320 likes | 409 Views
Michael Fix & Jeffrey S. Passel Immigration Studies Program The Urban Institute. U.S. Immigration -- Trends & Implications for Schools. National Association for Bilingual Education NCLB Implementation Institute New Orleans, LA January 28-29, 2003. Overview of Policy Issues.
E N D
Michael Fix & Jeffrey S. PasselImmigration Studies ProgramThe Urban Institute • U.S. Immigration -- Trends • & Implications for Schools National Association for Bilingual Education NCLB Implementation Institute New Orleans, LA January 28-29, 2003
Overview of Policy Issues • Immigration Trends -- Growth of Immigrant Population -- Geographic Dispersion -- Legal Status • Students & Language -- Growth of Immigrant Students -- Language Ability -- Students, Schools, Parents • NCLB Funding -- Formulas & Data
13-14+ (est.) Current In-Flows are Very High Europe/Canada (Legal) All Other (Legal) Additional* * Additional immigrants are mostly illegals and legalized aliens
40 Million 31.1 Million (2000 Census) 14.8% 13% 11.1% (2000) 4.7% Percentage is Not Immigrant Numbers at Peak --
Who Comes to the U.S.? • Legal:600,000-750,000/year • Humanitarian: 70,000-125,000 down to 27,000 • Undocumented: Early ‘90s — 200-300,000 per year Late ‘90s — 500-800,000 or more Current — ???
Children of Immigrants are ... Immigrants are ... • 1 in 5 Children • 1 in 4 Low-Income Children • 1 in 9 U.S. Residents • 1 in 4 Low-Wage Workers Demographic Context
New Immigration Growth Centers Immigration Categories Major Destinations (67% of Immigrants) (6) New Growth States (1990-2000 > 91%) (22) Top 10 Growth States (135-274%) (10) All Other States (23)
Legal Status of Immigrants Legal Aliens (LPR) (10.0 million) 31% “Undocumented” Aliens (8.5 million) 26% Legal Nonimmigrants (1.5 million) 5% Naturalized Citizens (10.2 million) 31% Refugee Arrivals* (2.3 million) 7% Foreign-Born Population in 2000 (Based on March 2000 CPS, Census 2000, & Author’s Estimates) (Preliminary) * Entered 1980 or later
Dispersal of Undocumented Population 2000 Composition Categories Highest % Undocumented (40-49% of foreign-born) (11) High % Undocumented (30-39%) (12) Lower % Undocumented (20-29%) (13) Lowest % Undocumented (<20%) (15)
Growth in Limited English Population Percent Growth in LEP, 1990-2000 100% Growth or More (15) 77-96% Growth or More (6) 31-65% (includes 6 Major Destinations) (16) <28% -- All Other States (14)
Limited English Proficient ImmigrantsPoorer on Average Los Angeles New York City Source: Urban Institute, Los Angeles-New York Immigrant Survey (LANYCIS).
Children of Immigrants (& LEP) Concentrated in Metro Areas Percent Non-Metropolitan Among Children 5-19 Enrolled in K-12, 2000 Children of Immigrants* Children of Natives* All Children Source: Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. *Excludes Puerto Ricans.
Immigrant Students & English • Immigration & Language Trends -- Growth in Children of Immigrants -- Characteristics (Poverty) -- Geography & Grade Distribution • Students & Language -- Non-English Trends -- Problem Groups Late Entrants Long-Term LEPS • Linguistic Isolation -- Schools & Parents
Immigrant Children Are aRising Share of Students (1 in 5) Share of K-12 Enrollment All Children of Immigrants U.S.-Born Children of Immigrants Foreign-Born Children Source: Van Hook & Fix (2000); Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Excludes Puerto Ricans.
20% of School Kids AreChildren of Immigrants Source: Urban Institute tabulations. Includes Puerto Ricans.
Origins of Immigrant ChildrenShift Markedly by 2000 Proportion of K-12 Children of Immigrants (Including 1st & 2nd Generations) Source: Van Hook & Fix (2000); Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Excludes Puerto Ricans.
But Trend Reverses in Late ’90s Immigrant Children Increasingly Poor Percent of K-12 Students in Families Below 100% of Poverty African-American Foreign-Born Immigrants All Children of Immigrants White, not Hispanic Source: Van Hook & Fix (2000); Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Excludes Puerto Ricans.
Foreign-Born Children IncreaseFastest in Grades 6-12 Share of K-5 or 6-12 Enrollment Foreign-Born Children Recently-Arrived* Foreign-Born Children Source: Van Hook & Fix (2000); Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Excludes Puerto Ricans.
Spanish Increasingly Prevalent --Sharp Increases in 1990s Millions of Children (5-19) Speaking a Language Other than English At Home Spanish Other Non-English Language Asian Language Source: Van Hook & Fix (2000); Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Includes Puerto Ricans.
LEP Share Declines by Generation;Second Generation LEP Stays High Proportion of K-12 Students Not Speaking English “Very Well” (LEP) Source: Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Excludes Puerto Ricans.
More LEP Children are NativeThan Foreign-Born First Generation 900,000 35% Third+ Generations 500,000 19% Second Generation 1.2 Million 46% Source: Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Includes Puerto Ricans.
Most LEP Children In US for Many Years Grades K-5 Grades 6-12 Thousands of Children by Years Lived in U.S., 2000 Source: Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Includes Puerto Ricans.
LEP Students AttendLinguistically-Segregated Schools Percentage of LEP or Non-LEP Children Source: Urban Institute tabulations from Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999.
Hispanics & Asians more likely to bein Linguistically-Segregated Schools Proportion LEP in school of the “average” student by race or English ability Source: Urban Institute tabulations from Schools & Staffing Survey, 1999.
LEP Children May Not HaveParental English Resources Proportion of K-12 Students with No Parent Who Speaks English at Least “Very Well” Source: Urban Institute tabulations from C2SS PUMS. Includes Puerto Ricans.
Data for NCLB Grants to States • Census-ACS Data -- Uniformly Defined & Collected -- Based on Speaking Only -- Non-Professional (Parental) Assessment -- Sample-Based, possible Undercount • School-Based Data -- Standards & Collections Vary Within & Across Schools & States -- Based on “Whole Child” Approach -- Professional Assessment -- Administrative Counts (Complete) -- Interested Party Generates Data
School vs. Census Data • School Data finds More Kids -- 400K above Census 5-17 -- 400K higher in California • Regional Patterns -- Western States Higher -- Eastern States Lower • Funding Formula -- “Fixed Pie” Reduces Disparity -- California Gains -- New York Loses -- Percentage Changes Large
Ratio of State LEP to Census Ratio State LEP to Census LEP <67% (State is Low) (13) >200% (State is Hi) (6) 67-90% (11) 110-175% (11) 90-100% (5) 100-110% (5)
West Gains $ with School Data; East Gains from Census-ACS Change in Fund Allocation to States (in millions of dollars) Based on $300 Million Allocation using School-Defined LEP Population Versus 2000 Census-Defined LEP Aged 5-17 Years Only Changes of $1.5 Million or more are shown
For more information,contact: • Michael Fix • Jeffrey S. Passel • Immigration Studies Program • Population Studies Center • Urban Institute • 2100 M St., NW • Washington, DC 20037 mfix@ui.urban.org; (202) 261-5517 jpassel@ui.urban.org (202) 261-5678