295 287 0.13 2,495 265 0.11 Nebraska 15,150 699 0.05 14,870 719 0.05 Nevada 43,395 1,600 0.04 46,525 1,464 0.03 New Hampshire 4,695 513 0.11 3,845 348 0.09 New Jersey 103,225 1,887 0.02 100,645 2,315 0.02 New Mexico 29,900 1,366 0.05 28,455 1,358 0.05 New York 289,480 3,977 0.01 290,395 4,000 0.01 North Carolina 76,535 1,778 0.02 79,945 1,899 0.02 North Dakota 2,165 286 0.13 2,190 269 0.12 Ohio 47,580 1,425 0.03 46,095 1,344 0.03 Oklahoma 21,325 752 0.04 20,140 1,010 0.05 Oregon 47,585 1,480 0.03 44,605 1,484 0.03 Pennsylvania 71,770 1,672 0.02 70,115 1,868 0.03 Rhode Island 10,725 809 0.08 10,195 680 0.07 South Carolina 24,255 1,051 0.04 23,715 1,127 0.05 South Dakota 3,480 348 0.10 3,165 399 0.13 Tennessee 30,675 1,252 0.04 29,770 940 0.03 Texas 581,800 6,085 0.01 586,510 5,692 0.01 Utah 26,535 1,298 0.05 27,745 1,304 0.05 Vermont 1,755 213 0.12 1,510 187 0.12 Virginia 57,335 1,754 0.03 56,330 1,467 0.03 Washington 80,445 1,953 0.02 82,905 2,178 0.03 West Virginia 4,120 423 0.10 3,870 416 0.11 Wisconsin 41,555 1,168 0.03 39,205 1,223 0.03 Wyoming 1,980 248 0.13 1,825 192 0.11 United States 3,839,580 13,565 0.004 3,745,540 15,296 0.004
|
From page 41... ...
41 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ESTIMATES TABLE 2-4 Percentage Share of ELL Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS ACS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005-2007 2006-2008 State Share Share Share Share Share Share Alabama 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.49 0.50 0.50 Alaska 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.16 Arizona 3.18 3.50 3.74 3.58 3.45 3.59 Arkansas 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.46 California 28.66 26.88 26.43 25.84 27.24 26.38 Colorado 1.61 1.69 1.77 1.61 1.66 1.69 Connecticut 0.87 0.84 0.68 0.67 0.81 0.75 Delaware 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.18 District of Columbia 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.08 Florida 6.12 6.12 6.10 5.80 6.07 5.99 Georgia 2.23 2.36 2.44 2.08 2.32 2.27 Hawaii 0.37 0.33 0.28 0.46 0.32 0.35 Idaho 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.29 0.30 Illinois 4.77 4.55 4.70 4.62 4.68 4.60 Indiana 1.06 1.06 0.98 1.08 1.02 1.03 Iowa 0.42 0.48 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 Kansas 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.55 0.54 0.53 Kentucky 0.45 0.43 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.50 Louisiana 0.37 0.35 0.41 0.48 0.41 0.44 Maine 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.10 Maryland 1.24 1.09 1.21 1.11 1.19 1.16 Massachusetts 1.69 1.74 1.62 1.73 1.72 1.70 Michigan 1.64 1.48 1.51 1.43 1.58 1.48 Minnesota 1.03 1.18 1.11 1.28 1.13 1.21 Mississippi 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 Missouri 0.57 0.63 0.74 0.68 0.67 0.69 Montana 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 Nebraska 0.39 0.44 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.40 Nevada 1.01 1.13 1.22 1.35 1.13 1.24 New Hampshire 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.10 New Jersey 2.82 2.70 2.58 2.76 2.69 2.69 New Mexico 0.75 0.90 0.73 0.68 0.78 0.76 New York 7.19 7.82 7.37 7.91 7.54 7.75 North Carolina 1.85 2.22 2.08 2.27 1.99 2.13 North Dakota 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 Ohio 1.25 1.24 1.18 1.29 1.24 1.23 Oklahoma 0.55 0.52 0.54 0.52 0.56 0.54 Oregon 1.30 1.18 1.24 1.13 1.24 1.19 Pennsylvania 1.94 1.77 1.87 1.96 1.87 1.87 Rhode Island 0.32 0.24 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.27 South Carolina 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.63 South Dakota 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 Tennessee 0.75 0.74 0.83 0.79 0.80 0.79 Texas 14.89 15.17 15.78 16.21 15.15 15.66 Utah 0.55 0.73 0.76 0.74 0.69 0.74 Vermont 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 Virginia 1.50 1.70 1.31 1.49 1.49 1.50 Washington 2.04 2.08 2.31 2.32 2.10 2.21 West Virginia 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.10 Wisconsin 1.01 1.03 1.14 0.98 1.08 1.05 Wyoming 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
|
From page 42... ...
Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
|
From page 43... ...
Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
|
From page 44... ...
The standard errors for each state's estimated ratios (percentages of the school-age population that are ELL students, in Table 2-6) are shown in Table 2-7.
|
From page 45... ...
Census Bureau Special Tabulations.
|
From page 46... ...
and ei ~ N(0,Vi) are respectively model and sampling error for the ACS estimates in state i, and Vi is the sampling variance of yi ."
|
From page 47... ...
estimates are substantially more precise and stable, especially in states with relatively small populations, than those based on 1-year ACS estimates. Neither 1-year nor 3-year ACS estimates can precisely estimate annual changes in English language learner rates, but use of 3-year esti mates smooths variation over time.
|
From page 48... ...
48 ALLOCATING FEDERAL FUNDS TABLE 2-9 Absolute Difference in Percentage Share of States Across Years (in percentage) ACS 2006 ACS 2007 ACS 2008 ACS 2006-2008 Compared with Compared with Compared with Compared with ACS 2005 ACS 2006 ACS 2007 ACS 2005-2007 Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute State Difference Difference Difference Difference Alabama 0.047 0.035 0.080 0.004 Alaska 0.055 0.019 0.056 0.011 Arizona 0.319 0.235 0.156 0.140 Arkansas 0.008 0.027 0.012 0.010 California 1.776 0.446 0.590 0.858 Colorado 0.082 0.075 0.159 0.023 Connecticut 0.027 0.158 0.006 0.061 Delaware 0.028 0.008 0.028 0.021 District of Columbia 0.011 0.013 0.016 0.020 Florida 0.000 0.021 0.300 0.085 Georgia 0.129 0.082 0.361 0.053 Hawaii 0.038 0.051 0.177 0.027 Idaho 0.024 0.009 0.035 0.006 Illinois 0.226 0.153 0.084 0.080 Indiana 0.001 0.080 0.097 0.017 Iowa 0.061 0.073 0.015 0.007 Kansas 0.023 0.006 0.028 0.016 Kentucky 0.018 0.118 0.051 0.003 Louisiana 0.022 0.058 0.069 0.027 Maine 0.027 0.021 0.027 0.004 Maryland 0.154 0.124 0.102 0.029 Massachusetts 0.048 0.126 0.115 0.015 Michigan 0.152 0.024 0.075 0.099 Minnesota 0.150 0.073 0.167 0.076 Mississippi 0.006 0.013 0.006 0.004 Missouri 0.063 0.108 0.065 0.025 Montana 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.007 Nebraska 0.048 0.068 0.019 0.002 Nevada 0.124 0.092 0.131 0.112 New Hampshire 0.048 0.024 0.000 0.020 New Jersey 0.122 0.118 0.178 0.001 New Mexico 0.149 0.172 0.050 0.019 New York 0.631 0.450 0.537 0.214 North Carolina 0.367 0.140 0.192 0.141 North Dakota 0.013 0.013 0.004 0.002 Ohio 0.014 0.065 0.113 0.009 Oklahoma 0.028 0.019 0.025 0.018 Oregon 0.122 0.060 0.110 0.048 Pennsylvania 0.173 0.099 0.092 0.003
|
From page 49... ...
, and English speaking ability (speak English less than very well versus speak English less than well)
|
From page 50... ...
8 The fourth row shows the results when both criteria are applied -- restricting the population to 5- to 18-year-olds enrolled in public school. In this summary table, we report the statistics for all states and for groups of states classified by their overall share of ELLs under the base allocation as large, medium, small, and "minimum."9 As noted above, variations in the shares of ELL children and youth of the "minimum" states do not affect their allocations, as they generally fall below the $500,000 threshold.
|
From page 51... ...
bThe mean absolute relative difference in share is calculated by taking an average of absolute relative difference in share of all states and group of states. CONCLUSION 2-3 The 3-year American Community Survey (ACS)
|
From page 52... ...
Sensitivity to Variations in Cut Points Another sensitivity analysis considered the allocation effects of alternative ACS proficiency cut points. Currently, an English language learner is defined as one who speaks English "less than very well." Using special tabulations provided by the Cen sus Bureau, we examined the impact of changing the proficiency criterion to "less than well," which has the effect of considering those who speak English "well" as
|
From page 53... ...
In particular, charter schools are regarded as public schools for statistical purposes, but because they are often regarded by parents as an alternative to regular district-administered schools, they might be misreported as private. This reporting could affect estimates of public school ELL rates if charter schools have different rates of ELL enrollment than district-administered schools, but it would affect neither estimates of total ELL students nor those of total ELL children.
|
From page 54... ...
ACS reduces coverage error by controlling specific survey estimates to independent population controls12 by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin for population estimates and to independent housing unit controls for housing unit estimates. The Census Bureau calculates coverage rates to measure coverage error in the ACS, and these rates are weighted to reflect the probability of selection into the sample, the subsampling for personal visit follow-up, and nonresponse.
|
From page 55... ...
The Census Bureau does not calculate coverage rates of gender groups cross-tabulated by racial groups (e.g., white non-Hispanic male)
|
From page 56... ...
The item allocation rates for 2006 to 2008 include housing units and group quarters populations. SOURCE: Census Bureau Quality Measures Page, available: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/ sse/ita/ita_def.htm [accessed May 2010]
|
From page 57... ...
. CONCLUSION 2-5 Item nonresponse is a troublesome and growing issue for items used in the calculation of the number of English language learner children and youth.
|
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.