mapping immigration’s impact on public schools · thirds of students from immigrant households,...

1

Center for Immigration Studies

1629 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006 • Phone 202.466.8185 • Fax 202.466.8076 • www.cis.org

C I S

CIS Letterhead_Layout 1 7/26/12 4:34 PM

March 2017

This analysis merges Census Bureau data with Google maps to provide a visual representation of immigration’s impact on public schools at the local level.1 The report is based on Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs), which average about 20,600 students, and allow for detailed analysis in densely populated

areas. We also report statistics by state and metropolitan area. The findings show that the impact of immigration on public schools is truly enormous in many areas of the country. (The map can be found online at http://cis.org/Map-Students-Immigrant-Households.)

The number of children from immigrant households in schools is now so high in some areas that it raises pro-found questions about assimilation. What’s more, immigration has added enormously to the number of public school students who are in poverty and the number who speak a foreign language. This cannot help but to create significant challenges for schools, often in areas already struggling to educate students who come from disadvan-taged backgrounds.

Among the findings:

• Almost one out of four (23 percent) public school students in the United States came from an immigrant household in 2015. As recently as 1990 it was 11 percent, and in 1980 it was just 7 percent.

• In 2015, between one-fourth and one-third of public school students from immigrant households were the children of illegal immigrants; the remainder were the children from legal immigrant households.2

• Immigrant households are concentrated; just 700 Census Bureau-designated PUMAs account for two-thirds of students from immigrant households, these same PUMAs account for nearly one-third of total public school enrollment.

• In these 700 immigrant-heavy areas, half the students are from immigrant households.

• There are many PUMAs in which well more than half of the students are from immigrant households, for example:

• 93percentinNortheastDadeCounty,NorthCentralHialeahCity,Fla.• 91percentinJacksonHeightsandNorthCorona,NewYorkCity,N.Y.• 85percentinWestparkTollwaybetweenLoopI-610&BeltwayHouston,Texas.• 83percentinElMonteandSouthElMonteCities,Calif.• 78percentinAnnandale&WestFallsChurch,Va.• 74percentinFortLee,CliffsidePark&PalisadesPark,N.J.

• In the top 700 immigrant-heavy areas, one sending country typically predominates. On average, the top sending country accounts for 52 percent of students from immigrant households in these areas.3

Mapping Immigration’s Impact on Public Schools

By Steven A. Camarota, Bryan Griffith, and Karen Zeigler

Steven A. Camarota is director of research, Bryan Griffith is multimedia director, and Karen Zeigler is a demogra-pher at the Center for Immigration Studies.

1629KStreet,NW,Suite600•Washington,DC20006•(202)466-8185•[email protected]•www.cis.org

http://cis.org/Map-Students-Immigrant-Households


2

Center for Immigration Studies Center for Immigration StudiesCenter for Immigration Studies

• Onaverage,studentsfromimmigranthouseholdsliveinaPUMAinwhich41percentoftheirfellowpublicschoolstudents are also from immigrant households. In contrast, on average students from native households live in a PUMA in which 17 percent of students are from immigrant households.

• Immigration has added disproportionately to the number of low-income students in public schools. In 2015, 28 percent of public school students from immigrant households lived in poverty and they accounted for 30 percent of all students living below the poverty line.

• Immigrants often settle in areas of high poverty, adding to the challenges for schools in these areas. In the 200 PU-MAswiththehighestpovertyratesinthecountry,wherepovertyamongstudentsaverages46percent,nearlyone-third of students are from immigrant households.

• Immigration has added enormously to the population of students who speak a foreign language. In 2015, 23 percent ofpublicschoolstudentsspokealanguageotherthanEnglishathome.Thiscomparesto14percentin1990and9percent in 1980.4

• Onaverage,publicschoolstudentswhothemselvesspeakaforeignlanguageathomeliveinanareainwhich42percent of their fellow students also speak a foreign language at home.



3


• Though one language often predominates in an area, many local schools struggle to deal with a multiplicity of for-eign languages, which likely creates enormous challenges. In 315 PUMAs (combined enrollment 6.7 million) 10 or more foreign languages are spoken by public school students.5

• InadditiontoaddinglargenumbersofstudentsinpovertyandforwhomEnglishisnottheirfirstlanguage,im-migration also creates significant challenges for schools because immigrants have lower incomes, making it unlikely that tax revenue grows correspondingly with enrollment in areas of high immigration.6

• Some of the metropolitan areas where students from immigrant households account for the largest share of enroll-mentinclude:SanJose-Sunnyvale-SantaClara,Calif.,60percent;LosAngeles-LongBeach-Anaheim,Calif.,57per-cent;Miami-FortLauderdale-WestPalmBeach,Fla.,54percent;McAllen-Edinburg-Mission,Texas,50percent;SanFrancisco-Oakland-Hayward,Calif.,50percent;Yuma,Ariz.,50percent;Naples-Immokalee-MarcoIsland,Fla.,46percent;Laredo,Texas,45percent;LasCruces,N.M.,44percent;NewYork-Newark-JerseyCity,44percent;Yakima,Wash.,44percent;Fresno,Calif.,43percent;Trenton,N.J.,42percent;Brownsville-Harlingen,Texas,42percent;LasVegas-Henderson-Paradise,Nev.,38percent;Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,37percent;Gainesville,Ga.,36 percent.

Discussion One way that assimilation works is that the predominance of natives and their children makes the absorption of American culture and identity almost inevitable among immigrants and their children. If immigrants are a modest share of the local population it makes identifying with America and its culture practically unavoidable. But the level of immigration, most of it legal, has been so high in the last four decades that there are now whole sections of the country where natives and their children are actually the minority or nearly so. This has the potential to fundamentally change the terms of assimilation.

Figure 1. Both the share of public school students from immigrant households and the share who speak a for-eign language at home has grown dramatically in the United States since 1980.

Source: Public-use files of the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses (5% sample) and the pub-lic-use file of the 2015 American Community Survey.*Figuresincludebothimmigrantandnativehouseholds.

7%9%

11%14%

17%19%

23% 23%

1980 1990 2000 2015

Share in Immigrant HouseholdsShare Speaking a Foreign Language*

4


Ofcourse,thecountryneedstoeducatechildrenfromimmigranthouseholdsalreadyinthecountry.Nearlyoneoutoffourchildren in public schools is from an immigrant household, so how these children do is vitally important not only to them, but to our country’s future. It may also be worth pointing out that in 2015, 83.5 percent of these children were born in the United States.7However,akeyimmigrationpolicyquestionforournationgoingforwardis:Doesitmakesensetocontinueto admit a million additional legal permanent immigrants each year and to tolerate widespread illegal immigration without regard to the absorption capacity of our schools? This is true both in terms of our ability to educate as well as to assimilate children from immigrant backgrounds.

Figure and TablesFigure1showsthegrowthintheshareofstudentsinpublicschoolsfromimmigranthouseholdsoverthelast35years.Italso reports the share of students who speak a foreign language at home. The share of students from immigrant households has increased dramatically. While nearly one in four students in public schools today is from an immigrant household, as recentlyas1980itwasonlyonein14students.Figure1alsoshowsthatthenumberofstudentswhospeakaforeignlanguageat home has grown almost as much. This has been driven largely by immigration, with about three-quarters of students who speak a foreign language living in immigrant households.

Table 1 shows the share of public school students in immigrant households by state in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2015. The growthinmanystateshasbeenastounding.Between1980and2015inNevada,theshareofstudentsinimmigranthouse-holdsincreasedfrom8percentto35percent;inNewJerseytheincreasewas11percentto34percent;inArizonaitwentfrom 9 percent to 26 percent; and in Maryland it was 5 percent to 25 percent. Table 1 also reports poverty statistics for pupils in immigrant and native households in 2015. In many states, immigration has dramatically added to the number of low-income students. In California, 61 percent of public school students who are in poverty are from immigrant households, and itis44percentinTexas.InNewJerseyitis43percentand40percentinNevada.Perhapsmoresurprisingisthatstudentsfrom immigrant households account for 36 percent of public school students in poverty in Colorado and Washington State and 39 percent in Minnesota. Table 1 also reports the share of students speaking a foreign language at home in 1980 and 2015.Thegrowthinforeignlanguagestudentsroughlytracksthegrowthinthesharefromimmigranthouseholds.Lookingat the language and poverty data it is clear that in many states across the country immigration has created very significant challenges for public schools by adding many students with special needs.

Table 2 shows the top two countries of origin with the most students in each state based on the country of birth of the house-hold head. The table also shows the top two languages spoken at home by public school students. Table 2 reads as follows: ofpublicschoolstudentsinCalifornia,48percentarefromimmigranthouseholdsandofthosestudents59percentliveinahouseholdheadedbyaMexicanimmigrant.Nationally,MexicoisbyfarthetopsendingcountryandSpanishisbyfarthetopforeignlanguage.Averagingthesharerepresentedbythetopsendingcountryacrossstates(includingWashington,DC)showsthattheleadingcountryaccountsfor40percentofstudentsonaverageinastate.

Table 3 reports the share of students in immigrant households for the nation’s 260 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in 2015 and the top sending countries, again based on the country of birth of the household head. Table 3 also shows the share of students in public schools speaking a foreign language at home by MSA. The impact of immigration varies a great deal acrossMSAs.In38ofthenation’s260MSAsmorethanathirdofstudentsarefromimmigranthouseholds,butin40ofthenation’s MSAs fewer than 5 percent of students are from immigrant households.

Table4showspovertystatisticsbyMSAforimmigrantandnativehouseholds.Inmorethanhalfofthenation’sMSAs,pov-erty for students from immigrant households is a good deal higher than that of natives. This is generally true in all of the areas where there is a large share of students in immigrant households. But there are some MSAs where poverty associated with natives in public schools is higher, though these are generally areas where immigrant households comprise a small or very small share of the public student population.


5


Methods and DataThe data for this Backgrounder comes primarily from the public-use file of the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS).8

TheACShasbecomeonethemostimportantsourcesofdataonthesize,growth,andsocio-economiccharacteristicsofthenation’s immigrant population. In this analysis we use the terms “foreign-born” and “immigrant” synonymously. Immigrants arepersonslivingintheUnitedStateswhowerenotU.S.citizensatbirth.ThisincludesnaturalizedAmericancitizens,legalpermanent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign students or guest workers, who respond to the ACS.

The public-use file of the 2015 ACS includes roughly 3.1 million respondents, nearly 367,000 of whom are immigrants. It is by far the largest survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS asks individuals if they are enrolled in school and if the school is public or private. The survey also records the grade attended so it is a relatively straightforward matter to calcu-late the share of public school students who are from households headed by immigrants. The small number of students who areinstitutionalizedarenotincludedinthisanalysis.ThesurveyalsoasksifalanguageotherthanEnglishisspokenathomeand the particular language spoken. We use the language questions to report foreign languages spoken at home by public school students. The poverty statistics reported here are also directly from the ACS public-use file.

The map is based on the nation’s 2,351 Public Use Microdata Areas, as defined by the Census Bureau. The Bureau describes PUMAs as statistical geographic areas designed for the dissemination of data, particularly the ACS. They are contiguous, nested within states, built on county borders and have 100,000 to 200,000 residents — 137,000 on average. Of these residents, 20,600arepublicschoolstudentsonaverage.Thoughthesizeofhighschoolsvariessignificantlyacrossthecountry,PUMAsroughly cover an area that includes five to 10 high schools. Some PUMAs include a number of small counties, but in densely populated parts of the country there are typically many PUMAs within the same large county or city.9 This allows for a de-tailed look at the local level in the nation’s metropolitan areas. PUMAs are the most detailed level of geographic data available on an annual basis from the Census Bureau.10 It should be noted that for the most part PUMAs do not correspond to school districts. However, since public schools draw their students from the area around them, this analysis does provide a look at the impact of immigration on public schools at the local level.

6


State

CaliforniaNevadaNewJerseyNewYorkTexasFloridaArizonaMarylandIllinoisWashingtonHawaiiMassachusettsRhode IslandD.C.ConnecticutNewMexicoOregonColoradoVirginiaGeorgiaDelawareNorthCarolinaMinnesotaAlaskaKansasUtahNebraskaOklahomaMichiganIdahoTennesseeArkansasPennsylvaniaIndianaWisconsinSouth CarolinaNewHampshireIowaWyomingKentuckyMissouriVermontAlabamaOhioNorthDakotaLouisianaMaineMississippiSouthDakotaWestVirginiaMontanaTotal

Table 1. Students in Public School by State

2015

48%35%34%34%31%29%26%25%25%25%25%24%23%22%21%21%20%20%19%19%18%16%16%15%14%14%12%11%11%10%10%

9%9%9%8%8%8%7%7%7%6%6%6%6%5%5%4%3%3%2%1%

23%

2000

45%24%24%27%24%23%21%14%19%15%25%17%21%14%14%17%14%12%11%

9%7%7%9%6%7%

10%7%6%7%8%3%4%4%4%6%3%4%4%3%2%3%4%2%3%2%2%3%2%2%1%1%

17%

1990

36%11%17%21%17%17%13%

9%12%

9%19%13%12%10%12%11%

6%7%6%3%2%2%4%7%4%5%2%3%4%5%1%1%4%2%3%2%5%2%1%1%2%2%1%3%0%2%3%1%2%2%2%

11%

1980

22%8%

11%14%10%10%

9%5%8%6%

19%9%

10%4%

10%6%4%5%4%2%3%1%2%4%2%4%2%2%4%3%1%1%3%2%3%1%4%2%2%1%2%4%1%2%1%2%3%1%1%1%2%7%

Immigrant Households

28%24%19%27%32%26%40%14%26%24%18%18%24%20%19%48%32%26%15%28%38%33%32%14%21%29%33%30%26%22%29%46%22%32%23%34%17%33%4%

37%25%31%45%27%4%

32%43%31%16%15%13%28%

NativeHouseholds

17%19%13%19%19%22%19%14%17%14%13%13%20%32%12%26%16%11%16%24%21%22%

9%14%16%10%13%21%21%14%23%25%18%21%14%24%10%14%

8%25%19%11%26%21%10%31%14%31%14%25%14%19%

Immigrant Households Share

of Poverty2

61%40%43%42%44%33%43%25%34%36%31%30%26%15%29%33%33%36%19%21%28%23%39%15%18%31%26%15%13%15%12%16%11%13%14%12%13%16%4%

10%8%14%10%

7%2%5%

11%3%3%1%1%

30%

2015

47%34%30%30%37%29%30%19%26%23%23%23%24%18%22%31%21%21%16%17%15%16%14%15%14%14%13%12%10%10%

9%10%10%

9%10%

8%7%9%9%6%6%6%6%6%3%7%5%4%4%2%3%

23%

1980

23%8%

13%16%26%11%22%

5%9%6%

16%9%

10%4%

11%36%4%8%4%2%4%2%3%

11%4%5%3%3%4%4%2%2%4%3%3%2%5%3%4%2%2%3%2%3%3%5%5%2%4%2%3%9%

Share from Immigrant Households

Poverty Among Students in Immigrant and Native Households in 2015

Share Speaking Foreign Language at Home1

Source: Public-use files of the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses (5% sample) and the public-use file of the 2015 American Community Survey.1Figuresareforstudentsinbothimmigrantandnativehouseholds.2 Shows the share of all students in poverty in the state who are from immigrant households.


7


State

CaliforniaNevadaNewJerseyNewYorkTexasFloridaArizonaMarylandIllinoisWashingtonHawaiiMassachusettsRhode IslandD.C.ConnecticutNewMexicoOregonColoradoVirginiaGeorgiaDelawareNorthCarolinaMinnesotaAlaskaKansasUtahNebraskaOklahomaMichiganIdahoTennesseeArkansasPennsylvaniaIndianaWisconsinSouth CarolinaNewHampshireIowaWyomingKentuckyMissouriVermontAlabamaOhioNorthDakotaLouisianaMaineMississippiSouthDakotaWestVirginiaMontanaTotal

Table 2. Top Sending Countries & Languages for Public School Students by State, 2015

48%35%34%34%31%29%26%25%25%25%25%24%23%22%21%21%20%20%19%19%18%16%16%15%14%14%12%11%11%10%10%

9%9%9%8%8%8%7%7%7%6%6%6%6%5%5%4%3%3%2%1%

23%

47%34%30%30%37%29%30%19%26%23%23%23%24%18%22%31%21%21%16%17%15%16%14%15%14%14%13%12%10%10%

9%10%10%

9%10%

8%7%9%9%6%6%6%6%6%3%7%5%4%4%2%3%

23%

No. 11

MexicoMexicoIndiaDominicanRep.MexicoCubaMexicoElSalvadorMexicoMexicoPhilippinesDominicanRep.DominicanRep.ElSalvadorJamaicaMexicoMexicoMexicoElSalvadorMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoPhilippinesMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoCanadaMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoBosniaMexicoMexicoCanadaMexicoSomaliaMexicoUkraineGermanyPakistanMexico

No. 13

SpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishHawaiianSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishAleutSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishSerbo-CroatianSpanishSpanishSpanishSpanishFrenchSpanishDakota/LakotaSpanishAmer. Indian Spanish

No. 21

PhilippinesPhilippinesMexicoMexicoElSalvadorMexicoIndiaNigeriaIndiaPhilippinesMexicoBrazilGuatemalaNigeriaMexicoChinaVietnamIndiaIndiaIndiaGuatemalaElSalvadorSomaliaLaosVietnamPhilippinesElSalvadorVietnamIraqCanadaGuatemalaElSalvadorDominicanRep.IndiaLaosChinaIndiaVietnamKenyaIndiaIndiaCanadaGuatemalaIndiaPhilippinesVietnamCanadaVietnamCanadaPolandMexicoElSalvador

No. 23

VietnameseTagalogKoreanChineseVietnameseHaitian CreoleNavajoChinesePolishVietnameseSpanishPortuguesePortugueseFrenchPolishNavajoRussianRussianArabicVietnameseHindiArabicMiao, HmongSpanishVietnameseFrenchVietnameseVietnameseArabicArabicArabicChineseChineseGermanMiao, HmongChineseFrenchVietnameseChineseGujarathiArabicFrenchChineseArabicGermanVietnameseSomaliVietnameseSpanishGermanGermanChinese

59%61%11%14%68%16%75%19%59%45%50%

9%25%34%

9%86%64%60%16%39%24%46%21%33%61%58%57%67%21%73%43%57%10%47%48%38%14%33%87%38%31%30%53%17%24%28%25%49%17%22%31%43%

80%90%62%61%89%78%85%55%75%65%16%47%72%81%63%84%76%81%56%71%77%80%40%28%81%78%78%82%41%83%72%83%54%69%66%71%48%69%80%67%60%30%84%48%30%66%17%72%30%45%38%75%

5%8%

11%10%

5%14%

2%7%6%4%7%8%

12%8%7%2%3%3%8%6%

11%6%

15%16%

7%3%6%4%9%5%6%

12%9%8%

13%6%

12%8%4%5%8%

15%12%11%22%16%21%11%15%15%27%4%

2%3%4%6%2%9%3%5%4%3%14%13%10%

5%5%6%3%1%5%3%4%2%

16%23%

6%2%4%4%

18%3%5%3%6%4%

15%6%

10%6%4%4%7%

17%2%

10%26%12%17%

8%30%15%23%

2%

Top Sending Countries Top Languages

Share from Immigrant

Households

Share Speaking a Foreign

Language2

Source: Public-use file of the 2015 American Community Survey. 1 Percentages reflect share of students in immigrant households living in a household headed by an immigrant from the designated country.2 Includes immigrant and native households.3 Percentages reflect the share of foreign language speakers who speak this language.

8


SanJose-Sunnyvale-SantaClara,CALosAngeles-LongBeach-Anaheim,CASalinas, CAElCentro,CAMiami-FortLauderdale-WestPalmBeach,FLNapa,CAMerced, CAMcAllen-Edinburg-Mission,TXSanFrancisco-Oakland-Hayward,CAYuma,AZSanta Maria-Santa Barbara, CAStockton-Lodi,CABakersfield, CANaples-Immokalee-MarcoIsland,FLVisalia-Porterville,CALaredo,TXOxnard-ThousandOaks-Ventura,CALasCruces,NMNewYork-Newark-JerseyCity,NY-NJ-PAYakima,WAFresno,CATrenton,NJBrownsville-Harlingen,TXHanford-Corcoran, CARiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CASanDiego-Carlsbad,CAElPaso,TXHouston-TheWoodlands-SugarLand,TXMadera, CAModesto, CALasVegas-Henderson-Paradise,NVSantaCruz-Watsonville,CAWashington-Arlington-Alexandria,DC-VA-MD-WVGainesville, GAYubaCity,CASanta Rosa, CADallas-FortWorth-Arlington,TXVallejo-Fairfield,CAWenatchee, WASacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CASantaFe,NMReno,NVChicago-Naperville-Elgin,IL-IN-WIBridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,CTCapeCoral-FortMyers,FLSeattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WAPhoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,AZPortSt.Lucie,FLCollegeStation-Bryan,TXAustin-RoundRock,TX

Table 3. Top Sending Countries in the 50 MSAs with the Largest Share of Students from Immigrant Households, 2015

60%57%57%54%54%53%52%50%50%50%49%48%46%46%45%45%45%44%44%44%43%42%42%41%41%41%41%40%39%38%38%38%37%36%36%36%36%35%33%32%32%31%31%31%30%30%28%28%28%28%

33%57%87%98%23%77%81%97%33%97%84%59%80%42%91%95%78%94%13%94%75%18%93%89%74%63%92%53%86%75%59%89%22%76%62%75%64%60%83%41%87%61%59%

8%19%27%72%32%64%61%

14%7%4%2%

16%9%3%1%14%

1%3%9%5%

20%2%2%5%5%

10%3%7%14%

2%4%5%8%2%

10%10%

6%8%4%7%

10%18%4%6%

17%10%

7%3%14%

6%7%

17%6%3%

23%6%7%

MexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoCubaMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoDominicanRep.MexicoMexicoGuatemalaMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoElSalvadorMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoEcuadorMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexico

VietnamElSalvadorPhilippinesKoreaHaitiPhilippinesLaosVietnamChinaCosta RicaPhilippinesPhilippinesElSalvadorHaitiGuatemalaVietnamIndiaNigeriaMexicoEuropeLaosIndiaGuatemalaTurkeyPhilippinesPhilippinesElSalvadorElSalvadorElSalvadorCambodiaPhilippinesUnited KingdomIndiaElSalvadorIndiaIndiaIndiaPhilippinesIsraelPhilippinesCubaElSalvadorIndiaHaitiGuatemalaPhilippinesIndiaHaitiChinaIndia

52%56%61%73%50%46%54%80%42%62%50%42%52%50%54%85%42%59%38%49%46%33%68%46%41%42%61%41%42%46%36%47%29%37%36%36%36%32%45%29%44%31%31%28%30%24%30%24%28%29%

Top Metropolitan Statistical Areas1

Share of Students from Immigrant

Households No. 12 No. 22

Share Speaking a

Foreign Language3

Source: 2015 public-use file of the American Community Survey.1 Data for all 260 MSAs is available here: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/puma-table-3-complete.xls.2 Percentages reflect share of students in immigrant households living in a household headed by an immigrant from this country.3 Includes immigrant and native households.

Top Sending Countries

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/puma-table-3-complete.xls


9


SanJose-Sunnyvale-SantaClara,CALosAngeles-LongBeach-Anaheim,CASalinas, CAElCentro,CAMiami-FortLauderdale-WestPalmBeach,FLNapa,CAMerced, CAMcAllen-Edinburg-Mission,TXSanFrancisco-Oakland-Hayward,CAYuma,AZSanta Maria-Santa Barbara, CAStockton-Lodi,CABakersfield, CANaples-Immokalee-MarcoIsland,FLVisalia-Porterville,CALaredo,TXOxnard-ThousandOaks-Ventura,CALasCruces,NMNewYork-Newark-JerseyCity,NY-NJ-PAYakima,WAFresno,CATrenton,NJBrownsville-Harlingen,TXHanford-Corcoran, CARiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CASanDiego-Carlsbad,CAElPaso,TXHouston-TheWoodlands-SugarLand,TXMadera, CAModesto, CALasVegas-Henderson-Paradise,NVSantaCruz-Watsonville,CAWashington-Arlington-Alexandria,DC-VA-MD-WVGainesville, GAYubaCity,CASanta Rosa, CADallas-FortWorth-Arlington,TXVallejo-Fairfield,CAWenatchee, WASacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CASantaFe,NMReno,NVChicago-Naperville-Elgin,IL-IN-WIBridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,CTCapeCoral-FortMyers,FLSeattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WAPhoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,AZPortSt.Lucie,FLCollegeStation-Bryan,TXAustin-RoundRock,TX

Table 4. Poverty and Language in the 50 MSAs with the Largest Share of Students from Immigrant Households, 2015

60%57%57%54%54%53%52%50%50%50%49%48%46%46%45%45%45%44%44%44%43%42%42%41%41%41%41%40%39%38%38%38%37%36%36%36%36%35%33%32%32%31%31%31%30%30%28%28%28%28%

10%29%31%41%25%18%50%57%16%35%25%33%36%30%46%45%24%64%24%37%49%18%59%57%31%28%34%29%48%28%24%19%14%40%32%19%30%22%39%29%15%28%27%17%33%20%40%34%26%27%

8%15%10%24%22%

9%31%34%12%24%17%19%23%11%26%36%

6%30%16%25%26%

9%38%16%21%11%26%17%14%26%21%20%10%15%29%13%13%16%

6%16%19%14%18%

7%24%11%17%19%13%10%

65%72%81%66%56%68%64%63%58%60%59%61%57%69%58%50%77%63%54%52%59%60%53%71%51%64%48%53%68%41%42%37%44%60%39%46%56%43%76%46%27%48%41%54%37%44%49%42%42%51%

Top Metropolitan Statistical Areas1

Share of Students from Immigrant

Households

Poverty Rate for Students in Immigrant

Households

Poverty Rate for Students in Native

Households

Share of Students in Poverty from

Immigrant Households2

Source: 2015 public-use file of the American Community Survey.1 Data for all 260 MSAs is available here: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/puma-table-4-complete.xls.2 Shows the share of all students in the MSA who are in poverty who are from immigrant households.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/puma-table-4-complete.xls

10


End Notes1GoogleFusionTableswasusedtocreatethismap.

2 Although legal status is not the focus of this analysis, in 2010 we estimate that 21.5 percent (Table 20) of all students in publicschoolswerefromimmigranthouseholds(legalandillegal),and7percent(Table40)ofschool-agechildrenwerethechildren of illegal immigrants, slightly less than one-third of all students from immigrant households. As already noted, the share of public school students from immigrant households in 2015 was 22.8 percent and the share of students from illegal immigrant households is still likely slightly less one-third of the that total, or about 7.5 percent. See Steven A. Camarota, “ImmigrantsintheUnitedStates2010:AProfileofAmerica’sForeign-BornPopulation”, Center for Immigration Studies, 2012.

3Figuresrefertotheshareofstudentsfromhouseholdsheadedbythetopimmigrant-sendingcountryinthePUMA.So,forexample,inNorthCentralHialeahCity,69percentofpublicschoolstudentsfromimmigranthouseholdsareheadedbya Cuban immigrant — the top sending country for that PUMA.

4In2015,three-fourthsofstudentswhospokealanguageotherthanEnglishathomelivedinimmigrant-headedhouseholds.

5 The Census Bureau does not identify all of the languages spoken at home, so the actual number of languages spoken by public school students is higher than that reported here.

6 In 2015, there were 69 percent more public school students in the average immigrant household than in the average native household. But the median household income of immigrants in 2015 was 9 percent lower than the median income of native households. In 2015, there were 63 public school students per 100 immigrant households, compared to 37 students per 100 nativehouseholds.(Putadifferentway,therewere.63studentsintheaverageimmigranthouseholdcomparedto.37intheaveragenativehousehold.)Themedianhouseholdincomeofimmigrantsinthesameyearwas$49,561comparedto$54,695for natives. Part of the reason immigrant households have more public school students on average is that a larger share of immigrants are young and have school age children. Moreover, immigrants are much less likely to send their children to private school. In 2015, 12 percent of children enrolled in primary or secondary school in native households were in private school,comparedtojust7percentforchildreninimmigranthouseholds.Educationfigurescomefromthe2015public-usefileoftheACS.Medianincomefigurescomefromthepublic-usefileofthe2016AnnualSocialandEconomicSupplementof the Current Population Survey, which is collected by the Census Bureau and asks in March each year about income in prior calendar year.

7 Of public school students in native households, just 0.7 percent are foreign-born; though many more may have one immigrant parent.

8ThehistoricalfiguresreportedinthebulletsandinFigure1forpublicschoolenrollmentandlanguagecomefromthepub-lic-use samples of the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census long form and from the public-use file of the 2015 ACS. Tables 1 through 4alsorelyonthissamedata.The1990public-useCensusdataavailablefromtheUniversityofMinnesotaIpumswebsitedoesnotincludethevariable“GRADEATT”or“thegradeorlevelofrecentschoolingforpeoplewhoattendedregularschoolorcollege at the time of the interview”. Other years do include this variable. To create public school data for 1990, we use the agerange5-18,andweusethe“EDUCD”variableindicatingarespondents’educationalattainmentmeasuredbythehighestyear of school completed. Public school attendance is available in the 1990 Census public-use data. We select those with less thanorequaltoahighschooldegreeorGED.Comparisonswithothercensusesshowsthisapproachproducesestimatesthatclosely match prior years. The estimate for 1990 is then multiplied by 99 percent to produce a 1990 public school estimate.

9FormoreinformationonPUMAsandhowtheyarecreated,seetheCensus Bureau website.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2012/immigrants-in-the-united-states-2012.pdf

https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/puma.html


11


10 It is possible use public-use data to examine county-level data, but such data represents five years of pooled ACS data. (County data is available every year for the largest counties.) Census Bureau-designated tracts and blocks, which are smaller thanPUMAs,alsorequirefiveyearsofpooledACSdata.Furtherthereisnopublic-usedatafromtheACSfortheselowerlevels of geography; instead researchers are limited to information published for each tract and block by the Census Bureau. As a result, it would be difficult to report some of the statistics in this analysis, which is based on our direct analysis of public-use data from 2015.

mapping immigration’s impact on public schools · thirds of students from immigrant households,...

Documents