Specific factors that affect the educational achievement of Hispanic Americans include:
Each of these factors are addressed in turn, below.
Inequity in School Financing. School financing comes from three sources: Federal, state, and local funds (with most funds coming from states). For the majority of the 50 states, education is the largest expenditure category in the state budget, accounting for 20 percent of total state spending in fiscal year 1994. Education must, however, compete with other programs like Medicaid and corrections, which have seen their budgets increased while education budgets decrease.38
The issue is not whether it is more expensive to educate Hispanic Americans - the issue is that the districts where Hispanic children reside are usually low-wealth districts that generate less funding from property taxes. Also, most Hispanic Americans live in urban areas. Urban schools are older and often have dilapidated buildings. In most cases, districts have to pass bond referendums to rebuild schools, which are often not supported by the general voting public. Therefore, school districts with concentrations of Hispanic American students remain underfunded and must seek other means of support.
State and Local Financing Methods. There are significant disparities in per-pupil expenditures by state. Across all states, the average, base expenditure per pupil in 1989-1990 was $4,523.39 During this same period, however, the highest-spending state contributed about three times as much per elementary and secondary student as did the lowest-spending state -- or approximately twice as much, after adjusting for interstate differentials in the cost of education;40 and 11 states fell short of the average per-pupil expenditure by at least $1,000.41
The most common form of school financing at the local level is property taxes. As a result, wealthy districts raise far more money through taxation than do poor districts. Even though many poor districts have taxed themselves at a much higher rate than do wealthier districts, they still produce far less revenue than wealthy districts.42 This process has been devastating to Hispanic populations.
In 1984, a group of less-wealthy school districts in Texas filed a suit (Edgewood v. Kirby) charging that the state's heavy reliance on property taxes to fund education resulted in expenditure differences that violated the Texas constitution, leaving residents of low-income districts with old schools in poor condition, fewer teachers and educational resources, and less developed curricula. The wealthiest district in the area had over $14 million of property wealth per pupil, while the poorest had about $20,000 of property wealth per pupil. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) reported that 95 percent of the students in the poorest districts were Mexican American; and at the state level, it was discovered that 65 percent of all students in the poorest quarter of the districts were Mexican American.
Since the Texas Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in Edgewood v. Kirby, some progress has been made. Educational financing in Texas has become more equitable, despite remaining discrepancies. It will take, however, more than 10 years to overcome the differences between poor and wealthy school districts. Wealthy districts, meanwhile, are dissatisfied with this new system and have pressured the legislature to make changes. Thus, even after the system is implemented in 1999, it will permit wealthy districts to spend about $600 more per pupil than less wealthy districts.43
New Mexico, another high Hispanic population state, has been proactive in dealing with the inequality in education financing from district to district. As early as February of 1974, the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula was enacted into statute by the Legislature.44 New Mexico opted not to use a generic formula for funds distribution, but to use a formula based upon the principle that all students are entitled to equal educational opportunities, despite differences in wealth.45 What makes this formula different is that it does not assume all factors are equal for every student, and it weighs the costs of programs, the training and experience of personnel within the districts, and the size of districts.46
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that state legislatures used one or more of the following remedies to lessen revenue disparity and to foster educational equality:
Federal Funding. Elementary and secondary schools receive most of their funds from state and local revenues. Federal aid, on the other hand, targets services to educationally disadvantaged children through categorical, program-specific grants for bilingual education, special education, and at-risk children (e.g., Title I funds). Although a major source of aid for poor school districts, Title I cannot overcome expenditure gaps, nor can it provide supplemental resources for students in the lower-spending states.48
Currently, the Federal government has two main tools at its disposal, direct funding and incentives, to shift resources toward lower-spending states or localities.49 The Federal government can affect the direct-funding mechanism, for instance, by changing the Title I allocations, and by distributing new forms of Federal aid.50 The Federal government also can offer incentives or impose penalties for jurisdictions that distribute, or fail to distribute, funds in ways that support supplemental services for disadvantaged students.51 Funding cuts at the Federal level would compel school districts to curtail crucial programs that benefit at-risk children.
School Segregation and Poverty. Today, Hispanic American students are experiencing higher rates of segregation in school systems than are any other group of students. A recent report of the Harvard Project on School Desegregation to the National School Boards Association describes the changing patterns of segregation and poverty since 1968. The study found that segregation by race is strongly correlated with segregation by poverty; and the study provides national data demonstrating that both African American and Latino students are much more likely than white students to be in schools that are segregated and poorly funded.52
Underrepresentation of Hispanics among School Personnel. Hispanic youth comprised more than 12 percent of the U.S. public school population in 1993-1994. However, Hispanic teachers comprised less than 4 percent of the teaching population; counselors represented only 2 percent; and Hispanic public school administrators composed only 4 percent. Only 2 percent of college faculty members were Hispanic; and Hispanics in decision-making positions on school boards counted for 1 percent.
It should be obvious that positive educational outcomes are enhanced when schools are staffed with sufficient Hispanic personnel to serve as mentors as well as role models for Hispanic students.53 A study conducted by Meier and Stuart, for instance, showed that Hispanic representation on school boards and in the teaching profession reduce dropout and grade retention rates. Furthermore, Hispanic students evaluated by those sensitive to their culture are far less likely to be assigned to special education classes and far more likely to be identified as gifted.54
There are too few Hispanic teachers, counselors, and administrators. Consequently, there are few school professionals who are linguistically, culturally, and socially empathetic to the needs of Hispanic students — which, in turn, leaves Hispanic students without mentors to guide them toward college or toward technical and professional careers.
Multicultural Training for School Personnel. Hispanic students need instructors who can challenge them academically and set high expectations. However, only 80 percent of Limited English Proficient (LEP) teachers of LEP students are trained to do so.55 While more than 15 percent of all teachers in the U.S. have one or more LEP students in their classroom, only 10 percent are certified in bilingual education or teaching English as a second language.56 Furthermore, as a consequence of not understanding their students' native language, culture, and socio-economic realities, many teachers have low expectations for their Hispanic students, which contributes, as does the lack of Hispanic staff, to attrition.
Teacher insensitivity to cultural and linguistic diversity often influences a student to become alienated from the school system. "Students of color" have been quoted as saying that their teachers, school staff, and even other students neither understood nor liked them, and many teachers similarly reported that they do not always "understand" students from different ethnic backgrounds. Not surprisingly, minority students perceive their schools to be racist and prejudiced.57
According to Dr. Juan Juárez, Associate Vice President for Research and Planning, New Mexico Highlands University, the number of prospective Hispanic and bilingual education teachers is decreasing, even as the population of school-age children grows. At the Phoenix hearings, he testified that "...the low number of Hispanics in teacher education programs is due in part to the failure of both university and Federal teacher preparation initiatives to actively recruit Hispanics."58
This is not to imply that an educator must be Hispanic American or must be Spanish-speaking in order to be a good and effective instructor of Hispanic students. All teachers, but especially teachers and staff who work in schools with concentrations of Hispanic students, need to be trained in effective ways to work with Latinos and other students. Until adequate numbers of bilingual teachers can be recruited, the problem may be addressed through the use of Spanish-speaking teacher aides or assistants recruited from the community, who should be trained and encouraged to become fully licensed teachers.
Lack of Bilingual and ESL Programs. One of the most controversial issues in the education of Hispanic children is language. The reason for this controversy is primarily political, rather than educational, and reflect a public misunderstanding that bilingual and English-as-a-Second-Language education methods are somehow a threat to American culture and values. In fact, the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicated in 1994 that "the bilingual method" is the most effective for non-English speaking children.
The fastest and most effective way for bilingual students to acquire both a command of English and a command of classroom subject matter is through well-designed and fully implemented bilingual programs. Unfortunately, many states and districts fail to provide full bilingual instruction in academic subjects. In 1994, for example, the GAO found that many school districts with high concentrations of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were not adequately providing bilingual services. In one district with 21,000 identified LEP students, only 3 percent of the LEP students were being served.50
Today, two primary strategies for instructing LEP students are English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual education. ESL is a teaching method in which instruction is almost exclusively in English. In fact, it may be based upon a curriculum that incorporates little or no use of the native language, and is taught only in specific school periods, after which students are placed under regular instruction for the rest of the school day.60
According to Professor Josúe Gonzalez of Columbia University Teachers' College:
Bilingual education is the use of two languages, one of which is English, as a means of instruction. It is an educational tool primarily used with children of limited English proficiency to provide them both English language instruction and access to other content areas of the curriculum. . . The native language of the child is used in bilingual programs to the extent necessary to teach basic skills and insure that children do not fall behind their peers in other subjects while they learn English.61
Bilingual education programs develop native-language proficiency in order to enable LEP students to make a transition to all-English instruction, while receiving academic subject instruction in their native language. These programs emphasize the development of English-language skills as well as grade promotion and graduation requirements.62
In Lau v. Nichols (1974),47 the Supreme Court ruled that students who are not fluent in English have a right to comprehensible instruction as a means of ensuring equal access to a public education. Failure to provide supplemental language instruction, then, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. From 1984 to 1994, the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students increased by almost 70 percent, yet, the corresponding numbers of qualified bilingual teachers did not increase. Currently, more than 2.3 million LEP students, representing different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, attend public elementary and secondary schools — and three-fourths of them are Spanish speakers.63
A panel of experts was convened in Washington, D.C., in November of 1995, to address the issues affecting bilingual education. (A list of panelists can be found in Appendix E.) They agreed that without effective bilingual education, a pattern of failure develops:
Misplacement of Students in Special Education Classes. Special Education programs are provided for students with disabilities, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The needs of this population, too, are still far from met. Services for Latino students with disabilities require effective linkages between regular education and special education programs, including bilingual education and English-as-a-Second-Language programs.
Many Hispanic American educators have learned through their own experience that large numbers of Latino children, LEP and non-LEP, are being classified as "seriously emotionally disturbed" (SED) or "specific learning disabled" (SLD), and referred to special education programs. Between the years of 1976 and 1994, Hispanics with learning disabilities increased from 24 percent to 51 percent among all students with learning disabilities.65
Even for students who are discovered to be erroneously tracked into Special Education programs, there is a lack of exit criteria to draw them back into regular classes. Some education models, that provide students with team support from multiple disciplines are currently being implemented toward that end. These teams strive to place students in a successful environment whereby the team can strive to distinguish the educationally deprived children from children who are disabled.
Testing and Assessment. Many Latino students never reach their full potential due to inappropriate and inaccurate uses of testing and assessment. Data show that when compared to non-Hispanic students, Hispanic students are:
One means of ensuring academic success for LEP students is to use appropriate and valid assessments aligned to state and local standards that take into account language acquisition. In locations where "high-stakes" testing (i.e., testing for high school graduation and school accountability) is required by law, a team of assessment specialists, second language learning specialists, and core content teachers can work together to validate and to align existing instruments, or to develop new measures for LEP students so that those students can demonstrate competence.69
Most experts suggest students should be assessed using methods other than standardized tests. However, if standardized tests are used to determine student competencies, they should be used as only one of many criteria. Particularly for Hispanic children and youth, the use of standardized tests should be tied to other formal and informal assessment techniques. Given the inherent flaws of testing, the additional challenge of testing Hispanic Americans is that the test results must reflect an assessment of core content learning, and not reflect solely linguistic or cultural competencies.
Standardized testing and tracking continue beyond the pre-K through 12 classrooms. At the undergraduate level, students are often placed in remedial classes based on tests solely of English skills. At the professional level, tests are administered for licensure. It is easy to see how these time-restricted tests unfairly penalize bilingual candidates. Given additional time, bilingual students, as a group, perform at the same level as their English language peers.70
Underutilization of Technology. Technology is rapidly changing the way we communicate and deliver services. By the year 2000, about 75 percent of all Federal and state services will be processed electronically. Thus, there is an increasing demand for computer literacy. The lack of access to technology, and the cost of the equipment, are serious barriers for Hispanic Americans. Yet, if the primary access to computers is established in public places, such as schools and libraries, some of this could be circumvented, as these sites could offer extended hours, training, and assistance.71
Nationwide, only one in five eighth graders has a computer in his or her classroom.72 Currently, only one in two Hispanic children has access to a computer at school, and only one in eight Latino households has access to a home computer.73 Schools in poorer neighborhoods do not have the funds to place computers in classrooms, much less to provide Internet access.
Specifically, 58 percent of Hispanic students in grades 1 through 8, and 54 percent of those in grades 9 through 12, used computers in school in October 1993. For white students, the rates were higher: 74 percent in grades 1 to 8, and 60 percent in grades 9 to 12. Latino students had much less access to computers at home than did white students. Twelve percent of Hispanic students in grades 1 to 8, and 14 percent of those in grades 9 to 12 had a computer at home, in contrast to 40 and 46 percent of white students.74
In short, computer literacy is the "basic skill" of an information based economy and workforce. Yet, Latinos, as these data demonstrate, do not have access to computer technology at home nor at school. The "fault line" is most emphatically real between those who can use technology to process information and those who cannot.
Postsecondary Financial Assistance. Between 1980 and 1990, tuition and fees at public universities grew annually at a rate of 4 percent above the rate of inflation. Between 1990 and 1994, the rate increased to 4.8 percent. Concurrently, government appropriations for public institutions of higher education fell 8 to 12 percentage points between 1980 and 1990.75 Such funding cuts have devastated students in need. Hispanic students are more than three times as likely than white students to come from low income families; and more than half of Hispanic undergraduates (53 percent) are financially independent of their parents.
The outlook for Latino students requiring financial aid is becoming bleaker every year. While overall college enrollment grew 18 percent between FY 1980 to FY 1994, Federal support for student financial assistance rose only 11 percent.76 Consequently, the percentage of Latino undergraduates receiving Federal financial aid declined from 41 percent to 36 percent between 1987 and 1990, at the same time that moderate increases in Latino enrollments were occurring.77 Student aid as a percentage of total costs has steadily declined.
The most important source of Federal financial aid for Hispanic Americans, the Pell Grants Program, has been underfunded since its inception in 1972. Furthermore, over the last decade, the purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant has declined. In the mid-1980s, it would cover one half the costs at public universities. Today, the Pell Grant covers only about one-third of that cost.78
Additionally, the shift from grants to loans is creating a dangerous imbalance and is causing financially disadvantaged students to look at options other than college. To avoid taking out loans, Hispanic students, for example, often opt for part-time enrollment, or work more hours.79 Naturally, increasing the amount of time that is spent working reduces study time and prolongs the length of time required to graduate. During the past five years, Pell Grants as a percentage of total student aid, has steadily decreased, especially at community colleges where the majority of Hispanic American students access postsecondary education.
The Department of Education's Campus-Based Program is designed to supplement the Federal Pell Grants and student loan programs with Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and College Work Study. These programs often are not as available to Hispanic Serving Institutions as they are to institutions serving the general population, nor do allocation formulas under the Campus-Based Program reflect the change in demographic trends across our nation's higher education institutions. The current formula requires that the initial institutions admitted into the program maintain their original allocation. Policies such as this obviously affect participation by Hispanic Serving Institutions; and Hispanic students enrolled in such institutions are left out of supplemental financial aid programs.
|
…the cost of higher education in California has risen dramatically over the past five years, in the University of California almost 150%. Registration fees for UC undergraduates average around $4,000 annually, a figure that excludes books and living expenses. Furthermore, scholarship and grant money for college students from both Federal and state sources has declined in the same period.
Dr. Raymundo Paredes |
Parental Involvement. Research shows that children succeed when schools recognize and support parents as the child's primary teacher; when parents are welcomed and involved in all aspects of school life, including policy-making and priority-setting; and when schools are meaningfully accountable to parents. These conditions routinely exist in middle-class, white schools. Testimony to the Commission, on the other hand, documents that such routine conditions often do not exist in low-income and Latino schools.
The failure to involve parents is closely related to many other factors affecting Hispanic American educational attainment; in turn, failure to work with families as partners perpetuates the problems. For example, school professionals who are not linguistically, culturally and socially sensitive to Hispanic students also do not relate effectively to their students' parents. Because of class, ethnic and language differences, professionals often fail to value the vital strengths and contributions parents bring to their children's education.
Schools' failure to listen and be accountable to parents has a disastrous effect on parents' ability to support their children's education and on children's success. In most schools, Latino parents have few effective means to assure observance of their children's educational rights and to create school environments supportive of success for all children.
Certain critical needs must be addressed, such as the necessity for easily understandable written and oral communication to parents in Spanish and English on all matters regarding their children. For parents serving on Title I and other policy committees, materials and discussions must be bilingual and free of jargon; parents will often need access to community-based organizations and other external resources to be effective participants. Schools must address issues such as meeting times, transportation, and child care in order to engage parents effectively. Schools need to work with parents, adult education programs, and community organizations to find ways to communicate with, support, and involve parents who cannot easily come to the school. Schools can play a great role in providing culturally-relevant parent education on may topics; and to be successful, these programs need to build on the strengths of parents and families.
Lack of School Safety. Research indicates that a safe and orderly school environment is another key to effective learning. Many Hispanic children, though, are not safe in the schools they attend. Violence, suspensions, and expulsions are common. In 1992, Latino high school seniors were more likely than white seniors to report that disruptions by other students interfered with their learning. They claimed that fights often occurred between different racial and ethnic groups, and that they did not feel safe at their school.80
Exposure to dangerous or threatening behavior at school was most common for students attending middle or junior high schools, students at public schools, and students at larger schools. Obviously, students exposed to crime or threats and worried about becoming victims at school are experiencing a learning environment that is seriously deficient. America needs to ensure that schools are communities of teachers and learners, where learning can take place in a secure environment.81
Safe schools can be created by reducing their size, establishing personal relationships between faculty and students, creating conflict resolution education and dispute resolution mechanisms, bringing parents into the school, and many other mechanisms. In addition, a safe school is a school in which staff are held accountable for physical and verbal violence toward students, and in which complaints of physical or sexual abuse of students are investigated and acted upon quickly and impartially.
Puerto Rican Education. Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico face many of the same educational obstacles as do Hispanics on the continent, but special factors aggravate those obstacles, such as caps on Federally funded programs, minimal attention from Federal policy makers, the island's economy, and very high poverty rates.
|
The children of Puerto Rico are United States Citizens. They are entitled to equal treatment and equal opportunities, educationally and otherwise.
Sandra Espada Santos, Secretary, |
Annually, about 25,000 to 30,000 Puerto Rican students enroll in schools on the continent.82 This migration often involves great difficulties, as it does for all migrants. Many of these migrating students often enter underfunded, overcrowded schools with limited instructional support systems to meet their needs. In turn, Puerto Rican schools encounter similar challenges when students lacking full Spanish literacy move back to the island and must adapt to new instructional systems.
Poverty and inadequate funding for education contribute to low rates of educational participation and limited educational attainment. According to the 1990 Census, the population of Puerto Rico that is 18 and older is 2.4 million. Of that number, 1.1 million, or 47 percent, do not have a high school diploma.83 Puerto Rico is a highly populated island with high dependency rates (62 percent), high unemployment (16 percent), and low labor participation rates (46 percent). Access to excellence in education at all levels is key to alleviating these social conditions.84 Per-pupil expenditures for kindergarten to 12th in Puerto Rico ($1,779) are far below those of even the poorest state in the continental United States. Puerto Rico spends 9 percent of government revenues and almost 9 percent of gross revenues on education. Per pupil expenditures, however, compare with just 55 percent of the States' lowest per-pupil expenditures, and one-fifth of the national average expenditure.85
|
Puerto Ricans believe that Puerto Rico's development — like that of the entire Nation — depends on the investment in people. What we need are appropriate tools, adequate funding, and procedures to improve the working conditions for teachers and students. Education is the most effective resource to raise a nation's productivity and strength. Teachers and leaders in Puerto Rico have learned to do the most with the least and this is a valuable effort.86
José Eligio Vélez, President |
Of the 189 Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) of higher education, 53 are in Puerto Rico. Those institutions prepare professionals in a variety of fields, and many students eventually work in the continental United States. In fact, employers from the continental United States often recruit bilingual professionals from Puerto Rico. Consequently, Puerto Rican institutions of higher education play a vital role in the development of bilingual and bicultural professionals for the educational system of the United States. Bilingual and bicultural graduates also enter the work force and increase the international competitiveness of United States' businesses. Yet, for these institutions, financing for higher education is a continuing concern.
In contrast to trends in the United States, private universities in Puerto Rico most often serve lower-income students, while the public University of Puerto Rico system most often serves middle- and upper-income students. In fact, some private universities receive close to 85 percent of their funding from student financial aid programs, due to the large number of low-income students they serve. As a result, students and postsecondary institutions disproportionately serving the poor are more deeply affected when there are cuts in Federal financial aid to low-income students.
For Puerto Rican students attending institutions of higher education, further reductions in financial aid grants and the Direct Student Loan Program threaten to eliminate the major avenues available to them for financing their education. It is to the United States' benefit to find more inclusive, efficient, and effective methods of financing higher education to improve the financial stability of institutions of higher education, and to make college more affordable to Puerto Ricans on the island.
Migrant Education. The children of migrant and seasonal farm workers have special needs that place them at a great disadvantage in terms of accessing regular school systems, as their parents make a living by following the harvest schedules of various agricultural crops throughout the country. Some of the problems faced by these families and their children include severe poverty, lack of continuity in schooling, transportation problems, poor nutrition and health, and linguistic and cultural barriers. It is important to note that about 80 percent of the migrant and seasonal farm worker population is Hispanic American.
According to the Office of Migrant Education (OME) of the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 610,000 migrant students were served by the Migrant Education Program (MEP) in school year 1993-1994. OME estimates that approximately 657,000 migrant students between the ages of 3 through 21 were eligible for MEP services in 1994.
Though significant progress has been made in the implementation of specially designed Federal programs such as these, the measures of educational attainment still show high dropout rates and low achievement levels among migrant children. It is therefore obvious that more innovative efforts must be made on behalf of migrant children and families — which will require that state governments in partnership with Federal programs and local school districts develop new initiatives and expand effective program models.
A generation of Hispanic American students in U.S. public education are at risk due to serious inadequacies in the educational system. Thus far, the system has been unable to meet the needs of those students. Among other inequities, there continues to exist a disparity in school funding, a lack of effective Bilingual and ESL education programs, a lack of trained teachers, and a misuse of testing and assessment.
Hispanic students trail behind their non-Hispanic counterparts in many areas. This commences even before kindergarten and continues through adulthood. At age 4, Latino children have less school-related skills than do non-Hispanic children of their same age group. By age 13, Hispanic students are, on average, 2 years behind in math and reading, and about 4 years behind in science.
Latino students are, more often, retained in a grade level than other students. High retention rates are correlated to dropping out and the dropout rates among Latino students are very high. This and the low rate of Hispanic American graduates at undergraduate and graduate levels is disproportionately low and can no longer be tolerated.
Adequate responses to the educational needs of other Hispanic population groups, including Latino adults, and Puerto Rican and migrant students, are also lacking. They, as well as all Hispanic youth, need, as members of society, to be prepared to join the work force. For this to occur, the number of those who graduate from high school, and the number of those who continue and complete a college education must increase.
All levels of government must work to enhance Latino educational attainment. This investment is crucial to meeting the needs of a nation whose adequately educated competitive work force continues to shrink and whose demands for technological skills are becoming greater.
The American public, parents, and the leadership of Hispanic communities across the country must work in partnership with government leaders at all levels to be successful in addressing the crisis in the education of Hispanic Americans described in these findings.
Issues and Recommendations...