Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.10.001 Byline: Leanna Stiefel (a), Amy Ellen Schwartz (b), Dylan Conger (c) Keywords: Immigrants; Mobility; Academic Performance; High Schools; Education; Urban public schools Abstract: In 2005, immigrants exceeded 12% of the US population, with the highest concentrations in large metropolitan areas. While considerable research has focused on how immigrants affect local wages and housing prices, less research has asked how immigrants fare in US urban public schools. Previous studies find that foreign-born students outperform native-born students in their elementary and middle school years, but urban policymakers and practitioners continue to raise concerns about educational outcomes of immigrants arriving in their high school years. We use data on a large cohort of New York City (NYC) public high school students to examine how the performance of students who immigrate during high school (teen immigrants) differs from that of students who immigrate during middle school (tween immigrants) or elementary school (child immigrants), relative to otherwise similar native-born students. Contrary to prior studies, our difference-in-difference estimates suggest that, ceteris paribus, teen immigrants do well compared to native-born migrants, and that the foreign-born advantage is relatively large among the teen (im)migrants. That said, our findings provide cause for concern about the performance of limited English proficient students, blacks and Hispanics and, importantly, teen migrants. In particular, switching school districts in the high school years - that is, student mobility across school districts - may be more detrimental than immigration per se. Results are robust to alternative specifications and cohorts, including a cohort of Miami students. Author Affiliation: (a) Economics and Education Policy, Institute for Education and Social Policy, Wagner and Steinhardt Schools, New York University, United States (b) Public Policy, Education and Economics, Institute for Education and Social Policy, Wagner and Steinhardt Schools, New York University, United States (c) Public Policy and Public Administration, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University, United States Article History: Received 23 September 2008; Revised 1 October 2009

• Public school pre-K students were promoted on-time to first grade at higher rates. • Pre-K attendees experienced less school mobility from kindergarten to first grade. • ELL students who attended public school pre-K were more likely to exit ELL status. • Sorting into kindergarten classrooms partially accounted for the pre-K advantage. • Pre-K benefits were largest for those who stayed in the same school for kindergarten. This study explores the short-run effects of state-funded, public school-based pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs on the early educational outcomes of students in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Using data on all kindergarten students enrolled in the public schools in years 2006 and 2007, we examine differences in outcomes from pre-K to the early grades – promotion to first grade, school mobility, and exit from English language learner (ELL) status – for students who were enrolled in public school pre-K in the previous year as compared to students who entered the public school system at kindergarten. We find that children who participated in a public school pre-K program had higher rates of promotion to the first grade and higher rates of school stability between kindergarten and first grade. ELL children who enrolled in public school pre-K also had higher exit rates from ELL status by first grade compared to students who entered at kindergarten. Analyses explore the role of kindergarten schools and classrooms as well as school stability between pre-K and kindergarten as possible mediators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the effect of same-race/same-nativity networks on the annual earnings and employment of college students using data from multiple cohorts of students entering a large public college system merged with state unemployment insurance records. We identify network effects from small changes in same-race/same-nativity shares across cohorts within college-majors. White native-born, Black native-born, and Black immigrant students who belong to cohorts with larger shares of same group peers experience higher earnings and employment in the 10 years after college entry. Benefits to Black immigrants are particularly large: a 1 standard deviation increase in the share of peers who are Black immigrants results in an approximate 2 percent increase in annual earnings. Among Hispanic immigrants, the effects of same-group peers on earnings and educational attainment are negative in the years immediately after college entry, while the effects on employment are large and positive. Hispanic native-born students do not receive earnings gains from a larger potential network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The female advantage in college enrollment and completion has generated concern among university officials and sparked debate about gender-conscious college admissions. There are a number of explanations for this increasing gender imbalance on college campuses. This paper focuses on the role played by admissions policies that base decisions solely on applicants’ high school grades. Given that females earn higher grades than males, such policies can contribute to growing female shares in admissions. To exemplify this trend, I use publicly-available data from Texas to show that the Texas Top 10% plan, which guarantees public university admission to students who graduate in the top decile of their high school class, led to an increase in the female share of accepted students. The increase was particularly large among black students, where the female share of admitted students was already highest among the major racial/ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]