NAEP, biracial trends

[Note: I have since done a more sophisticated analysis of this data. See: It could be culture.]

I looked at the 8th and 12th grade NAEP composite math and verbal scores by racial identification by year. I identified race through school report (variable: SDRACE) and student report (variable: DRACEM). I identified mixed race Black/White students through student report and, in the case of 8th graders, since sample sizes were permitting, through cross classification between student and school report. In all analyses, individuals identifying as Hispanic were excluded.

Student report data comes from a two-part ethnic/race question on the NAEP student questionnaire. (See here.) The question allows for multiple ethnic/race responses. The NAEP DRACE classifications — White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, More than one, unclassified — created from these responses are mutually exclusive. Non-hispanic, mixed race B/W students can be identified with NAEP explorer by cross tabing DRACEM with self reported “White” and “Black.”

School report data comes from official school reports. Schools are federally mandated to keep records of student racial classification. Student racial classification is based, in turn, on parental report. In some instances school reports do not match with student reports (e.g., the school report will indicate that an individual is Black while the individual will report that she is White). This allows for mixed race identification. The underlying assumption, in this case, is that unidentified B/W students are being identified as opposed to misclassified monoracial and/or otherwise mixed students. I used four cross classifications: School White, Student Black; School Black, Student White; School Mixed, Student Black; School Black, Student Mixed.

As can be seen below, for Blacks and Whites, school and student reported race scores closely match. Overall, identified B/W mixed race students perform intermediate to Whites and Blacks. The only pronounced deviation was with 8th grade students who were school identified as being Black and who self-identified as being White — but the standard errors in this case ranged from 3.4 to 5, so this anomaly is probably due to the small sample size.) It’s possible that the intermediate performance of the identified mixed race students is an artifact of my classification. If, for example, the identified students were in reality a composite of Blacks identifying as Whites and Whites identifying as Blacks, one would also get intermediate scores. The concordance of findings across classifications, though, argues against this.

The first graph shows math plus verbal scores by year by 8th grade racial identification based on school and self report for monoracials and self report for biracials. The second graph shows the same, replacing 8th with 12th grade.The third graph duplicates the first with the exception that the above discussed biracial cross-classifications are included.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to NAEP, biracial trends

  1. JL says:

    All the data on admixture and skin color you’ve reviewed in recent months are consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis, I think. The only exception is the study by Arcidiacono et al., discussed here, showing that the gap between whites and biracials is smaller than expected in the Add Health data. Based on those other data sets, I suspect there’s something wonky about the AH biracials. They are probably not representative. The problem could be, for example, that the behavioral genetic family sample embedded in the AH sample causes the scores of biracials to not be independent of each other. (I just read that there are also hundreds of adoptees in the sample. Has anyone looked at IQ correlations between adoptees and their adoptive families in these data?)

    BTW, Steve Hsu linked to this other Arcidiacono paper which is nicely consistent with HBD. It’s a good example of how evidence for HBD accumulates even when the researchers are racial antirealists and blank slatists, provided that they’re honest. According to that paper most individual differences in college success are apparently caused by differences in “preparedness”. I also hate the fact that when discussing NAMs they say “minorities”, e.g. “The lack of minority representation in the sciences is of national interest and much money has been spent on encouraging minorities to enter the sciences.”

    • Chuck says:

      JL,

      Thanks so much for the feedback. As for the ADDHealth sample, I found no difference between Wave III mixed race kids and Whites. See here. This was a subsample of the Wave I sample. (N=48 versus N= 1116-130 or so, depending on how individuals are classified.) So that would be contrary evidence. (I should note that I did not exclude individuals whom the interviewer said looked White or whom the interviewer surmised were faking their identity — there were a couple of them.) Also, Grace Kao found no difference between mixed race Kids and Blacks on Math tests in the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (N=278), which would also be contrary evidence (screen shot here and here). So I consider the mixed race results to be ambiguous, conflicting, and full of noise. Which is why I’m looking at the NAEP results, which I find to be ambiguous, conflicting, and full of noise, especially when you look at Math and Reading results separately.

      (Given Templer et al. (2002), Arcidiacono et al. (2011) is not surprising.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s