|
April 19, 2006
Dropout
Nation? MSM whitewashes the role of immigration
Shelbyville High School, 30 miles southeast of
Indianapolis, is ground zero for Time magazine’s
Apr. 17, 2006
cover story on high school dropouts. The school’s
overwhelmingly white student body provides background
for what the reporter calls "the most astonishing
statistic in the whole field of education: an increasing
number of researchers are saying that nearly 1 out of 3
public
high school students won’t graduate, not just in
Shelbyville but across the nation."
No doubt too many
blonde, crew-cut kids are
not graduating on time. But the fact is that dropout
rates for young whites have declined by over 50 percent
in the past three decades, and are in the single digits.
The really "astonishing" statistic, unemphasized
by Time: the
large fraction of Hispanics lacking a high school
degree or its equivalent.
In Educational Industry jargon, the
percentage of 16- to 24- year olds who are out of school
and who have not earned a high school diploma or a
General Educational Development (GED) degree is called
the "status
dropout rate." Status dropout rates in 2003 were
as follows
(Table 1):
 | White, non-Hispanics: |
|
6.3 percent |
 | Black, non-Hispanics: |
|
10.9 percent |
 | Hispanics: |
|
23.9 percent |
If anything, these figures
understate the education gap between Hispanics and other
groups. More than half of
young Hispanic immigrants never attended school in
the U.S., but are counted as graduates if they obtained
a degree in their country of origin—with no control for
quality. (And even so, a whopping 41 percent of
foreign-born Hispanics in the 16- to 24- year age
bracket are dropouts.) [Status
Dropout Rates by Race/Ethnicity (PDF)] Similarly,
immigrants who enter the U.S. after age 25 are not
counted in this dropout statistic.
Luckily (if that’s the right word)
the Census Bureau collects data on the educational
attainment, nativity, and country of origin of all adult
workers. This database goes back to 1940.
So what role does
immigration play in long-term dropout trends?
Consider the data presented in a
recent study of Mexican immigrants by Harvard economists
George Borjas and
Lawrence Katz
(Table 2).
They calculate the percentage of
adult male workers with less than 12 years of education,
as follows:
 | Native-born: |
|
1940: 67.3 percent |
2000: 8.7 percent |
 | Mexican immigrants: |
|
1940: 94.6 percent |
2000: 63.0 percent |
 | Non-Mexican immigrants: |
|
1940: 84.4 percent |
2000: 17.0 percent |
Between 1940 and 2000
dropout rates for native-born male workers fell by
almost 60 percentage points, and those of non-Mexican
immigrants fell by nearly the same amount. By contrast,
the share of
Mexican-born males lacking HS degrees declined by
only 30 percentage points.
"As a
result of these trends," note Borjas and Katz,
"the data indicate a remarkable fact: the population of
male high school dropouts in the United States has
become disproportionately Mexican-born. In 1940, 0.5
percent of all male high school dropouts were Mexican
immigrants. Even as recently as 1980, only 4.1 percent
of male high school dropouts were Mexican immigrants. By
2000, however, 26.2 percent of all male high school
dropouts were Mexican born." [The
Evolution Of The Mexican-Born Workforce In The United
States]
Immigration enthusiasts find hope in the "native
born" dropout trend. After all, this group includes
children of Mexican immigrants. Over time, the
immigration enthusiasts claim, the
English-speaking, U.S.-born descendents of
today’s Mexican immigrants will blend seamlessly
into the mainstream.
But, as usual with immigration
enthusiasts, this confident assertion turns out to be a
myth. In 2000, U.S.-born males of Mexican descent still
had significantly higher dropout rates (21 percent) than
native born non-Mexicans (8.3 percent). The
college graduation gap is even wider.
To quote George Borjas in his 1990
book
Friends Or Strangers: "Ethnicity matters. And
it matters for a long, long time."
Why do Americans of Mexican descent
remain educationally challenged? Is it
culture?
I.Q.? Lousy
schools?
Borjas and Katz don’t address this
question,
perhaps wisely.
But the real question is why taxpayers in Shelbyville
have to subsidize this process at all—especially since
it creates
competition for their own children.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email
him) is President of
ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis. |