Patterns of Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores
in the Early Elementary Grades
A Report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics
Prepared by
Sean F. Reardon
Stanford University
Claudia Galindo
Johns Hopkins University
October, 2006
This report was funded by the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for
Hispanics, which is funded in turn by a grant from the Foundation for Child Development
and additional support from the A.L. Mailman Family Foundation, the Marguerite Casey
Foundation, the Peppercorn Foundation, and the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation.
Additional research support was provided to the first author by the Carnegie Scholars
Program of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and to the second author by the AERA
Research Grants Program. We thank Eugene García, L. Scott Miller, and members of the
Task Force’s Technical Advisory Committee for very helpful feedback and suggestions, and
we thank Joe Robinson and Tara Beteille for exceedingly good research assistance. All
errors remain our own.
Patterns of Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores
in the Early Elementary Grades
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Given the rapid growth of the U.S. Hispanic school-age population (currently
comprising one-fifth of the U.S. elementary school population), the educational achievement
patterns of Hispanic students hold considerable importance. Prior research has
demonstrated that the educational success of Hispanic students lags behind that of nativeborn non-Hispanic White students, but we still have relatively little detailed evidence
regarding the patterns and trends in Hispanic-White achievement disparities.
This report describes patterns of math and English reading skills of Hispanic
students in elementary school in the period from 1998-2004. The report relies on data from
a nationally-representative longitudinal study conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES)—the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class
of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). The ECLS-K contains scores on standardized math and English
reading tests administered from kindergarten through fifth grade to a nationallyrepresentative sample of more than 21,000 children who were enrolled in kindergarten in the
fall of 1998, 4,000 of whom were of Hispanic origin. This large sample enables us to
examine detailed achievement patterns of Hispanic students, disaggregated by
national/regional origin, immigrant generation, socioeconomic status, home language use,
and English proficiency as children progress through school.
Among the most significant findings described in this report are the following:
1. Hispanic students enter kindergarten with average math and English literacy skills
significantly lower than those of native-born, non-Hispanic White students. In the
fall of their kindergarten year, Hispanic students’ average math scores are threequarters of a standard deviation below the average scores of non-Hispanic White
students. Among the 70% of Hispanic students who are proficient in oral English in
the fall of kindergarten (and whose English reading skills were therefore assessed at
that time), average reading scores are one-half a standard deviation below those of
White students. These gaps are equal in magnitude to the Black-White test score
gaps measured at the same time.
2. Hispanic-White test score gaps narrow by roughly one-third from the start of
kindergarten to the end of first grade, but remain relatively stable from first through
fifth grade. Unlike the Black-White test score gaps measured in ECLS-K, which
widen steadily from kindergarten through fifth grade, the Hispanic-White
achievement gaps narrow during kindergarten and first grade (form 0.77 to 0.56
standard deviations in math and from 0.52 to 0.29 standard deviations in reading).
By fifth grade, however, the math gap is still one-half a standard deviation, and the
reading gap has widened slightly to three-eighths of standard deviation. These trends
differ substantially from those that of the Black-White achievement gap, which
widens steadily during elementary school, suggesting that the processes that influence
1
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Hispanic-White achievement gaps differ in important ways from those shaping
Black-White achievement gaps.
3. There is considerable variation in average math and reading skills among Hispanic
population subgroups. Students of Mexican and Central American origins,
particularly students whose parents are immigrants to the U.S., enter school with
lower math and reading scores than children of Cuban, South American, and other
national origins and children of U.S.-born Hispanic parents (third-plus generation
students). First- and second-generation Mexican-origin students and Central
American students start kindergarten with math scores more than one standard
deviation below those of White students, for example. These gaps narrow over time,
particularly during the first two years, of school, but remain large into fifth grade
(especially for students of Mexican origin, for whom the gaps remain roughly threequarters of a standard deviation in size).
4. Hispanic students’ family socioeconomic status is an important predictor of
subsequent math and reading achievement; socioeconomic factors explain most of
the Hispanic-White achievement gaps by fifth grade. Hispanic students in the lowest
quintile of socioeconomic status score over a full standard deviation below those in
the highest quintile, a gap that remains steady throughout the K-5 period. The gaps
between Hispanic students and non-Hispanic White students of similar
socioeconomic status are one-quarter to one-half a standard deviation at the start of
kindergarten, and much smaller—or non-existent—by fifth grade.
5. Hispanic students’ English ability at the start of kindergarten is an important
predictor of their subsequent math and reading skill trajectory. Hispanic students
from non-English speaking homes, as well as those students who are not proficient
in spoken English at the start of kindergarten, have considerably lower average math
and reading scores at the start of kindergarten than English-proficient Hispanic
students and students from homes where English is spoken. However, students
from non-English speaking homes and students who are not proficient in spoken
English at the start of kindergarten also exhibit much steeper average gains in both
math and reading achievement during kindergarten and first grade than do Englishproficient Hispanic students and students from homes where English is spoken.
6. Hispanic students who are not proficient in English in the fall of kindergarten make
very large average gains in both math and reading skills from kindergarten to fifth
grade. Nonetheless, these students, on average, perform very far below nonHispanic Whites through fifth grade. The 30% of Hispanic students who are not
proficient in English at the start of kindergarten (primarily first- and secondgeneration Mexican and Central American students in the ECLS-K sample) enter
kindergarten with average math scores 1.4 standard deviations below those of nonHispanic White students (and 0.9 standard deviations below those of Englishproficient Hispanics), a gap that narrows by half a standard deviation, but is still
quite large (0.9 standard deviations), by the spring of fifth grade. In reading,
Hispanic students who were not proficient in English in kindergarten are 1.1
standard deviations below non-Hispanic White students by fifth grade. The
magnitude of the fifth grade gaps for the non-English proficient Hispanic students is
2
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
comparable to the Black-White gap measured in ECLS-K in fifth grade. Some
caution is warranted in interpreting the large fifth-grade gaps between Hispanic
students who were not proficient in English in kindergarten and White students,
however: the non-English-proficient Hispanic students are, on average, from families
with very low socioeconomic status, and have reading scores only modestly lower
than English-proficient students of similarly low socioeconomic status.
One of the most consistent patterns in the ECLS-K data reported here is the finding
that Hispanic-White test score gaps narrow sharply in the first two years of schooling,
particularly for subgroups with lower levels of English proficiency at the start of school—
recent immigrants, those from non-English speaking homes, and those who did not pass the
ECLS-K oral English screening assessment. The pattern of findings in the report strongly
suggests that at least part of the substantial gains made by Hispanic students in the early
grades is due to processes of increased English acquisition (both oral and written)—which
likely both improves test performance on tests given in English (such as the reading test),
and increases the opportunity for students to learn in schools where at least some, if not all,
of the instruction is in English. In addition, some of the rapid progress of Hispanic students
in the first two years of schooling may also be due to the use of instructional practices that
are particularly effective with English language learners in the first years of schooling.
In this report, however, we do not attempt to determine the extent to which either,
or both, of these factors accounts for the patterns of achievement gains evident among
Hispanic kindergarteners and first-graders (in part because the ECLS-K data are not wellsuited to such an analysis). Future research should certainly explore these two potential
explanations, since they each imply different policies and practices for further reducing
Hispanic-White achievement disparities.
3
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Patterns of Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores
in the Early Elementary Grades
INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of the United States Hispanic population is perhaps the most
significant current demographic trend in the U.S. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. Hispanic
population grew by 58%, to a total of 35 million. Hispanics accounted for 12.5% of the total
U.S population in 2000, and more than half of the foreign-born population in 2002. By
2025, Hispanics will account for one-quarter of the U.S. population, while Whites and Blacks
will account for 52% and 13% respectively (Guzman & McConnell, 2002; Martin & Midgley,
1999, 2003; Ramirez, 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Although the growth of the total Hispanic population has been very rapid, the
growth of the Hispanic school-age population has been even more dramatic. In the past 20
years, the Hispanic school-age population has grown by 150%, and Hispanics now account
for one-sixth of the school-age population, and over one-fifth of the public elementary
school enrollments (Inter-University Program for Latino Research, 2002; National Center
for Education Statistics, 2002a). Half of the Hispanic school-age population consists of
foreign-born students (Larsen, 2004).
The educational outcomes of Hispanic students in U.S. schools lag, on average, well
behind those of non-Hispanic Whites and Asians, and in some cases, behind those of nonHispanic Black students as well (Fry, 2003; Hirschman, 2001; Kao & Thompson, 2003; Lee
& Burkham, 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003; Reardon, 2003;
Rumberger & Arellano, 2004; Van Hook & Balistreri, 2002). For example, Hispanic children
have lower levels of school readiness at the start of kindergarten than White and Black
children (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Reardon, 2003; Rumberger &
Arellano, 2004; Zill, Collins, West, & Hausken, 1995). High school completion rates for
Hispanic students are substantially lower than either White or Black students (Kaufman, Alt,
& Chapman, 2001; Padron, Waxman, & Rivera, 2002). Likewise, Hispanic students are less
likely than White students to attend and graduate from college (Van Hook & Balistreri,
2002), and more likely to be enrolled in two-year colleges than four-year colleges (Pew
Hispanic Center, 2004).
Diversity of the Hispanic Population
The Hispanic population in the U.S. is not only large, but also diverse—in their
family immigration histories (including immigrant generation, national and regional origins,
length of time in the U.S., etc), socioeconomic characteristics, and their linguistic and
cultural characteristics. Mexicans are by far the most predominant Hispanic group in the
U.S., representing 59% of the Hispanic population. Next in size are Puerto Ricans (10%),
Central Americans (including Dominicans) (7%), Cubans (5%), and South Americans (4%)
(Guzman, 2001; Larsen, 2004). Two-thirds of U.S. Hispanics are first- or second-generation
immigrants, meaning they have foreign-born parents, while one-third have parents born in
the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
While the Hispanic population is, in general, economically disadvantaged in
4
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
comparison to the non-Hispanic U.S. population, there is considerable heterogeneity among
and within these Hispanic subgroups. Overall, Hispanic median family income in 2000 was
$33,000, only 69% of White median family income (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Mills, 2004).
Over one-fifth (22%) of U.S. Hispanics live below the poverty line, compared to only 8% of
non-Hispanic Whites (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Poverty levels are even higher among
first-generation Hispanic immigrants and their children, however: 27% of Hispanic children
(and 34% of Hispanic immigrant children) lived below the poverty line in 2000, compared to
9% and 32% for White and Black children (Lichter, Qian, & Crowley, 2005). Moreover,
Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be poor than immigrants from Asia, Europe or
Africa (Tienda, 2002). Economic conditions vary substantially across Hispanic groups as
well. Poverty rates among Dominicans (28%), Mexicans (25%), and Puerto Ricans (24%)
are particularly high, but are much lower for Cubans (15%) and South Americans (15%)
(Larsen, 2004; Ramirez, 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
The diversity of the Hispanic population is also evident in the varying levels of
English ability among Hispanic subgroups. Hispanic children are over-represented among
students with English difficulties, in bilingual education classes, and Limited English
Proficiency programs. Almost one-third of Hispanic students are learning English as a
second language, accounting for 75% of the Limited English proficient (LEP) students in
schools. This proportion is highest in states with greater concentration of Hispanics. In
California, for instance, 40% of kindergarten and first-grade students are English language
learners (Gándara, 1999).
Evidence Regarding Hispanic Students’ Achievement Patterns
We have little systematic knowledge regarding achievement patterns among Hispanic
students. The long history of slavery’s legacy and the civil rights movement have focused
the attention of educators and scholars on providing evidence of the patterns and trends of
Black and White student achievement (see, for example, Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Fryer &
Levitt, 2005; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Neal, 2005). We have little in the way of comparable
evidence regarding overall Hispanic achievement patterns and trends, and even less evidence
regarding variations in achievement patterns among Hispanic subgroups.
In part, this is due to data limitations—with the exception of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), nationally representative educational data sets
have not until recently included sufficiently large Hispanic samples to provide reliable
population estimates of Hispanic students’ achievement patterns, nor to break these patterns
down by Hispanic subgroups. Moreover, even those datasets that do have sizeable
Hispanic samples do not include data on the early elementary grades: the two largest national
education studies conducted by NCES in the 1980s and 1990s—the National Educational
Longitudinal Study (NELS) and the High School and Beyond Study (HS&B)—began with
cohorts of 8th and 10th grade students; NAEP provides nationally representative estimates of
Hispanic achievement levels of 4th, 8th, and 12th-graders, but does not provide information on
early school patterns. Finally, most of the nationally representative data sets are relatively
old—the HS&B cohorts were born in the mid-1960’s; the NELS cohort was born in roughly
1974.
5
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
AIMS OF THIS REPORT
Given the lack of existing evidence describing national patterns of Hispanic students’
achievement in the elementary grades, this report aims to provide detailed descriptive data
on national patterns of math and reading achievement among Hispanic students, with
particular attention to variation in these patterns among Hispanic subgroups. We use
kindergarten through fifth grade test score data from a nationally-representative sample of
students who were in kindergarten the fall of 1998. Specifically, we report math and reading
achievement patterns in kindergarten through fifth grade for Hispanics, native White nonHispanics, native Black non-Hispanics, and Asians. We then report these achievement
patterns for a variety of Hispanic subgroups, including subgroups defined by
national/regional origin, immigrant generational status, socioeconomic status, home
language use, and English proficiency. Throughout the report, our aim is to provide detailed
descriptive analyses of the patterns of Hispanic students’ achievement, rather than to attempt
to explain the primary causes of these patterns.
DATA AND METHODS
Data
The data for this study come from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–
Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K), sponsored by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES). The ECLS-K contains data on a nationally-representative
sample of roughly 21,400 students from the kindergarten class of 1998-99 (thus, representing
a cohort born in roughly 1992-93). Students in the sample were assessed in reading,
mathematics, and general knowledge/science skills at six time points during the years 19982004 (fall 1998, spring 1999, fall 1999, spring 2000, spring 2002, and spring 2004). In
addition to these cognitive developmental measures, the ECLS-K data include information
gathered from parents, teachers, and school administrators regarding family, school,
community, and student characteristics. In this report, we focus primarily on the reading
and mathematics cognitive assessments in order to describe patterns and trends in cognitive
development among Hispanic subgroups.
Definitions
Throughout this report, we use the following definitions:
Race/Ethnicity. Students are classified at each round of the ECLS-K data collection as
White, not Hispanic; Black, not Hispanic; Hispanic, any race; Asian, and other race.1 The
full sample breakdown by race/ethnicity is shown in Table 1.
Immigrant Generation. ECLS-K students are defined as first, second, or third-plus
generation based on a set of questions in the kindergarten, first-grade, and third-grade parent
A small number of students have contradictory information across waves; in these cases we prioritize the
Hispanic classification, so students classified as Hispanic at any wave are coded as Hispanic for this report. In
addition, we reclassify as Hispanic a small number of students classified as White or Black but who were born
(or whose parents were born) in Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, or in any Spanish speaking country in South
America or Central America. According to this coding, the full ECLS-K sample includes 4,006 Hispanic
students.
1
6
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
survey that indicate where they and their parents2 were born. Students born outside of the
U.S. whose responding parent was born outside of the U.S. are classified as first-generation
students (island-born Puerto-Rican students are also defined as first-generation students).
Students born in the U.S. and whose responding parent was born outside of the U.S. are
classified as second-generation students. Finally, students born to a U.S.-born parent
(regardless of where the student was born) are classified as third-plus generation students.
Although 26% of Hispanic students in the sample are missing complete information on
immigrant generation, in this report we tabulate achievement levels by immigrant generation
only among those identified as in the Mexican Hispanic subgroup, among whom 98% have
complete immigrant generation information.
Hispanics’ National/Regional Origin. We use information on the student and parents’
countries of birth not only to categorize students by immigrant generation, but also to
identify the country or region of national origin for each Hispanic student.3 Based on parent
responses to these questions, we classify students as having national origins in Mexico,
Puerto Rico, Cuba, South America, Central America,4 or elsewhere. “Other Hispanic” origin
includes a small and heterogeneous group of students with ancestries in Spain, Brazil,
Guyana, or Dominica, for example. It also includes students for whom country of birth
information is missing and whose parents defined them as members of an “other
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group” in the question about Hispanic group membership.
Roughly a third of the Hispanic students in the sample are missing information on
national origin. Most of these cases occur because a) the child was born in the U.S. and
parent country of birth and Hispanic subgroup information is missing from the first- and
third-grade parent surveys (mostly because the student left the sample prior to first grade); or
b) both the child and parent were born in the U.S. and the Hispanic subgroup information is
Parents were not asked their country of birth in the kindergarten parent survey. In the first-grade parent
survey, only the parent responding to the survey (usually the mother) was asked. In the third-grade parent
survey, the respondent was asked to report country of birth for both parents. For students who left the ECLSK sample prior to third grade (roughly 25% of the total sample), then, we lack information on the country of
birth for one or both parents. If information is available for neither parent, we classify students as
‘second/third-generation’ if the student was born in the U.S., and first generation if born outside the U.S. If
information is available for only one parent, we use that as the parents’ place of birth (realizing that we cannot
be sure both parents were born in the same place). If information is available for both parents’ country of
birth, we use the mother’s place of birth to classify students’ immigrant generation. Finally, if the student’s
country of birth is not reported, but the parent(s) were foreign-born, we classify the student as first-generation.
Roughly 23% of the total ECLS-K sample (roughly 26% of Hispanic students) cannot be unambiguously
categorized as first, second, or third-plus generation. Most of this missing data (17% of the total sample) is a
result of the fact that the kindergarten parent survey did not ask about the parent’s country of birth (it was
asked in the first- and third-grade surveys), so we cannot distinguish second- from third-plus generation
students among those who left the sample prior to the spring of first grade (about a fifth of the total sample).
See Table 1 for more detail.
3 In addition to being asked where they and the student were born, parents were asked in the first grade survey
whether the student was a member of a Hispanic group, and if so, “which Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group best
describes [the child’s] origin?” Response options were: a) Mexican, Mexican-American or Chicano; b) Puerto
Rican; c) Cuban; and d) other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group. In order to categorize Hispanic students by
their national origins, we first use information on the student’s, mother’s, and father’s country of birth (in that
order), and then, if these are unavailable, we use the parent response to the Hispanic group membership
question
4 Only students with origins in Spanish-speaking countries are categorized as South American (Brazil, French
Guiana, Guyana and Suriname are excluded) or Central American (Belize is excluded). The Dominican
Republic is categorized for our purposes here in the Central American category.
2
7
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
missing (because birthplace questions were asked only asked in the first-grade survey).
However, we focus our analysis on the subsample of Hispanic students who were assessed
through fifth grade, almost all of whom have non-missing data on immigrant generation and
national/regional origin.
Socioeconomic Status. For the ECLS-K, a continuous measure of socioeconomic status was
created based on a composite of the student’s mother’s and father’s educational attainment,
mother’s and father’s occupation, and family income (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2002b). The measure was constructed for kindergarten, first, and third grade. In
this report, we use the average of the kindergarten and first grade composite measures,
divided into quintiles.
Language Used at Home. Although it would be informative to have some measure of
Hispanic students’ oral and written proficiency in both Spanish and English, ECLS-K does
not contain ideal measures of oralcy and literacy. Students from non-English-speaking
homes were given the English Oral Language Development Scale (OLDS) assessment to
determine whether they could be administered the reading and math assessments in English,
but because not all students were given the OLDS, we cannot use it to categorize students’
English fluency unless we make some assumptions about the English skills of the students
not administered the OLDS. In addition, students who did not meet the proficiency
criterion of the English OLDS were also administered the Spanish OLDS assessment, but
again, only a subset of the Hispanic sample was given the test, so it is not useful for
categorizing students by Spanish fluency.
Instead, we use here a measure of the language(s) spoken by the student and his or
her parent(s) in their home. Parents were asked what language each of the mother and
father speak to the child, and what language the child speaks to each of the mother and
father. Possible responses for each question were 1) only English, 2) primarily English, 3)
primarily Spanish, and 4) only Spanish. We averaged the parent responses to these four
questions (coded 1-4; alpha reliability=0.96) and then categorized the resulting continuous
variable into the same four categories by rounding it to the nearest whole number. See
Table 4 for descriptive statistics.
Achievement Measures
We report patterns and trends in achievement test scores derived from the ECLS-K
direct cognitive assessments in math and reading. The ECLS-K direct assessments are
individually-administered, oral, untimed, adaptive tests of math and reading skills. The
content area of the tests is based on the NAEP 4th grade content areas, adapted to be age
appropriate at each assessment. The assessments were administered by trained ECLS-K
assessors, and were scored using an IRT model. Details of the assessments are provided in
the ECLS-K psychometric reports (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken,
2005; Pollack et al., 2005; Rock & Pollack, 2002).
We report two types of achievement measures in this report. First we report test
scores using a continuous test score metric, the t-score metric reported by ECLS-K. This
metric is useful for describing the gaps between population subgroups in terms of standard
deviation units. The disadvantage of this metric is that it does not make clear how test score
differences correspond to interpretable differences in specific math and reading skills. In
order to make the test score differences more concretely interpretable, we report detailed
tables in Appendix C of proportions of subgroups proficient at a range of math and reading
skills using the estimated proficiency probabilities reported by ECLS-K. These are derived
8
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
from the same direct math and reading assessments, but are based on IRT estimates of the
probability that each student is proficient at a variety of ordered math and reading skills.
Details of the construction of these proficiency levels are provided in the ECLS-K
psychometric reports (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005; Pollack et
al., 2005; Rock & Pollack, 2002). Tables C1 and C2 describe the skills corresponding to each
of the proficiency levels in math and reading.
Language of the Math and Reading Assessments
Students were only administered the ECLS-K math assessment if they were
proficient in oral English or oral Spanish, and were only administered the ECLS-K reading
assessment if they were proficient in oral English. This has implications for our ability to
estimate trends in math and reading test scores. In the early waves of the ECLS-K data
collection, many Hispanic students (29% of all Hispanic students; including 42% of
Mexican-origin students; and 77% of first-generation Mexican-origin students) were not
fluent enough in oral English to be assessed in reading (in English). As a result, the mean
reading scores for Hispanic students at each wave will be based only on the subsample of
students proficient in oral English at that wave, and so will be a biased estimate of the true
mean reading score of all Hispanic students (since students not proficient in English
certainly have lower average reading skills in English than students proficient in oral
English). Moreover, because the proportion of English-proficient Hispanic students grows
over time (to 80% by the spring of kindergarten, 90% by the spring of first grade, and 99%
by the spring of third grade), trends in the mean reading scores of those Hispanic students
with reading scores are further confounded by changes in the population of Hispanic
students represented in the sample of students with test scores. There is no such
confounding for math score trends (except for Asian students, 22% of whom were not
proficient in English at wave 1 and for whom no home language version of the tests were
available), since non-English proficient Hispanic students could take the math test in
Spanish.
In order to avoid these confounding patterns, we focus in this report on estimating
reading achievement trends only for the subpopulation of students who were proficient in
spoken English at the start of kindergarten, though we later include some additional analyses
to examine the differences between these students and those not proficient in oral English at
the start of schooling. Thus, the Hispanic-White reading gaps reported here almost certainly
understate the magnitude of the true Hispanic-White reading gaps, since they are based only
on the 71% of Hispanic students proficient in English in kindergarten. We caution readers
to keep this in mind throughout this report.
Sample and Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 describes the distribution of the complete ECLS-K sample by race/ethnicity,
Hispanic national/regional origin, and immigrant generational status. Of note for our
purposes here is the large sample of Hispanic students. There are 4,006 Hispanic students in
the sample, of whom roughly 2,600 can be categorized by national origin and generational
status. Mexican-origin Hispanics are by far the largest group of Hispanics, and the only
group for whom we have adequate sample sizes to disaggregate achievement patterns by
immigrant generation.5
Note also that the absence of third-generation South and Central American-origin Hispanics in the sample is
an artifact of the way national origin and immigrant generation data were collected. Students whose parent(s)
5
9
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table 1: ECLS-K Sample Sizes, by Race & Hispanic Country/Region of National
Origin, and Immigrant Generation
Race / National Origin
White, Not Hispanic
Hispanic, any Race
Mexican Origin
Cuban Origin
Puerto Rican Origin
Central American Origin
South American Origin
Other Hispanic Origin
National Origin Unknown
Black, Not Hispanic
Asian
Other Race
Race/Ethnicity Unknown
Total
1st
87
279
174
11
19
27
29
10
9
30
150
25
0
571
2nd
511
1,574
991
58
97
234
115
63
16
149
642
191
8
3,075
Immigrant Generation
3rd+
2nd/3rd Unknown
8,675
1,784
602
1,106
679
368
518
22
10
25
2
1
120
1
6
0
0
9
0
0
3
99
10
0
344
644
339
1,921
746
359
104
260
195
667
180
73
7
4
33
12,480
3,653
1,262
Total
11,659
4,006
1,715
97
243
270
147
182
1,352
3,205
1,351
1,136
52
21,409
In order to ensure that the trend data we report is not affected by attrition from the
ECLS-K sample, we restrict our analyses of achievement gaps to a subsample of the ECLSK students who were present in the ECLS-K sample at each wave of the study.6 In addition,
we restrict the analyses of reading trends to students who have valid math and reading scores
in wave 1 (fall of kindergarten). In the case of the math assessment, these restrictions do not
substantially change our conclusions about the trends compared to an analysis that uses all
available students at each wave.7 In the case of the reading assessment, however, the second
restriction limits our analyses to students who were proficient in oral English in the fall of
kindergarten (roughly 70% of all Hispanic students), so that the magnitude and trends in the
gaps we report generalize only to Hispanic students proficient in spoken English in the fall
of kindergarten. Later in this report we examine the differences between the achievement
patterns of these students and Hispanic students who were not proficient in English in the
fall of kindergarten. Table 2 reports the total number of students, by subgroup, used in the
main math and reading gap analyses. We do not report gap estimates for subgroups smaller
than 40 students.
reported being born in the U.S. were identified as third+ generation students. For these students, national
origin was determined by the question regarding group membership (see above), for which South and Central
American were not available responses (only Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Other were available options).
Thus, third-generation students with origins in South or Central American would be coded as Other or
Unknown national origin.
6 We include students not assessed in the fall of first grade, since only a 30% random subsample were assessed
in spring of first grade.
7 In other words, sample attrition does not appear to be systematically related to achievement, once the
appropriate ECLS-K weights are applied. However, for some small subgroups, attrition of a small number of
non-representative students does appear to affect our gap estimates. We report the gap trends for a constant
sample in order to avoid confounding the gap trends with attrition noise.
10
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table 2: ECLS-K Sample Sizes, by Race & Hispanic Country/Region of National
Origin, and Immigrant Generation (Full & Final Analytic)
Race / National Origin
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd generation
Hispanic, any Race
Mexican Origin
Mexican, 1st generation
Mexican, 2nd generation
Mexican, 3rd generation
Mexican, 2nd/3rd generation
Mexican, Unknown generation
Cuban Origin
Puerto Rican Origin
Central American Origin
South American Origin
Other Hispanic Origin
National Origin Unknown
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd generation
Asian
Other Race
Race/Ethnicity Unknown
Total
Total
8,675
4,006
1,715
174
991
518
22
10
97
243
270
147
182
1,352
1,921
1,351
1,136
52
17,141
Sample
Math
5,119
1,871
1,045
77
662
295
7
4
58
119
174
87
101
287
894
489
538
-8,911
Reading
5,115
1,303
612
14
308
284
5
1
47
109
100
73
97
265
894
489
538
-8,339
Methods
We report student achievement patterns for different subgroups in two ways in this
report. First, we report average achievement levels for each subgroup in a standardized test
metric. Because the IRT test scale used by ECLS-K is arbitrary (in the sense that one unit
on the test metric has no directly interpretable meaning), we standardize it at each test wave.
In this standardized metric, a student’s score is measured in pooled standard deviation units
and a score of 0 corresponds to the average score for a non-immigrant (third-plus
generation) non-Hispanic White student. The average score for any other group, then, can
be interpreted as the population gap between that group and non-immigrant, non-Hispanic
White students, expressed in terms of pooled standard deviations. A one-standard deviation
gap between Hispanic and White students, for instance, would imply that the average
Hispanic student has the same score as a White student at the 16th percentile of the White
students’ score distribution. See Appendix A for details on the estimation of the
standardized gaps.
Second—in Appendix C—we report estimates of the proportion of students meeting
proficiency criteria for each of the nine reading proficiency levels and the nine math
proficiency levels. These proportions allow us to interpret differences in math and reading
skill groups at a given point in time in concrete terms more readily than we can using the
standardized IRT scores, since the proficiency levels can be linked to specific skills.
However, the standardized scores allow for easier interpretation of trends in the
achievement disparities among groups. Because the trends are of primary interest in this
report, we focus on the standardized achievement gap results in the body of the report.
Appendix C includes detailed tables describing proficiency proportions, by subgroup.
11
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
In addition to reporting achievement patterns of Hispanic students disaggregated by
national/regional origin and immigrant generation, we also report patterns disaggregated by
socioeconomic status (SES) and home language for Hispanic students. Tables 3 and 4
report the sample SES and home language category distributions of students of each
race/ethnic/immigrant subgroup group. Among Hispanics, Central American origin
students and Mexican students—particularly first- and second-generation Mexican
students—have the lowest average socioeconomic status. Roughly half of these students
(and over three-quarters of first-generation Mexican origin students) come from families in
the lowest SES quintile. Hispanic students of Cuban and South American origin have, on
average, the highest SES among Hispanic subgroups, in contrast.
The patterns of home language use also show sharp differences among Hispanic
subgroups. Most students of Mexican and Central American origins, particularly the most
recent Mexican immigrants, come from families where Spanish is the predominant or only
language spoken in the home. Puerto Rican students and students of Other
national/regional origin, in contrast come primarily from homes where English is the
predominant or only language spoken in the home.
Table 3: Proportion in Each Socioeconomic Quintile, By Race, Hispanic National
Origin, and Immigrant Generation
SES Quintile
Race / National Origin / Generation
1 (low)
2
3
4
5 (high)
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
8.2
16.5
22.4
22.9
30.0
Hispanic, any Race
35.8
24.5
17.7
13.4
8.6
Mexican Origin
42.6
26.2
14.6
10.3
6.2
Mexican, 1st generation
66.9
26.3
4.9
0.0
1.9
Mexican, 2nd generation
53.0
28.4
9.4
6.6
2.6
Mexican, 3rd generation
17.6
22.5
26.5
19.4
14.0
Mexican, 2nd/3rd generation
81.5
16.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
Mexican, Unknown generation
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cuban Origin
14.1
4.8
36.6
17.6
27.0
Puerto Rican Origin
17.5
24.4
27.5
21.7
8.8
Central American Origin
45.8
23.4
12.7
7.7
10.4
South American Origin
9.9
41.1
14.2
15.3
19.5
Other Hispanic Origin
35.7
15.2
25.0
13.4
10.8
National Origin Unknown
17.0
19.3
25.7
27.1
10.9
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
33.1
23.3
24.4
14.8
4.4
Asian, Any Generation
18.5
12.9
16.5
17.7
34.4
Other Race, Any Generation
18.0
21.6
29.3
14.1
17.0
Total
18.3
19.3
21.9
19.2
21.4
Note: percentages are weighted by ECLS-K longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and include only students in the
longitudinal sample and with valid math scores in wave 1.
12
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table 4: Proportions by Home Language Use Categories, By Hispanic National
Origin, and Immigrant Generation, Hispanics
Language Spoken in Home
Predominantly Predominantly
National Origin / Generation
English Only
English
Spanish
Spanish Only
Mexican Origin
24.0
19.2
20.7
36.0
Mexican, 1st generation
4.7
0.0
15.0
80.4
Mexican, 2nd generation
11.9
13.3
25.1
49.7
Mexican, 3rd generation
51.0
34.2
10.7
4.1
Mexican, 2nd/3rd generation
7.1
0.0
71.4
21.5
Mexican, Unknown generation
0.0
47.3
0.0
52.7
Cuban Origin
7.8
26.3
30.6
35.3
Puerto Rican Origin
38.5
26.4
20.6
14.5
Central American Origin
23.5
11.2
21.2
44.1
South American Origin
10.2
28.8
34.0
27.0
Other Hispanic Origin
59.7
18.4
8.9
13.0
National Origin Unknown
61.7
21.0
10.5
6.9
Total Hispanic, any Race
31.8
19.8
19.3
29.1
Note: percentages are weighted by ECLS-K longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and include only students in the
longitudinal sample and with valid math scores in wave 1.
13
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
FINDINGS: PATTERNS OF HISPANIC STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
In this section, we report average math and reading score gaps in standard deviation
units 1) by race/ethnic group; 2) for Hispanics, broken down by country/region of national
origin; 3) for Mexican-origin students, broken down by immigrant generation; 4) for
Hispanics, broken down by the extent to which oral English and Spanish are used in
students’ homes; and 5) for Hispanics, broken down by socioeconomic quintile. In each
case, we illustrate the patterns with figures of the type shown in Figure 1A and report the
underlying estimated gaps and their standard errors in detailed tables in Appendix B.
Appendix C contains tables that parallel the analyses presented here, but that use the ECLSK math and reading proficiency levels rather than the test scores.
It is important to note that the figures describe the magnitude of the test score gaps
over time, not the patterns of learning of each group. In general, all students learn math and
reading skills throughout the kindergarten-fifth grade period. Even when test scores gaps
are widening, this does not mean that the subgroup of interest is losing math or reading
skills, but only that the difference between their average skills and those of the reference
group (non-immigrant, non-Hispanic White students) is growing.
In Figure 1A (and subsequent figures), the vertical axis indicates the size of the
achievement gap (the difference in standard deviation units between the average score of
students in a given subgroup and the average score of non-immigrant (third-plus generation),
non-Hispanic White students). The solid horizontal line thus represents the achievement of
the reference group of White students. For each comparison subgroup (e.g., Black,
Hispanic, Asian, and other race students in this figure), the figure shows six estimates of the
achievement gap, corresponding to the six waves of ECLS-K assessment in fall kindergarten
(FK), spring kindergarten (SK), fall first grade (F1), spring first grade (S1), spring third grade
(S3) and spring fifth grade (S5). For each estimate, the vertical error bars indicate the 95%
confidence interval around the estimate (these are typically much larger in fall first grade
than in other waves, since only a subsample of the ECLS-K sample was tested then).
Finally, for each group, the figure includes a fitted trend line, indicated by the thick
solid line. These trends are fitted piecewise linear trend lines, with a change in slope at the
end of first grade,8 so that they indicate the average linear trend in the achievement gap
during kindergarten and first grade, and the average linear trend in the achievement gap from
first to fifth grade. The fitted trend lines do not correspond exactly to the point estimates of
the gaps at each assessment wave, but rather they summarize the general trends in the
magnitude of the gaps during the two time periods (kindergarten to first grade and first to
fifth grade).
We examined a variety of alternative ways of summarizing the trends, including linear, quadratic and cubic
trends; among these, the two-part piecewise linear trend with a change in slope at the end of first grade
appeared to fit the trends most parsimoniously. In fitting the trend lines, each wave’s estimated gap is weighted
by the inverse of its estimated sampling variance.
8
14
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Figure 1A
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Math Gaps,
by Race/Ethnic Group
-1.5
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
FK SK F1 S1
S3
Black
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
Hispanic
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
Asian
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
Other
Achievement Gap Trends by Race/Ethnicity
Figures 1A and 1B show kindergarten through fifth grade trends in the differences in
average math (Figure 1A) and reading (Figure 1B) test scores of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and
Other Race students, relative to White students (for detail, see also Tables B1 and B2 in
Appendix B and Tables C3 and C4 in Appendix C). Most notable here are 1) the steadily
increasing Black-White gaps (particularly in math) during the kindergarten through fifthgrade period; and 2) the rapid narrowing of the White-Hispanic gaps during kindergarten
and first grade, followed by only slight changes in the gaps from the end of first grade
through fifth grade.
At the start of kindergarten, Hispanic and Black students have math and reading
scores substantially lower than those of White students (but roughly equal to one another).
The average Hispanic and Black students begin kindergarten with math scores three-quarters
of a standard deviation lower than those of White students and with reading scores half a
standard deviation lower than those of White students. Six years later, however, HispanicWhite gaps have narrowed (by roughly a third), while Black-White gaps have widened (also
by roughly a third). Despite this narrowing, the Hispanic-White gap is one-half a standard
deviation in math and three-eighths of a standard deviation in reading at the end of fifth
grade.
The trend in the Hispanic-White gap is notable for its rapid narrowing in
kindergarten and first grade—the estimated math gap declines from 0.77 to 0.56 standard
deviations and the estimated reading gap declines from 0.52 to 0.29 standard deviations in
the roughly 18 months between the fall kindergarten and spring first-grade assessments. In
the four years from the spring of first grade through the spring of fifth grade, however, the
gaps change very little—narrowing slightly to 0.50 in math and widening slightly to 0.38 in
15
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
reading. As we will see, this pattern of rapid narrowing at the start of formal schooling
followed by relative stability is common to most Hispanic subgroups.
Figure 1B
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Reading Gaps,
by Race/Ethnic Group
FK SK F1 S1
S3
Black
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
Hispanic
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
Asian
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
Other
16
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Achievement Gap Trends by Hispanic National Origin
Of primary interest for this report are the trends in achievement disparities between
Hispanic students and non-Hispanic White students. Hispanic students are not, of course, a
monolithic group, so the next set of descriptive analyses report Hispanic-White achievement
gaps disaggregated by Hispanic students’ country/region of origin (Figures 2A and 2B; for
detail, see also Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B and Tables C3 and C4 in Appendix C).
Several key findings are evident in Figures 2A and 2B. First, there is considerable
heterogeneity among Hispanic national origin groups in the magnitude of math and reading
achievement disparities, particularly with regard to math achievement. In math, students of
Mexican and Central American origins enter kindergarten with average achievement scores
roughly one standard deviation below those of third-generation non-Hispanic White
students, while students of Cuban, Puerto Rican, and South American origins enter
kindergarten with scores roughly half a standard deviation below such White students. In
reading, the patterns are similar, though the gaps are only about half the size as in math and
vary less among national/regional origin groups (though it is important to recall that the
reading gaps reported here are based only on the sample of Hispanic students proficient in
oral English at the start of kindergarten, so the gap estimates are smaller here than they
would be if we could include all Hispanic students).
Second, there is some heterogeneity among Hispanic national origin groups in the
patterns of change in the size of achievement gaps from kindergarten to fifth grade. In
general, the math and achievement gaps narrow for most groups in kindergarten and first
grade (though not for Puerto Rican students in math or Cuban-origin students in reading).
From first through third grade, however, the patterns are more varied. In math, there is little
or no change in the size of the achievement gap for Mexican and Cuban origin students, a
gradual narrowing of the gap for Puerto Rican and South American origin students, and a
substantial narrowing of the gap for Central American origin students. In reading, the gaps
generally change little for most groups from first through fifth grade, and actually appear to
widen slightly for Mexican origin students.
17
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Figure 2A
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,
by Hispanic Country of Origin
-1.5
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mexican
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Puerto Rican
South American
Central American
Other/Unknown
Cuban
Figure 2B
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,
by Hispanic Country of Origin
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
Mexican
Cuban
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Puerto Rican
South American
Central American
Other/Unknown
18
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Achievement Gap Trends by Immigrant Generation
In order to examine differences in achievement patterns by Hispanic immigrant
generation, we focus on Mexican origin students, since they are the only national origin
group with sizeable samples of first-, second-, and third-plus-generation students. While we
would obtain larger sample sizes within each immigrant generation group if we combined all
national origin groups in this analysis, an analysis that combined students of similar
immigrant generations but of different national origins would potentially confound
generational status with the different immigration histories and contexts of different national
origin groups.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the patterns of math and reading scores for first- (in math
only), second-, and third-plus-generation Mexican students, with patterns of Black students
shown for comparison (for detail, see also Tables B5 and B6 in Appendix B and Tables C3
and C4 in Appendix C). In math, both first- and second-generation Mexican origin students
enter kindergarten with average achievement scores roughly 1.1 standard deviations below
those of White students. Third-plus-generation Mexican students enter kindergarten with
math scores 0.46 standard deviations below those of non-Hispanic White students. By the
spring of first grade, these gaps have narrowed considerably, particularly for first- and
second-generation students, who are roughly 0.75 standard deviations below White students
at this point. There is relatively little change in the magnitude of the gaps after first grade for
any of the groups.
Because our reading gap estimates are based only on the sample of students who
were proficient in oral English in the fall of kindergarten, and because very few Mexican
first-generation students were proficient, we are able to estimate reading gaps only for
second- and third-plus-generation Mexican origin students. The patterns for these students
are similar in reading as in math, though the magnitudes of the gaps are smaller. As in math,
the gaps are larger for second-generation students than for third-plus-generation students,
they narrow sharply in kindergarten and first grade, and they are relatively stable (widening
slightly, in fact) from first to fifth grade.
It is worth noting that first- and second-generation Mexican students are the most
socioeconomically disadvantaged of the Hispanic subgroups we examine, with average
socioeconomic levels far below those of native-born Black students—93% of firstgeneration Mexican students and 81% of second-generation Mexican students are in the
bottom two SES quintiles, compared to 53% of Black students (see Table 3 above).
Nonetheless, despite starting kindergarten with math and reading scores far below those of
Black students and even farther below those of White students, first- and second-generation
Mexican students make substantial test score gains, relative to Whites and Blacks during
elementary school. At the same time, Black students’ scores fall, on average, relative to
White students’ scores, so that by fifth grade, first- and second- generation Mexican
students—the most socioeconomically disadvantaged group of Hispanic students—have
average scores considerably higher than those of Black students. It appears that schooling
and/or developmental processes operate quite differently on Hispanic students than on
Black students—schooling and/or developmental processes (such as English language
acquisition) reduce Hispanic-White achievement gaps, but widen Black-White disparities
during the same period.
19
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Figure 3A
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,
Mexicans, by Immigrant Generation
-1.5
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mexican
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mex Gen 1
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mex Gen 2
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mex Gen 3
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Black
Figure 3B
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,
Mexicans, by Immigrant Generation
FKSKF1S1
S3
Mexican
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mex Gen 1
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mex Gen 2
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Mex Gen 3
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
Black
20
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
The general patterns of achievement gap trends described so far indicates that
achievement is lowest for Mexican and Central American origin students, and lower for firstand second-generation students than third-plus-generation students. Moreover, Hispanic
students make substantial gains in achievement, relative to White students, in kindergarten
and first grade, but this progress slows or stops from first to fifth grade. Because students of
Mexican and Central American origins are, on average, more socioeconomically
disadvantaged and less likely to come from homes where English is spoken than other
Hispanic students, it is possible that these patterns can be largely explained by
socioeconomic and language differences among Hispanic subgroups. The lower
socioeconomic status of Mexican and Central American students, and of first- and secondgeneration Mexican students, may account for the lower math and reading skills of these
students when they enter kindergarten. The rapid progress in both math and reading of
these groups of students in the first two years of schooling may be attributable to English
acquisition during the first few years of schooling and/or to instructional practices tailored
to the needs of English language learners.
Achievement Gap Trends by Language Use in the Home
Figures 4A and 4B show Hispanic-White achievement gap trends, disaggregated by
language use in the students’ homes (for detail, see also Tables B7 and B8 in Appendix B
and Tables C5 and C6 in Appendix C). Two clear patterns are evident. First, students from
homes where Spanish is the only or predominant language used enter kindergarten with
lower math and reading skills than students from homes where English is the dominant
language. Second, the pattern of rapid achievement gains in kindergarten and first grade is
most evident for students from homes where Spanish is the only language spoken at home.
This pattern is particularly evident in reading.
On the one hand, these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis that much of the
rapid progress of Hispanic students in the first two years of schooling are due to processes
of increased English acquisition (both oral and written)—which likely both improves test
performance on tests given in English (such as the reading test), and increases the
opportunity for students to learn in schools where at least some, if not all, of the instruction
is in English. On the other hand, some of the rapid progress of Hispanic students in the
first two years of schooling may also be due to the use of instructional practices that are
particularly effective with English language learners in the first years of schooling. The
ECLS-K data are not well-suited to investigate these two hypotheses in detail.
Despite the rapid gains in math and reading of students from homes where Spanish
is the predominant language, these students still score well below those of White students
and Hispanic students from English-speaking homes by fifth grade. This suggests that the
processes that produce the rapid gains evident in kindergarten and first grade are not
sufficient on their own to eliminate the Hispanic-White achievement disparities.
21
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Figure 4A
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,
by Language Used in Home
-1.5
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
English Only
Bilingual, Primarily Spanish
Bilingual, Primarily English
Spanish Only
Figure 4B
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,
by Language Used in Home
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
English Only
Bilingual, Primarily Spanish
Bilingual, Primarily English
Spanish Only
22
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Achievement Gap Trends by Socioeconomic Status
Figures 5A and 5B indicate Hispanic-White achievement gaps, with Hispanic
students disaggregated by socioeconomic quintile (for detail, see also Tables B9 and B10 in
Appendix B and Tables C5 and C6 in Appendix C). Note that the gaps reported here are
the gaps between the average Hispanic student in a given SES quintile and the average nonHispanic White student in the population. In other words, these are not within-SES-quintile
gaps (those are shown in Figures 6A and 6B, below). The key patterns evident in Figures 5A
and 5B are that a) there is a clear socioeconomic gradient in achievement patterns of
Hispanic students; Hispanic students in the lowest SES quintile start kindergarten with math
and reading scores an average of 1.2 and 0.9 standard deviations, respectively, below those of
the average non-Hispanic White student; b) the growth in achievement in kindergarten and
first grade is steepest for Hispanic students of the lowest SES quintile.
While Figures 5A and 5B indicate the overall SES gradient for achievement, it is
informative as well to examine achievement gaps among students of similar socioeconomic
status. Figures 6A and 6B describe the within-SES quintile Hispanic-White achievement
gaps; Black-White achievement gaps are included here for comparison as well (for detail, see
also Tables B11 and B12 in Appendix B and Tables C5 through C8 in Appendix C). These
figures show the average difference in math and reading scores between Hispanic (or Black)
and non-Hispanic White students who are in the same socioeconomic quintile. Notably, at
the start of kindergarten, Hispanic students score roughly a quarter to a third of a standard
deviation lower in both math and reading than do non-Hispanic White students of the same
SES quintile. By the spring of fifth grade, however, the gaps are typically smaller. In some
cases—particularly among students in the lowest SES quintile—Hispanic and non-Hispanic
White students average scores are no different from one another. At higher SES levels,
Hispanic students still score slightly below White students, though the gaps are typically 0.1
to 0.2 standard deviations smaller than at the start of kindergarten.
23
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Figure 5A
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Standard Deviations Below Whites
1.0
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Math Gaps,
by Hispanic SES Quintile
-1.5
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q1 (Low)
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q2
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q3
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q4
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q5 (High)
Figure 5B
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Standard Deviations Below Whites
1.0
Trends in Estimated Population Hispanic-White Reading Gaps,
by Hispanic SES Quintile
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q1 (Low)
FKSKF1S1
S3
SES Q2
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
SES Q3
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
SES Q4
S5
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q5 (High)
24
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Figure 6A
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Within-SES Quintile Math Gaps,
by SES Quintile and Race/Ethnic Group
Hispanic Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Black Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q1 (Low)
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q2
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q3
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q4
FKSKF1S1
S3
S5
SES Q5 (High)
Figure 6B
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Hispanic Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
Black Fitted (Piecewise) Population Gap Trend
-1.5
Standard Deviations Below Whites
0.5
Trends in Estimated Within-SES Quintile Reading Gaps,
by SES Quintile and Race/Ethnic Group
FKSK F1 S1
S3
S5
SES Q1 (Low)
FKSK F1 S1
S3
SES Q2
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
SES Q3
S5
FKSK F1 S1
S3
SES Q4
S5
FK SK F1 S1
S3
S5
SES Q5 (High)
25
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Achievement Gap Trends by Students’ Initial English Proficiency
Recall that the reading achievement gap patterns and trends reported above are
based on the sample of Hispanic students who were proficient in oral English at the start of
kindergarten (about 70% of the total Hispanic sample). In general, the reading gaps between
Hispanic and White students are smaller than the math gaps. However, the true reading gap
(based on the entire population of Hispanic students, not just the ones proficient in English
in kindergarten) is likely larger than that which we describe, since the omitted students would
almost certainly have lower reading scores, on average, than those included in the estimates.
In Table 5, we examine this hypothesis by comparing the K-5 math score gaps for
Hispanic students proficient and not proficient in English in kindergarten (for detail, see also
Tables C11 and C12 in Appendix C). Table 5 clearly indicates that the non-English
proficient Hispanic students score considerably worse than the English-proficient students at
each wave, though the non-English proficient students gain more in math skills (half a
standard deviation), relative to White students, from kindergarten to fifth grade. These
gains, however, are not sufficient to make up the substantial initial gaps. In reading,
although we cannot observe reading scores for non-English proficient students in
kindergarten and first grade, it is clear that by fifth grade, these students still lag over a
standard deviation behind non-Hispanic White students and behind Hispanic students who
were proficient in English in kindergarten.
The large gaps between Hispanic students who are not proficient in oral English at
the start of kindergarten and non-Hispanic White students are likely not due entirely to
differences in English proficiency at the start of schooling. In fact, the non-Englishproficient students are disproportionately form low-SES homes—72% of those not
proficient in English at the start of schooling are in the lowest SES quintile, and 15% are in
the second-lowest SES quintile. When we compare the fifth-grade reading scores of the
non-English-proficient Hispanic students (1.09 standard deviations below those of nonHispanic White students; see Table 5) with those of English-proficient Hispanic students
from the lowest SES quintile (0.78 standard deviations below those of non-Hispanic White
students; see Figure 5b and Table B10), it appears that two-thirds to three-quarters of the
gap between non-English-proficient Hispanic students and White students is associated with
the low socioeconomic status of the non-English-proficient students, rather than their
language skills alone.9
9 We cannot make exactly the same comparison in math, since the estimate of the fifth-grade gap between the
lowest-SES quintile Hispanic students and White students (0.81 standard deviations; see Table B9) is based on
both Hispanic students who were and were not proficient in English in kindergarten. It is likely that the fifthgrade math gap between the lowest-SES quintile Hispanic students and White students would be smaller, if
restricted to only students who were proficient in English in kindergarten.
26
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table 5: ECLS-K Standardized Math and Reading Achievement Gaps, By Hispanic
Subgroup, Sample, and Wave
Subgroup / Sample
Hispanic
English Proficient, Fall K
FK
-0.518
(0.060)
Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.394
(0.067)
Mexican
English Proficient, Fall K
-0.607
(0.070)
Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.380
(0.074)
Mexican, 1st Generation
English Proficient, Fall K
-0.834
(0.408)
Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.173
(0.149)
Mexican, 2nd Generation
English Proficient, Fall K
-0.780
(0.090)
Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.377
(0.080)
Mexican, 3rd Generation
English Proficient, Fall K
-0.432
(0.087)
Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.523
(0.160)
SK
Assessment Content Area / Wave
Math
F1
S1
S3
S5
Reading
S3
S5
-0.450
(0.060)
-1.239
(0.067)
-0.350
(0.102)
-1.143
(0.104)
-0.403
(0.054)
-0.964
(0.062)
-0.403
(0.057)
-0.991
(0.062)
-0.349
(0.056)
-0.884
(0.063)
-0.359
(0.064)
-1.140
(0.061)
-0.372
(0.062)
-1.088
(0.055)
-0.504
(0.076)
-1.255
(0.076)
-0.347
(0.128)
-1.126
(0.109)
-0.392
(0.069)
-0.924
(0.069)
-0.442
(0.067)
-0.989
(0.069)
-0.418
(0.065)
-0.911
(0.066)
-0.370
(0.080)
-1.214
(0.068)
-0.400
(0.085)
-1.156
(0.059)
-0.850
(0.361)
-0.998
(0.145)
0.069
(0.155)
-1.260
(0.144)
-0.710
(0.211)
-0.784
(0.144)
-0.432
(0.195)
-0.845
(0.180)
-0.492
(0.197)
-0.744
(0.156)
-0.692
(0.234)
-1.172
(0.193)
-0.677
(0.162)
-0.988
(0.163)
-0.692
(0.098)
-1.279
(0.084)
-0.607
(0.178)
-1.118
(0.117)
-0.518
(0.097)
-0.916
(0.075)
-0.594
(0.094)
-1.005
(0.075)
-0.532
(0.088)
-0.923
(0.070)
-0.470
(0.121)
-1.203
(0.070)
-0.518
(0.145)
-1.164
(0.062)
-0.319
(0.085)
-1.289
(0.209)
-0.152
(0.158)
-0.581
(0.292)
-0.260
(0.083)
-1.352
(0.244)
-0.298
(0.080)
-1.033
(0.292)
-0.311
(0.082)
-0.795
(0.268)
-0.264
(0.099)
-0.952
(0.319)
-0.279
(0.088)
-1.134
(0.276)
Central American
English Proficient, Fall K
-0.704 -0.591 -1.188 -0.704 -0.320 -0.163
-0.173
-0.290
(0.192) (0.227) (0.643) (0.168) (0.207) (0.202)
(0.163) (0.118)
Not English Proficient, Fall K -1.501 -1.191 -0.846 -1.076 -0.988 -0.643
-0.859
-0.829
(0.179) (0.111) (0.318) (0.140) (0.163) (0.183)
(0.149) (0.106)
Notes: “Not English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student does not have a valid reading score at wave 1, but
the student has a valid longitudinal weight (c1_6fc0). “English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student has
both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight. Assessment waves are: FK=Fall 1998
assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring
2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment. Achievement gaps are relative to 3rd-generation non-Hispanic
White students in the sample at each assessment wave. Survey design corrected standard errors are in
parentheses.
27
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
References
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., & Mills, R. (2004). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage
in the United States: 2003 (No. p60-226). Washington D.C.: US-Census-Bureau.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2005). Can Family Socioeconomic Resources Account
for Racial and Ethnic Test Score Gaps? The Future of Children, 15(1), 35-54.
Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic Youth Dropping Out of the U.S. Schools: Measuring the Challenge.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding the black-white test score gap in the first
two years of school. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 447-464.
Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2005). The black-white test score gap through third grade (Working
paper No. w11049). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gándara, P. (1999). Telling stories of success: Cultural capital and the educational mobility of
Chicano students. Latino Studies Journal, 10, 38-54.
Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief (Current Population Reports
C2KBR/01-3 http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf). Washington
DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Guzman, B., & McConnell, E. (2002). The Hispanic Population: 1990-2000 growth and
change. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(1-2), 109-128.
Hirschman, C. (2001). The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: A test of the
segmented assimilation hypothesis. Demography, 38(3), 317-336.
Inter-University Program for Latino Research. (2002). The Latino Population: 1990-2000: InterUniversity Program for Latino Research.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Kao, G., & Thompson, J. (2003). Race and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement
and Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417-442.
Kaufman, P., Alt, M. N., & Chapman, C. D. (2001). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000
(No. 2002-114). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; National Center
for Educational Statistics
Larsen, L. (2004). The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003 (Current Population
Reports P20-551 http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf).
Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences
in Achievement as Children Begin School. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Crowley, M. L. (2005). Poverty and Economic Polarization among
America's Minority and Immigrant Children (Working Paper #05-6). Ann Arbor,
Michigan: National Poverty Center.
Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (1999). Immigration to the United States. Population Bulletin, 54(2).
Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (2003). Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America. Population
Bulletin, 58(2).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Common Core of Data (CCD) Public
Elementary and Secondary School Universe Data. from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002b). User's manual for the ECLS-K First Grade
Public-Use Data Files and Electronic Codebook (No. NCES 2002-135). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics
28
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Highlights. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Neal, D. (2005). Why has Black-White skill convergence stopped? : University of Chicago.
Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., & Rivera, H. H. (2002). Educating Hispanic Students: Obstacles
and Avenues to Improve Academic Achievement (No. epr08). Santa Cruz, CA: University of
California, Santa Cruz; Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Hispanic College Enrollment: Less Intensive and Less Heavily
Subsidized (Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Pollack, J. M., Narajian, M., Rock, D. A., Atkins-Burnett, S., & Hausken, E. G. (2005). Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric Report
for the Fifth Grade (NCES Report No. 2006-036). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Pollack, J. M., Rock, D. A., Weiss, M. J., Atkins-Burnett, S., Tourangeau, K., West, J., et al.
(2005). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K),
Psychometric Report for the Third Grade (NCES Report No. 2005-062). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Ramirez, R. (2004). We the People: Hispanics in the United States. (Census 2000 Special Reports
CENSR-18 http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf). Washington
DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Reardon, S. F. (2003). Sources of educational inequality: The growth of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
test score gaps in kindergarten and first grade (Working Paper No. 03-05R): Population
Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University.
Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class of
1998-99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric Report for Kindergarten Through First Grade (NCES
Working Paper No. 2002-05). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Rock, D. A., & Stenner, A. J. (2005). Assessment Issues in the Testing of Children at School
Entry. The Future of Children, 15(1), 15-34.
Rumberger, R., & Arellano, B. (2004). Understanding and Addressing the California Latino
Achievement Gap in Early Elementary School (No. 2004-01). Santa Barbara, CA:
University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Stata Corporation. (2005). Stata (Version 9.1). College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
Tienda, M. (2002). Demography and the Social Contract. Demography, 39(4), 587-616.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). The Hispanic Population in the United States (Population
Characteristics). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Current Population Survey, March 2000: Ethnic and Hispanic
Statistic Brach, Population Division.
Van Hook, J., & Balistreri, K. S. (2002). Diversity and Change in the Institutional Context of
Immigrant Adaptation: California Schools 1985-2000. Demography, 39(4), 639-654.
Zill, N., Collins, M., West, J., & Hausken, E. G. (1995). Approaching Kindergarten: A Look at
preschoolers in the United States (No. NCES 95-280). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
29
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Appendix A: Estimation of Achievement Gaps
ECLS-K reports math and reading scores in several metrics. For this report, we rely
on the test scores reported in the t-score metric.10 These scores are standardized version of
the IRT theta scores, standardized to have a sample mean of 50 and sample standard
deviation of 10 at each wave. To compute the pooled within-race/ethnic group standard
deviation of test scores at each wave, and in order to account for the additional variance in
test scores that results from variation across the sample in assessment dates, we fit via
weighted least squares a set of models (for both math and reading, and at each of the six
waves) of the form
Ytwi = β 0Twi + X i β + εtwi ,
where Ytwi is the t-score in subject t at wave w for student i, Tiw is the assessment date at wave
w for student i, Xi is a vector of race/ethnic dummy variables (White, non-Hispanic; Black,
non-Hispanic, Hispanic, any race; Asian or Pacific Islander, Other), and where the model is
weighted by the appropriate ECLS-K child longitudinal weight (ECLS-K variable c1_6fc0).
This model yields an estimate of σtw, the assessment-date-adjusted pooled standard deviation
of test score t at wave w.11
We next re-standardize the test scores by de-meaning them and dividing by the
estimated pooled standard deviation:
′ =
Ytwi
(Y
twi
− Ytw )
σ̂ tw
.
The re-standardized test score Y′twi is used in all subsequent models, so that all betweengroup differences in test scores are expressed in terms of pooled standard deviations.
Between-group differences are estimated by fitting models of the form
′ = α 0 + α 1Twi + X i β + εtwi ,
Ytwi
where X is a vector of race or Hispanic subgroup dummy variables (typically with thirdgeneration non-Hispanic White students as the omitted category). These models are fit via
weighted least squares using the appropriate ECLS-K child longitudinal weight (ECLS-K
variable c1_6fc0). We report standard errors adjusted for the complex sampling design of
ECLS-K, using the –svy– commands in the Stata statistical software package (Stata
Corporation, 2005).
Results are virtually unchanged if we use the ECLS-K IRT estimated scale scores rather than the t-scores.
Note that the estimated pooled standard deviation is an estimate of the within-group standard deviation in
observed test scores; because this includes measurement error; this will typically overestimate the within-group
standard deviation in true scores. Given that the estimated item-level reliabilities of the ECLS-K scores are
roughly 0.89-0.96 (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005), and that the test-retest reliability
of the ECLS-K tests is likely somewhere between 0.75 and 0.95 (based on estimates of test-retest reliability of
IQ and school readiness tests for children ages 5-10; see Rock & Stenner, 2005), the overall reliability of the
tests is probably between 0.70 and 0.90, which means that the estimated standard deviation of true scores is
likely 5-15% smaller than the estimated standard deviation of the observed scores. Thus, our estimates of the
between-group gaps likely underestimate the magnitude of the true gaps by 5-15%.
10
11
30
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Appendix B: Detailed Achievement Tables
Table B1: ECLS-K Standardized Math Achievement Gap, By Race and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-0.768
-0.675
-0.606
-0.564
-0.571
-0.502
(0.057)
(0.056)
(0.094)
(0.048)
(0.049)
(0.049)
-0.733
-0.802
-0.830
-0.788
-0.925
-1.005
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
(0.064)
(0.069)
(0.105)
(0.068)
(0.066)
(0.060)
Asian
0.118
0.141
-0.173
0.049
0.077
0.289
(0.097)
(0.109)
(0.232)
(0.103)
(0.111)
(0.095)
Other
-0.622
-0.464
-0.408
-0.471
-0.552
-0.493
(0.096)
(0.085)
(0.171)
(0.090)
(0.093)
(0.106)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0.
Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students.
Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Race
Hispanic
Table B2: ECLS-K Standardized Reading Achievement Gap, By Race and Wave
Wave
Race
Hispanic
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-0.515
-0.336
-0.212
-0.293
-0.364
-0.377
(0.062)
(0.060)
(0.099)
(0.063)
(0.064)
(0.062)
-0.525
-0.562
-0.503
-0.526
-0.756
-0.801
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
(0.071)
(0.078)
(0.115)
(0.071)
(0.072)
(0.064)
Asian
0.188
0.251
0.111
0.264
0.108
0.097
(0.104)
(0.097)
(0.258)
(0.086)
(0.092)
(0.078)
Other
-0.567
-0.414
-0.388
-0.422
-0.499
-0.445
(0.095)
(0.093)
(0.158)
(0.096)
(0.101)
(0.113)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight
c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White
students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
31
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table B3: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, By
Hispanic National/Regional Origin and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-0.905
-0.793
-0.685
-0.597
-0.653
-0.607
(0.063)
(0.066)
(0.104)
(0.057)
(0.055)
(0.054)
Cuban
-0.463
-0.098
-0.213
-0.146
-0.086
-0.108
(0.153)
(0.163)
(0.281)
(0.200)
(0.152)
(0.197)
Puerto Rican
-0.448
-0.461
-0.259
-0.464
-0.338
-0.259
(0.160)
(0.149)
(0.203)
(0.130)
(0.146)
(0.145)
Central American
-1.050
-0.850
-1.019
-0.865
-0.609
-0.371
(0.160)
(0.148)
(0.385)
(0.114)
(0.148)
(0.147)
South American
-0.525
-0.378
-0.210
-0.229
-0.149
-0.093
(0.208)
(0.151)
(0.198)
(0.160)
(0.162)
(0.184)
Hispanic origin unknown
-0.477
-0.481
-0.427
-0.499
-0.524
-0.440
(0.088)
(0.081)
(0.167)
(0.082)
(0.105)
(0.099)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0.
Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students.
Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Hispanic National Origin
Mexican
Table B4: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, By
Hispanic National/Regional Origin and Wave
Wave
Hispanic National Origin
Mexican
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
-0.560
-0.367
-0.224
-0.340
-0.374
(0.079)
(0.074)
(0.109)
(0.079)
(0.080)
Cuban
-0.247
0.094
-0.086
-0.151
-0.158
(0.129)
(0.104)
(0.184)
(0.102)
(0.130)
Puerto Rican
-0.355
-0.266
0.088
-0.093
-0.180
(0.154)
(0.153)
(0.252)
(0.102)
(0.128)
Central American
-0.582
-0.393
-0.754
-0.444
-0.176
(0.195)
(0.257)
(0.635)
(0.223)
(0.163)
South American
-0.259
-0.170
0.706
-0.029
-0.026
(0.193)
(0.169)
(0.447)
(0.172)
(0.147)
Hispanic origin unknown
-0.525
-0.355
-0.351
-0.287
-0.497
(0.091)
(0.097)
(0.155)
(0.107)
(0.125)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight
c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White
students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
S5
-0.403
(0.085)
-0.142
(0.133)
-0.118
(0.123)
-0.293
(0.118)
0.003
(0.165)
-0.485
(0.103)
32
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table B5: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, Mexican,
By Immigrant Generation and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-1.122
-0.976
-1.124
-0.773
-0.783
-0.706
(0.142)
(0.138)
(0.171)
(0.130)
(0.157)
(0.134)
-1.091
-0.997
-0.918
-0.726
-0.808
-0.735
Mexican, 2nd Generation
(0.072)
(0.072)
(0.112)
(0.066)
(0.063)
(0.061)
-0.463
-0.347
-0.158
-0.291
-0.318
-0.325
Mexican, 3rd Generation
(0.085)
(0.083)
(0.158)
(0.080)
(0.079)
(0.080)
-1.751
-1.209
1.146
-1.138
-0.912
-1.152
Mexican, 2nd/3rd Generation
(0.299)
(0.273)
(0.066)
(0.166)
(0.157)
(0.287)
Mexican, Generation unknown
-0.675
-0.753
0.553
-0.622
-0.832
-1.033
(0.421)
(0.347)
(0.053)
(0.052)
(0.236)
(0.107)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0.
Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students.
Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Mexican Generational Status
Mexican, 1st Generation
Table B6: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap,
Mexican, By Immigrant Generation and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
-0.890
-0.927
-0.293
-0.683
-0.698
(0.330)
(0.255)
(0.150)
(0.226)
(0.234)
-0.757
-0.561
-0.531
-0.467
-0.475
Mexican, 2nd Generation
(0.105)
(0.092)
(0.125)
(0.115)
(0.121)
Mexican, 3rd Generation
-0.356
-0.167
0.023
-0.210
-0.269
(0.093)
(0.104)
(0.146)
(0.102)
(0.099)
Mexican, 2nd/3rd Generation
-0.542
-0.233
2.033
-0.280
-0.482
(0.320)
(0.253)
(0.077)
(0.226)
(0.259)
Mexican, Generation unknown
-0.822
0.003
-0.483
0.062
-0.043
(0.033)
(0.064)
(0.054)
(0.043)
(0.034)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight
c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White
students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Mexican Generational Status
Mexican, 1st Generation
S5
-0.681
(0.162)
-0.521
(0.145)
-0.283
(0.088)
-0.752
(0.207)
0.564
(0.065)
33
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table B7: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, By
Language Used in Home and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-0.375
-0.376
-0.211
-0.352
-0.388
-0.327
(0.084)
(0.084)
(0.161)
(0.083)
(0.093)
(0.086)
Mostly English
-0.483
-0.313
-0.234
-0.278
-0.223
-0.231
(0.083)
(0.074)
(0.142)
(0.069)
(0.081)
(0.085)
Mostly Spanish
-0.892
-0.807
-0.836
-0.649
-0.603
-0.586
(0.085)
(0.095)
(0.155)
(0.081)
(0.076)
(0.084)
Spanish
-1.148
-1.014
-1.027
-0.791
-0.851
-0.689
(0.074)
(0.072)
(0.119)
(0.072)
(0.070)
(0.070)
Notes: Sample includes students with a valid math score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and valid
information about the language spoken at home. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to
third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Language Used in Home
English
Table B8: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, By
Language Used in Home and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-0.344
-0.223
-0.188
-0.194
-0.306
-0.279
(0.097)
(0.100)
(0.145)
(0.101)
(0.121)
(0.113)
Mostly English
-0.326
-0.115
0.079
-0.114
-0.164
-0.184
(0.092)
(0.083)
(0.138)
(0.083)
(0.076)
(0.077)
Mostly Spanish
-0.685
-0.482
-0.484
-0.475
-0.563
-0.555
(0.075)
(0.094)
(0.199)
(0.091)
(0.091)
(0.086)
Spanish
-0.848
-0.632
-0.440
-0.377
-0.347
-0.465
(0.088)
(0.099)
(0.265)
(0.111)
(0.085)
(0.103)
Notes: Sample includes students with a valid reading score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and
valid information about the language spoken at home. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative
to third-generation non-Hispanic White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Language Used in Home
English
34
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table B9: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Math Achievement Gap, By
Hispanic Students’ SES Quintile and Wave
Wave
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
-1.176
-1.077
-1.034
-0.866
-0.902
-0.809
(0.059)
(0.059)
(0.108)
(0.055)
(0.058)
(0.061)
SES Quintile 2
-0.687
-0.623
-0.613
-0.551
-0.507
-0.491
(0.084)
(0.087)
(0.134)
(0.071)
(0.074)
(0.073)
SES Quintile 3
-0.529
-0.381
-0.251
-0.383
-0.484
-0.335
(0.111)
(0.098)
(0.194)
(0.123)
(0.124)
(0.096)
SES Quintile 4
-0.047
-0.004
0.115
0.041
0.097
0.071
(0.082)
(0.084)
(0.148)
(0.085)
(0.083)
(0.093)
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0.078
0.123
0.337
0.098
0.212
0.317
(0.156)
(0.146)
(0.118)
(0.105)
(0.170)
(0.163)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0.
Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White students.
Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
Socioeconomic Characteristic
SES Quintile 1 (low)
Table B10: ECLS-K Standardized Hispanic-White Reading Achievement Gap, By
Hispanic Students’ SES Quintile and Wave
Wave
Socioeconomic Characteristic
SES Quintile 1 (low)
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
-0.941
-0.762
-0.757
-0.693
-0.784
(0.068)
(0.083)
(0.173)
(0.108)
(0.088)
SES Quintile 2
-0.488
-0.343
-0.325
-0.238
-0.285
(0.088)
(0.091)
(0.164)
(0.093)
(0.106)
SES Quintile 3
-0.462
-0.264
-0.064
-0.269
-0.387
(0.127)
(0.113)
(0.169)
(0.121)
(0.165)
SES Quintile 4
-0.005
0.101
0.212
0.180
0.111
(0.095)
(0.133)
(0.170)
(0.100)
(0.082)
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0.066
0.365
0.525
0.166
0.146
(0.187)
(0.171)
(0.156)
(0.129)
(0.131)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight
c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White
students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
S5
-0.782
(0.089)
-0.341
(0.115)
-0.366
(0.122)
0.105
(0.097)
0.204
(0.118)
35
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table B11: ECLS-K Standardized Within-SES Quintiles Math Achievement Gap, By
Race and Wave
Wave
Race/Socioeconomic Quintile
Asian
Asian/SES Quintile 1 (low)
Asian/SES Quintile 2
Asian/SES Quintile 3
Asian/SES Quintile 4
Asian/SES Quintile 5 (high)
Black
Black/SES Quintile 1
Black/SES Quintile 2
Black/SES Quintile 3
Black/SES Quintile 4
Black/SES Quintile 5
Hispanic
Hispanic/SES Quintile 1
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
0.568
(0.171)
-0.235
(0.178)
-0.185
(0.213)
0.097
(0.174)
0.208
(0.152)
0.486
(0.196)
-0.077
(0.228)
-0.165
(0.319)
-0.013
(0.166)
0.220
(0.168)
0.334
(0.341)
0.056
(0.285)
-0.671
(0.441)
0.078
(0.378)
-0.082
(0.400)
0.541
(0.165)
-0.088
(0.222)
-0.416
(0.272)
-0.012
(0.137)
0.132
(0.174)
0.503
(0.234)
-0.052
(0.262)
-0.477
(0.277)
0.068
(0.207)
0.180
(0.133)
0.796
(0.176)
0.048
(0.275)
-0.041
(0.219)
0.063
(0.230)
0.338
(0.126)
-0.169
(0.122)
-0.425
(0.107)
-0.475
(0.121)
-0.612
(0.147)
-0.361
(0.212)
-0.365
(0.134)
-0.480
(0.114)
-0.446
(0.146)
-0.770
(0.136)
-0.458
(0.315)
-0.362
(0.204)
-0.618
(0.155)
-0.431
(0.246)
-0.800
(0.163)
-0.656
(0.344)
-0.377
(0.166)
-0.448
(0.112)
-0.527
(0.148)
-0.586
(0.119)
-0.418
(0.254)
-0.384
(0.124)
-0.574
(0.128)
-0.669
(0.141)
-0.906
(0.136)
-0.432
(0.282)
-0.529
(0.119)
-0.555
(0.112)
-0.749
(0.113)
-0.924
(0.129)
-0.581
(0.163)
-0.327
-0.304
-0.170
-0.090
-0.031
(0.095)
(0.109)
(0.156)
(0.129)
(0.090)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 2
-0.455
-0.373
-0.504
-0.286
-0.246
(0.098)
(0.109)
(0.146)
(0.098)
(0.092)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 3
-0.450
-0.332
-0.235
-0.395
-0.490
(0.119)
(0.106)
(0.204)
(0.129)
(0.129)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 4
-0.273
-0.246
-0.203
-0.161
-0.104
(0.095)
(0.103)
(0.150)
(0.094)
(0.096)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 5
-0.387
-0.287
-0.112
-0.292
-0.248
(0.155)
(0.150)
(0.159)
(0.114)
(0.171)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading math at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight
c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White
students of the same socioeconomic quintile. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
S5
0.050
(0.097)
-0.169
(0.089)
-0.320
(0.107)
-0.186
(0.106)
-0.159
(0.175)
36
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table B12: ECLS-K Standardized Within-SES Quintiles Reading Achievement Gap,
By Race and Wave
Wave
Race/Socioeconomic Quintile
Asian
Asian/SES Quintile 1 (low)
Asian/SES Quintile 2
Asian/SES Quintile 3
Asian/SES Quintile 4
Asian/SES Quintile 5 (high)
Black
Black/SES Quintile 1
Black/SES Quintile 2
Black/SES Quintile 3
Black/SES Quintile 4
Black/SES Quintile 5
Hispanic
Hispanic/SES Quintile 1
FK
SK
F1
S1
S3
0.185
(0.184)
-0.257
(0.146)
-0.128
(0.208)
0.193
(0.199)
0.468
(0.160)
0.497
(0.181)
-0.063
(0.154)
-0.061
(0.240)
0.211
(0.210)
0.387
(0.157)
0.133
(0.318)
-0.378
(0.233)
-0.458
(0.365)
0.914
(0.464)
0.551
(0.448)
0.587
(0.192)
0.215
(0.140)
-0.213
(0.180)
0.222
(0.183)
0.415
(0.142)
0.420
(0.135)
0.051
(0.156)
-0.310
(0.201)
0.050
(0.212)
0.195
(0.136)
0.455
(0.133)
0.111
(0.149)
-0.121
(0.155)
-0.109
(0.204)
0.060
(0.135)
-0.258
(0.123)
-0.204
(0.091)
-0.074
(0.165)
-0.155
(0.159)
-0.029
(0.272)
-0.342
(0.126)
-0.277
(0.121)
-0.185
(0.143)
-0.190
(0.196)
-0.051
(0.161)
-0.269
(0.241)
-0.418
(0.161)
-0.077
(0.245)
0.004
(0.246)
0.103
(0.306)
-0.208
(0.170)
-0.108
(0.138)
-0.388
(0.130)
-0.244
(0.151)
-0.085
(0.164)
-0.363
(0.145)
-0.293
(0.122)
-0.483
(0.174)
-0.547
(0.153)
-0.466
(0.114)
-0.293
(0.143)
-0.449
(0.119)
-0.542
(0.119)
-0.550
(0.176)
-0.426
(0.175)
-0.283
-0.101
-0.058
0.025
0.014
(0.093)
(0.118)
(0.241)
(0.162)
(0.131)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 2
-0.123
-0.081
-0.186
0.043
0.052
(0.102)
(0.112)
(0.177)
(0.125)
(0.122)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 3
-0.361
-0.213
-0.059
-0.296
-0.383
(0.134)
(0.118)
(0.184)
(0.126)
(0.167)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 4
-0.241
-0.091
-0.064
-0.039
-0.084
(0.105)
(0.147)
(0.171)
(0.109)
(0.093)
Hispanic/SES Quintile 5
-0.429
-0.040
0.211
-0.184
-0.320
(0.189)
(0.175)
(0.184)
(0.140)
(0.130)
Notes: Sample includes students with both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight
c1_6fc0. Each estimate is the estimated achievement gap relative to third-generation non-Hispanic White
students of the same socioeconomic quintile. Survey design corrected standard errors are in parentheses.
S5
0.041
(0.134)
0.005
(0.129)
-0.331
(0.127)
-0.134
(0.105)
-0.298
(0.130)
37
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Appendix C: Detailed Proficiency Tables
Table C1: ECLS-K Math Proficiency Level Definitions
Level 1: Number and shape: identifying some one-digit numerals, recognizing
geometric shapes, and one-to-one counting of up to 10 objects.
Level 2: Relative size: reading all single-digit numerals, counting beyond 10,
recognizing a sequence of patterns, and using nonstandard units of
length to compare objects.
Level 3: Ordinality, sequence: reading two-digit numerals, recognizing the next
number in a sequence, identifying the ordinal position of an object, and
solving a simple word problem.
Level 4: Addition/subtraction: solving simple addition and subtraction problems.
Level 5: Multiplication/division: solving simple multiplication and division
problems and recognizing more complex number patterns.
Level 6: Place value: demonstrating understanding of place value in integers to the
hundreds place.
Level 7: Rate and measurement: using knowledge of measurement and rate to
solve word problems.
Level 8: Fractions: demonstrating understanding of the concept of fractional parts.
Level 9: Area and volume: solving word problems involving area and volume,
including change of units of measurement.
Source: ECLS-K K-5 Psychometric Report (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005)
Table C2: ECLS-K Reading Proficiency Level Definitions
Level 1: Letter recognition: identifying upper- and lower-case letters by name.
Level 2: Beginning sounds: associating letters with sounds at the beginning of
words.
Level 3: Ending sounds: associating letters with sounds at the end of words.
Level 4: Sight words: recognizing common words by sight.
Level 5: Comprehension of words in context: reading words in context.
Level 6: Literal inference: making inferences using cues that are directly stated with
key words in text (for example, recognizing the comparison being made
in a simile).
Level 7: Extrapolation: identifying clues used to make inferences, and using
background knowledge combined with cues in a sentence to understand
use of homonyms.
Level 8: Evaluation: demonstrating understanding of author’s craft (how does the
author let you know…), and making connections between a problem in
the narrative and similar life problems.
Level 9: Evaluating nonfiction: critically evaluating, comparing and contrasting,
and understanding the effect of features of expository and biographical
texts.
Source: ECLS-K K-5 Psychometric Report (Pollack, Narajian, Rock, Atkins-Burnett, & Hausken, 2005)
38
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C3: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Mexican Immigrant Generation
Race / National Origin / Generation
Hispanic, any Race
Mexican Origin
Mexican, 1st generation
Mexican, 2nd generation
Mexican, 3rd generation
Cuban Origin
Puerto Rican Origin
Central American Origin
South American Origin
Other Hispanic Origin
Unknown Hispanic Origin
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Asian, Any Generation
Other Race, Any Generation
(cont.)
Race / National Origin / Generation
Hispanic, any Race
Mexican Origin
Mexican, 1st generation
Mexican, 2nd generation
Mexican, 3rd generation
Cuban Origin
Puerto Rican Origin
Central American Origin
South American Origin
Other Hispanic Origin
Unknown Hispanic Origin
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Asian, Any Generation
Other Race, Any Generation
Math Level 1
F1
S1
99 100
99 100
99 100
99 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
98 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
99 100
100 100
99 100
FK
84
81
76
77
91
91
89
77
89
95
90
95
88
96
87
SK
98
98
98
97
99
100
98
97
100
100
99
99
98
100
99
FK
1
1
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
5
1
8
3
Math Level 4
SK
F1
S1
9
22
62
8
20
61
6
7
53
6
15
58
12
33
70
16
27
74
11
30
67
8
13
54
12
26
70
12
51
70
10
19
63
22
38
78
6
14
57
27
37
78
13
26
64
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
96
96
95
94
98
98
97
95
98
98
95
98
94
98
95
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
99
99
100
99
100
100
99
100
99
100
99
100
99
100
99
FK
38
34
28
28
47
48
49
30
46
52
47
63
39
66
43
Math Level 2
SK
F1
S1
76
88
99
73
86
99
67
85
99
67
83
98
84
94
99
90
93 100
82
93
98
72
75
97
86
98 100
87
97
99
80
89
99
89
96
99
74
87
98
89
93 100
81
88
99
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Math Level 5
SK
F1
S1
0
2
14
1
1
13
0
0
8
0
1
10
1
3
21
1
2
24
0
1
17
0
1
9
1
2
24
1
7
15
0
3
14
2
6
30
0
1
8
3
8
31
1
6
17
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
69
67
62
62
77
83
75
67
81
75
69
84
58
82
69
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
91
91
90
89
95
93
94
93
93
96
90
95
84
97
88
FK
10
8
3
6
13
13
17
7
16
12
13
26
8
31
14
SK
39
35
28
27
54
60
49
32
47
51
44
63
35
67
45
Math Level 3
F1
S1
62
93
60
93
43
94
51
91
79
96
70
98
73
94
47
88
82
97
82
97
62
94
81
97
57
91
71
98
65
94
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Math Level 6
SK
F1
S1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
S3
31
28
21
22
40
48
40
29
43
37
33
52
20
57
33
S5
68
65
60
61
77
76
75
70
79
83
65
82
51
87
65
39
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
(cont.)
Math Level 7
Math Level 8
Math Level 9
Race / National Origin / Generation
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
Hispanic, any Race
0
0
0
0
8
34
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mexican Origin
0
0
0
0
7
30
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mexican, 1st generation
0
0
0
0
6
26
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mexican, 2nd generation
0
0
0
0
6
26
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mexican, 3rd generation
0
0
0
0
10
39
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
Cuban Origin
0
0
0
0
14
52
0
0
0
0
2
15
0
0
0
0
0
2
Puerto Rican Origin
0
0
0
0
12
42
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
Central American Origin
0
0
0
0
8
37
0
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
2
South American Origin
0
0
0
0
15
50
0
0
0
0
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
2
Other Hispanic Origin
0
0
0
0
11
50
0
0
0
0
1
18
0
0
0
0
0
2
Unknown Hispanic Origin
0
0
0
0
7
34
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
0
0
0
0
18
53
0
0
0
0
1
18
0
0
0
0
0
3
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
0
0
0
0
4
17
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Asian, Any Generation
0
0
0
1
22
64
0
0
0
0
1
28
0
0
0
0
0
5
Other Race, Any Generation
0
0
0
0
10
36
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a
valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in either oral English or Spanish in fall kindergarten are not included).
Proficiency levels are described in text.
40
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C4: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Mexican Immigrant Generation
Race / National Origin / Generation
Hispanic, any Race
Mexican Origin
Mexican, 1st generation
Mexican, 2nd generation
Mexican, 3rd generation
Cuban Origin
Puerto Rican Origin
Central American Origin
South American Origin
Other Hispanic Origin
Unknown Hispanic Origin
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Asian, Any Generation
Other Race, Any Generation
(cont.)
Race / National Origin / Generation
Hispanic, any Race
Mexican Origin
Mexican, 1st generation
Mexican, 2nd generation
Mexican, 3rd generation
Cuban Origin
Puerto Rican Origin
Central American Origin
South American Origin
Other Hispanic Origin
Unknown Hispanic Origin
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
Asian, Any Generation
Other Race, Any Generation
FK
54
51
42
43
60
67
62
52
60
62
55
73
56
75
52
Reading Level 1
SK
F1
S1
S3
91
96 100 100
91
96 100 100
82 100 100 100
88
95 100 100
94
97 100 100
98
99 100 100
93
99 100 100
88
81
97 100
94 100 100 100
91
98 100 100
90
95 100 100
95
98 100 100
88
94
99 100
96
98 100 100
89
92 100 100
FK
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
5
1
1
4
1
8
2
Reading Level 4
SK
F1
S1
S3
11
25
72
99
11
25
70
99
1
13
57
97
8
16
66
99
14
32
74
99
14
18
80 100
11
30
80 100
15
18
72
99
14
45
76 100
9
30
78
97
11
19
69
98
18
30
81
99
9
18
65
97
27
34
86 100
11
23
67
97
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
FK
20
19
14
14
23
25
26
18
26
22
19
34
20
42
22
Reading Level 2
SK
F1
S1
S3
65
80
97 100
64
80
97 100
46
91
98 100
58
73
96 100
70
86
97 100
83
86
99 100
67
87
99 100
59
64
93 100
69
93
99 100
70
84
98 100
63
75
97 100
75
87
98 100
56
74
95 100
79
82
99 100
62
75
96 100
FK
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
4
0
0
2
0
4
1
Reading Level 5
SK
F1
S1
5
10
43
4
10
42
1
3
26
3
6
38
6
13
45
6
6
45
5
14
49
8
8
40
7
31
50
3
10
52
4
7
42
7
13
53
3
6
36
13
23
62
4
10
39
S3
90
90
86
89
92
94
94
92
95
86
87
94
85
95
87
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
97
97
97
96
98
98
99
98
98
98
96
98
95
98
96
FK
10
10
6
8
12
12
14
11
15
10
9
20
10
27
12
Reading Level 3
SK
F1
S1
S3
45
63
92 100
43
64
91 100
26
70
91 100
37
53
90 100
50
72
93 100
61
67
97 100
47
70
96 100
41
51
89 100
48
80
95 100
50
71
93 100
44
56
91 100
55
72
95 100
37
56
88 100
61
65
96 100
43
58
89 100
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
Reading Level 6
SK
F1
S1
1
3
14
1
2
13
0
0
6
0
1
11
1
3
15
1
1
13
1
7
15
2
1
11
3
18
21
1
1
21
0
1
12
2
3
20
0
1
10
4
10
28
1
2
13
S3
66
66
58
62
69
74
71
72
75
66
62
76
55
79
62
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
86
86
83
83
89
92
92
90
91
86
83
91
78
93
82
41
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
(cont.)
Reading Level 7
Reading Level 8
Reading Level 9
Race / National Origin / Generation
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
Hispanic, any Race
0
0
1
2
39
69
0
0
1
3
22
41
0
0
0
0
0
5
Mexican Origin
0
0
0
2
38
67
0
0
0
2
22
40
0
0
0
0
0
5
Mexican, 1st generation
0
0
0
0
25
61
0
0
0
1
16
32
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mexican, 2nd generation
0
0
0
1
36
61
0
0
0
2
20
38
0
0
0
0
0
6
Mexican, 3rd generation
0
0
0
2
41
72
0
0
1
3
23
43
0
0
0
0
1
5
Cuban Origin
0
0
0
2
43
80
0
0
0
3
24
48
0
0
0
0
1
5
Puerto Rican Origin
0
0
4
3
41
78
0
0
2
3
24
48
0
0
0
0
1
6
Central American Origin
0
0
0
1
45
76
0
0
0
2
25
43
0
0
0
0
1
3
South American Origin
1
0
10
6
47
79
0
0
6
5
28
51
0
0
0
0
1
11
Other Hispanic Origin
0
0
0
4
41
68
0
0
0
4
21
42
0
0
0
0
0
6
Unknown Hispanic Origin
0
0
0
2
38
65
0
0
0
2
20
38
0
0
0
0
0
2
White, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
0
0
0
5
52
79
0
0
1
4
29
52
0
0
0
0
1
10
Black, Not Hispanic, 3rd+ Generation
0
0
0
1
25
53
0
0
0
2
15
31
0
0
0
0
0
2
Asian, Any Generation
0
1
4
7
54
84
0
1
2
6
31
54
0
0
0
0
1
10
Other Race, Any Generation
0
0
0
3
36
65
0
0
0
3
21
41
0
0
0
0
1
7
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a
valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in oral English in fall kindergarten are not included). Proficiency levels
are described in text.
42
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C5: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave and Selected Family Characteristics, all Hispanic Students
Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Language Used at Home
English Only
Primarily English
Primarily Spanish
Spanish Only
Hispanic, any Race (Total)
(cont.)
Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Language Used at Home
English Only
Primarily English
Primarily Spanish
Spanish Only
Hispanic, any Race (Total)
FK
Math Level 1
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
Math Level 2
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
Math Level 3
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
75
86
90
94
95
97
99
99
99
100
99
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
25
39
42
61
65
66
76
82
90
92
81
89
92
96
99
98
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
11
10
21
27
24
40
45
63
67
45
65
72
79
90
90
95
95
96
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
93
89
82
76
84
100
99
98
97
98
100
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
47
34
27
38
84
85
72
67
76
94
91
85
81
88
99
99
99
98
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
16
15
6
5
10
49
53
34
27
39
73
75
53
48
62
96
97
93
90
93
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
FK
SK
S3
S5
FK
S3
S5
FK
SK
S3
S5
0
1
1
3
4
3
10
9
18
22
12
23
22
38
41
53
64
64
77
83
94
97
97
98
99
99
99
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
3
4
5
7
13
14
29
32
59
72
72
82
87
87
92
96
94
98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
3
18
32
31
50
62
57
70
75
79
88
2
2
1
1
1
12
14
8
5
9
30
32
13
13
22
69
70
60
55
62
97
98
96
94
96
100
100
99
99
99
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
4
1
0
2
17
21
12
10
14
75
78
69
61
69
94
94
91
90
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
38
42
29
20
31
75
75
66
61
68
Math Level 4
F1
S1
Math Level 5
SK
F1
S1
Math Level 6
F1
S1
43
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
(cont.)
Math Level 7
Math Level 8
Math Level 9
Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
0
0
0
0
3
22
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 2
0
0
0
0
8
35
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
SES Quintile 3
0
0
0
0
7
37
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
SES Quintile 4
0
0
0
0
15
49
0
0
0
0
1
14
0
0
0
0
0
2
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0
0
0
0
24
67
0
0
0
0
2
28
0
0
0
0
0
5
Language Used at Home
English Only
0
0
0
0
9
40
0
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
Primarily English
0
0
0
0
14
43
0
0
0
0
1
14
0
0
0
0
0
2
Primarily Spanish
0
0
0
0
6
32
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
Spanish Only
0
0
0
0
5
27
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
Hispanic, any Race (Total)
0
0
0
0
8
34
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a
valid math score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in either oral English or Spanish in fall kindergarten are not included).
Proficiency levels are described in text.
44
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C6: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave and Selected Family Characteristics, all Hispanic Students
Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Language Used at Home
English Only
Primarily English
Primarily Spanish
Spanish Only
Hispanic, any Race (Total)
(cont.)
Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Language Used at Home
English Only
Primarily English
Primarily Spanish
Spanish Only
Hispanic, any Race (Total)
FK
Reading Level 1
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
Reading Level 2
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
Reading Level 3
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
37
54
54
72
73
86
93
89
96
97
91
98
95
99
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
8
17
20
33
41
51
64
64
79
82
64
80
80
90
93
94
99
97
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
8
11
17
25
30
42
45
60
67
44
62
62
75
83
85
94
92
96
97
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
61
58
50
43
54
93
93
90
88
90
99
97
97
90
95
100
100
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
24
26
15
12
20
68
71
60
55
62
82
86
75
71
76
98
98
97
96
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
12
15
7
5
10
48
52
40
33
42
65
72
53
55
59
93
94
91
91
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Reading Level 4
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
Reading Level 5
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
Reading Level 6
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
0
1
3
2
5
4
10
11
15
31
10
25
20
34
44
58
73
72
84
85
98
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
1
1
1
3
1
4
4
5
16
3
11
7
14
22
30
44
42
56
61
84
92
89
93
96
95
98
97
99
99
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
2
1
4
10
7
13
12
19
27
53
70
65
75
81
77
89
86
92
95
2
4
0
0
2
13
16
8
7
11
24
34
14
23
22
74
77
66
71
67
99
99
99
99
98
100
100
100
100
100
1
2
0
0
1
5
7
3
3
4
9
15
6
12
9
46
50
35
41
39
89
93
89
91
87
98
98
97
96
96
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
5
1
6
2
16
18
9
11
12
68
72
60
68
59
87
89
85
86
82
45
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
(cont.)
Reading Level 7
Reading Level 8
Reading Level 9
Hispanic Subgroup Characteristic
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
0
0
0
1
23
51
0
0
0
1
13
29
0
0
0
0
0
1
SES Quintile 2
0
0
0
1
43
74
0
0
0
2
23
44
0
0
0
0
0
6
SES Quintile 3
0
0
0
1
37
66
0
0
0
2
20
38
0
0
0
0
0
2
SES Quintile 4
0
0
1
3
53
81
0
0
1
4
30
51
0
0
0
0
1
9
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0
0
5
7
59
87
0
1
3
6
34
59
0
0
0
0
1
13
Language Used at Home
English Only
0
0
0
2
44
71
0
0
0
3
24
44
0
0
0
0
0
6
Primarily English
0
0
2
3
46
74
0
0
1
3
25
46
0
0
0
0
0
7
Primarily Spanish
0
0
0
2
26
64
0
0
0
2
17
36
0
0
0
0
0
3
Spanish Only
0
0
2
1
38
69
0
0
1
2
21
39
0
0
0
0
0
3
Hispanic, any Race (Total)
0
0
1
2
32
61
0
0
1
2
18
36
0
0
0
0
0
4
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes students with both a
valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0 (i.e., students not proficient in oral English in fall kindergarten are not included). Proficiency levels
are described in text.
46
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C7: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic White Students
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
White, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
(cont.)
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
White, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
Math Level 1
F1
S1
99 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
100 100
FK
84
91
96
98
99
95
SK
97
99
100
100
100
99
FK
0
2
3
5
10
5
Math Level 4
SK
F1
S1
8
10
57
15
26
71
17
35
77
24
45
83
32
51
86
22
38
78
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
95
98
99
99
99
98
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
99
100
100
100
100
100
FK
37
51
61
69
78
63
Math Level 2
SK
F1
S1
72
81
95
85
95
99
90
96
99
93
98 100
96
99 100
89
96
99
FK
0
0
0
0
1
0
Math Level 5
SK
F1
S1
0
0
15
1
3
18
1
3
26
3
6
33
4
11
43
2
6
30
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
59
76
84
88
92
84
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
84
93
96
97
99
95
FK
6
16
21
28
39
26
SK
36
51
60
68
77
63
Math Level 3
F1
S1
49
85
76
96
82
97
87
98
91
99
81
97
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
Math Level 6
SK
F1
S1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
1
7
0
0
4
S3
24
35
48
58
69
52
S5
53
72
83
87
92
82
(cont.)
Math Level 7
Math Level 8
Math Level 9
Socioeconomic Quintile
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
SES Quintile 1 (low)
0
0
0
0
5
25
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 2
0
0
0
0
8
36
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
SES Quintile 3
0
0
0
0
15
50
0
0
0
0
1
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
SES Quintile 4
0
0
0
1
19
59
0
0
0
0
2
19
0
0
0
0
0
3
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0
0
0
1
29
70
0
0
0
0
2
32
0
0
0
0
0
4
White, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
0
0
0
0
18
53
0
0
0
0
1
18
0
0
0
0
0
3
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic White
students with a valid math score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e.,
students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.
47
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C8: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic White Students
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
White, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
(cont.)
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
White, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
FK
48
60
69
80
86
73
Reading Level 1
SK
F1
S1
S3
82
88
95 100
94
98 100 100
95
98 100 100
97
99 100 100
98 100 100 100
95
98 100 100
FK
0
1
3
3
8
4
Reading Level 4
SK
F1
S1
S3
5
12
58
96
11
20
75
99
14
27
80 100
19
35
85 100
28
41
88 100
18
30
81
99
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
99
100
100
100
100
100
FK
13
20
29
38
50
34
Reading Level 2
SK
F1
S1
S3
50
62
85 100
67
83
97 100
74
86
99 100
80
92
99 100
84
93 100 100
75
87
98 100
FK
0
0
1
2
4
2
Reading Level 5
SK
F1
S1
1
4
33
4
7
42
6
12
50
7
13
57
13
18
64
7
13
53
S3
80
91
94
96
97
94
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
92
97
98
99
99
98
FK
5
10
16
21
33
20
Reading Level 3
SK
F1
S1
S3
31
44
78
99
45
63
93 100
53
70
96 100
60
79
97 100
68
82
98 100
55
72
95 100
FK
0
0
0
0
1
0
Reading Level 6
SK
F1
S1
0
1
11
1
1
11
1
2
17
1
2
22
3
5
29
2
3
20
S3
52
66
73
81
87
76
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
73
86
91
94
96
91
(cont.)
Reading Level 7
Reading Level 8
Reading Level 9
Socioeconomic Quintile
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
SES Quintile 1 (low)
0
0
0
1
24
51
0
0
0
2
15
30
0
0
0
0
1
3
SES Quintile 2
0
0
0
2
35
68
0
0
0
2
20
40
0
0
0
0
0
4
SES Quintile 3
0
0
0
4
47
77
0
0
0
4
26
48
0
0
0
0
1
7
SES Quintile 4
0
0
0
4
58
86
0
0
0
4
31
55
0
0
0
0
1
9
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0
1
1
9
69
91
0
1
1
7
39
64
0
0
0
0
3
20
White, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
0
0
0
5
52
79
0
0
1
4
29
52
0
0
0
0
1
10
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic White
students with a valid reading score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e.,
students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.
48
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C9: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic Black Students
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
(cont.)
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
Math Level 1
F1
S1
96 100
100 100
99 100
100 100
100 100
99 100
FK
83
88
93
91
97
88
SK
96
99
99
99
99
98
FK
0
0
1
2
3
1
Math Level 4
SK
F1
S1
3
7
45
4
12
56
9
18
62
10
17
73
13
37
66
6
14
57
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
91
93
96
96
97
94
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
97
98
99
100
99
99
FK
28
39
42
54
53
39
Math Level 2
SK
F1
S1
64
76
96
72
92
98
82
87
99
84
95 100
83
96
99
74
87
98
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
Math Level 5
SK
F1
S1
0
0
4
0
0
8
0
1
11
0
0
12
2
5
19
0
1
8
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
49
59
59
71
76
58
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
73
84
90
93
91
84
FK
3
6
8
16
16
8
SK
23
31
46
47
48
35
Math Level 3
F1
S1
37
86
61
90
60
94
72
98
75
96
57
91
S3
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
Math Level 6
SK
F1
S1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
S3
14
19
22
25
34
20
S5
35
55
55
66
61
51
(cont.)
Math Level 7
Math Level 8
Math Level 9
Socioeconomic Quintile
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
SES Quintile 1 (low)
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 2
0
0
0
0
3
17
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 3
0
0
0
0
5
18
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 4
0
0
0
0
5
27
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0
0
0
0
12
28
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
0
0
0
0
4
17
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic Black
students with a valid math score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e.,
students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.
S5
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C10: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave and SES Quintile, 3rd Generation, Non-Hispanic Black Students
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
(cont.)
Socioeconomic Quintile
SES Quintile 1 (low)
SES Quintile 2
SES Quintile 3
SES Quintile 4
SES Quintile 5 (high)
Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
FK
43
52
63
79
64
56
Reading Level 1
SK
F1
S1
S3
83
91
98 100
85
95 100 100
92
94 100 100
96 100 100 100
97 100 100 100
88
94
99 100
FK
0
1
1
4
3
1
Reading Level 4
SK
F1
S1
S3
3
6
54
96
6
11
62
99
11
22
70
98
25
41
80
98
16
26
84 100
9
18
65
97
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
99
100
100
100
100
100
FK
9
12
26
43
31
20
Reading Level 2
SK
F1
S1
S3
44
63
91 100
51
73
95 100
64
73
98 100
74
93
98 100
76
93
99 100
56
74
95 100
FK
0
0
0
1
1
0
Reading Level 5
SK
F1
S1
1
2
28
2
3
35
3
6
38
10
20
52
6
13
50
3
6
36
S3
78
88
88
92
94
85
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S5
93
94
96
97
98
95
FK
3
5
13
26
20
10
Reading Level 3
SK
F1
S1
S3
23
41
82
99
33
52
87 100
43
59
93 100
58
80
95 100
53
76
97 100
37
56
88 100
FK
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reading Level 6
SK
F1
S1
0
0
6
0
0
10
0
0
9
1
3
19
1
3
15
0
1
10
S5
100
100
100
100
100
100
S3
40
60
60
70
71
55
(cont.)
Reading Level 7
Reading Level 8
Reading Level 9
Socioeconomic Quintile
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
SES Quintile 1 (low)
0
0
0
0
13
39
0
0
0
1
9
23
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 2
0
0
0
1
29
52
0
0
0
2
16
30
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 3
0
0
0
1
28
59
0
0
0
2
17
33
0
0
0
0
0
SES Quintile 4
0
0
0
4
40
72
0
0
1
4
22
44
0
0
0
0
1
SES Quintile 5 (high)
0
0
0
3
34
66
0
0
1
3
19
39
0
0
0
0
0
Black, 3rd+ Generation (Total)
0
0
0
1
25
53
0
0
0
2
15
31
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Cell entries indicate estimated proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999
assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment; S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Sample includes non-Hispanic Black
students with a valid reading score at wave 1, a valid longitudinal weight c1_6fc0, and whose generational status could be identified as third-generation or greater (i.e.,
students with unknown generational status are not included). Proficiency levels are described in text.
S5
70
76
83
88
85
78
S5
2
2
2
7
4
2
50
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C11: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Math Proficiency Level, by Wave, Hispanic Subgroup, and Fall Kindergarten English Proficiency,
Hispanic Students
Sample of Hispanic Students
All Hispanic
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
All Mexican
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Mexican (Generation 1)
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Mexican (Generation 2)
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Mexican (Generation 3)
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Central American
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Math Level 1
F1
S1
FK
SK
90
70
99
96
100
99
88
70
99
96
81
75
Math Level 2
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
100
100
100
100
100
100
46
19
82
61
91
80
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
43
20
81
59
98
98
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
42
25
85
70
98
96
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
92
73
99
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
86
66
97
97
97
99
100
100
100
100
Math Level 3
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
SK
S3
S5
99
97
100
100
100
100
13
2
47
20
71
44
95
88
100
100
100
100
91
80
99
98
100
100
100
100
12
2
46
19
72
44
95
89
100
100
100
100
68
67
100
83
99
99
100
100
100
100
5
3
37
27
98
37
96
94
100
100
100
100
37
20
77
58
88
79
99
97
100
100
100
100
10
2
36
18
62
44
93
88
100
100
100
100
100
100
49
9
85
60
94
94
99
98
100
100
100
100
14
0
55
16
79
64
96
83
100
100
100
100
100
100
39
18
77
65
70
80
97
97
100
100
100
100
12
1
42
19
48
46
89
86
100
100
100
100
51
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
(cont.)
Sample of Hispanic Students
All Hispanic
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
All Mexican
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Mexican (Generation 1)
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Mexican (Generation 2)
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Mexican (Generation 3)
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Central American
English Proficient, Fall K
Not English Proficient, Fall K
Math Level 4
F1
S1
FK
SK
2
0
12
3
28
10
1
0
11
3
0
0
Math Level 5
SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
68
49
97
93
100
99
0
0
1
0
3
0
28
10
68
50
97
93
99
99
0
0
1
0
9
6
36
4
55
54
99
95
100
99
0
0
1
0
9
3
22
11
66
51
96
93
99
99
2
0
12
1
33
7
71
30
98
93
1
0
13
2
12
15
61
46
98
92
Math Level 6
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK
SK
S3
S5
17
7
74
57
93
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
37
17
74
54
2
0
17
7
73
56
93
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
35
16
73
53
0
0
1
0
8
8
77
60
97
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
28
19
71
56
0
0
1
0
1
0
14
7
68
56
91
86
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
30
16
68
53
100
98
0
0
1
0
4
0
21
5
78
58
95
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
41
12
77
69
100
99
0
0
1
0
1
0
11
6
77
55
96
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
34
22
79
60
52
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
(cont.)
Math Level 7
Math Level 8
Math Level 9
Sample of Hispanic Students
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
FK SK
F1
S1
S3
S5
All Hispanic
English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
Not English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
3
21
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
All Mexican
English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
9
36
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
Not English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
3
19
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mexican (Generation 1)
English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
8
30
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
6
24
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mexican (Generation 2)
English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
8
33
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
Not English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
3
19
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mexican (Generation 3)
English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
Not English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
1
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Central American
English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
13
42
0
0
0
0
1
13
0
0
0
0
0
4
Not English Proficient, Fall K
0
0
0
0
2
31
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
Notes: “Not English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student does not have a valid reading score at wave 1, but the student has a valid longitudinal weight (c1_6fc0).
“English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student has both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight. Note: Cell entries indicate estimated
proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment;
S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Proficiency levels are described in text.
53
Reardon & Galindo: Hispanic Students’ Math and English Literacy
Table C12: Estimated Percent Proficient at Each Reading Proficiency Level, by Wave, Hispanic Subgroup, and Fall Kindergarten English Proficiency,
Hispanic Students
Reading
Level 1
S3
S5
Reading
Level 2
S3 S5
Reading
Level 3
S3 S5
Reading
Level 4
S3 S5
Reading
Level 5
S3 S5
Reading
Level 6
S3 S5
Reading
Level 7
S3 S5
Reading
Level 8
S3 S5
Reading
Level 9
S3 S5
Sample of Hispanic Students
All Hispanic
English Proficient, Fall K
100 100
100 100
100 100
90 97
90 97
66 86
39 69
22 41
0
Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100
100 100
99 100
79 94
79 94
42 72
13 41
9 23
0
All Mexican
English Proficient, Fall K
100 100
100 100
100 100
99 100
90 97
66 86
38 67
22 40
0
Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100
100 100
99 100
96 100
78 94
39 71
10 37
8 21
0
Mexican (Generation 1)
English Proficient, Fall K
100 100
100 100
100 100
97 100
86 97
58 83
25 61
16 32
0
Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100
100 100
99 100
95 100
77 94
42 74
14 44
10 25
0
Mexican (Generation 2)
English Proficient, Fall K
100 100
100 100
100 100
99 100
89 96
62 83
36 61
20 38
0
Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100
100 100
99 100
96 100
78 94
40 71
10 38
8 21
0
Mexican (Generation 3)
English Proficient, Fall K
100 100
100 100
100 100
99 100
92 98
69 89
41 72
23 43
1
Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100
100 100
99 100
96 100
83 94
48 69
18 41
12 23
0
Central American
English Proficient, Fall K
100 100
100 100
100 100
99 100
92 98
72 90
45 76
25 43
1
Not English Proficient, Fall K 100 100
100 100
100 100
97 100
84 96
52 80
22 54
13 28
0
Notes: “Not English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student does not have a valid reading score at wave 1, but the student has a valid longitudinal weight (c1_6fc0).
“English Proficient, Fall K” indicates the student has both a valid reading score at wave 1 and a valid longitudinal weight. Note: Cell entries indicate estimated
proportion of specified group meeting proficiency level at given assessment wave (FK=Fall 1998 assessment; SK=Spring 1999 assessment; F1=Fall 1999 assessment;
S1=Spring 2000 assessment; S3=Spring 2002 assessment; S5=Spring 2004 assessment). Proficiency levels are described in text.
54
5
1
5
1
1
3
6
1
5
0
3
1