NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

ISSUE

BRIEF

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

July 1998

Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used in U.S. Public Schools

For the past 20 years, federal agencies have followed standards set forth by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for collecting and presenting data on

racial and ethnic populations. In 1977, OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 15

established four discrete racial categories (American Indian or Alaskan Native;

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black; and White) and broke down ethnicity into Hispanic origin and Not of Hispanic origin. Alternatively, OMB allowed five combined race and ethnicity categories: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or

Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; and White, not of Hispanic origin (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).

Using these standards, federal agencies have been able to collect comparable data

on key population groups. Since 1977, however, the racial and ethnic makeup of

the country has changed, giving rise to the question of whether the five standard

categories reflect the diversity of the nation’s present population. In 1993, OMB

initiated a review of the classification system, Congress held hearings on the matter, and a federal research effort began. In 1997, Congress again held hearings on

the standards as part of an effort to make any changes in time for the 1998 dress

rehearsal for the 2000 Census.

Changes in the nation’s racial and ethnic makeup present special problems to the

public schools, which collect and aggregate race and ethnicity data for federal

programs and other reporting purposes. Consequently, the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education sponsored two surveys, one at the school level and the other at

the state level, about the racial and ethnic classifications used to collect and report

data on students in public elementary and secondary schools. The school study

was conducted in spring 1995; the state study, in 1997 (U.S. Department of Education, 1996 and 1998).

When and how are racial and ethnic data collected by the

schools?

The majority of the nation’s public schools—55 percent—reported that they collect information about race and ethnicity only when a student initially registers at

any school in the district (figure 1). Another 17 percent indicated that they collect

this information at initial registration and whenever students change schools within

the district. Twenty-five percent of schools collect racial and ethnic data annually.

Figure 1.—When information about the race and ethnicity of students is

usually obtained by public schools: 1995

the race and ethnicity of their children; 22 percent of schools (table 1) assigned

students to racial and ethnic categories based on observation by a teacher or an

administrator. The remaining 5 percent (not shown in table) indicated that the

school followed some other procedure for collecting these data or that the information was not collected at the school but at the district office.

Schools in the Northeast and Central regions were more likely to use third-party

identification than those in the Southeast and West (table 1). Schools in cities,

when compared to the other three types of areas, were the least likely to use this

procedure. Finally, schools with minority enrollments of 20 percent or more were

less likely to rely on third-party identification than schools with 19 percent or less

minority enrollment.

To what extent are additional categories used in current

record-keeping?

Seven percent of schools reported using racial or ethnic designations in addition to

the five standard categories (table 1). The use of additional categories was more

prevalent in schools in the West, schools with 1,000 or more students, those in

cities and urban fringe areas, and those with minority enrollments of 20 percent or

more. Adding a separate Filipino category was most frequently mentioned by

schools surveyed. Some schools also reported breaking down the Asian or Pacific

Islander category into two separate categories. Other categories mentioned were

Middle Eastern and various specific Asian nationalities such as Chinese and Japanese. However, no one of these additional categories was mentioned by more than

4 percent of schools surveyed.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response

Survey System, School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications, FRSS 53, 1995.

Schools reported using a variety of methods for collecting data on the race and

ethnicity of their students. Seventy-three percent of schools (not shown in table)

reported that parents or guardians were generally given the opportunity to identify

Table 1.—Percentage of public schools using third-party identification

and percentage using additional racial or ethnic categories,

other than the standard federal classifications, by school

characteristics: 1995

(+) Less than 0.5 percent.

* Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools

are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses with other school characteristics.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response

Survey System, School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications, FRSS 53, 1995.

School characteristic

Third party 

identification allowed

Public schools using 

additional racial or 

ethnic categories

 All public schools 22 7

Size of enrollment

 Less than 300 24 3

 300 to 499 26 5

 500 to 999 20 9

 1,000 or more 16 16

Metropolitan status

 City 11 13

 Urban fringe 22 11

 Town 29 3

 Rural 28 1

Geographic region

 Northeast 44 (+)

 Southeast 14 1

 Central 30 1

 West 8 22

Percent minority enrollment in school*

 Less than 5 42 3

 5–19 22 4

 20–49 7 13

 50 or more 10 12



 













y

y

zz

zz

{

{

||

|| y







Only upon initial registration

at any school in the district

Other

At initial registration and whe

students change schools with

the district

On an annual basis

3%

25%

17% 55%
NCES 98-035

Issue Briefs present information on education topics of current interest. All estimates shown are based on samples and are subject to sampling variability. All differences are statistically

significant at the .05 level. This Issue Brief was prepared by John Bare, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; Anne Meek, Education Statistics Services Institute; and Mary Frase, National

Center for Education Statistics. For information, contact Edith McArthur, National Center for Education Statistics, 202-219-1442 or Edith_McArthur @ed.gov. To order additional copies of this

Issue Brief or other NCES publications, call 1-800-424-1616. NCES publications are also available on the Internet at http://nces.ed.gov/.

2000 Census. The new standards are effective immediately for new and revised

data collection; by January 1, 2003, all federal agencies are to be using the new

standards.

For data on race, the categories are: White; Black or African American; Asian;

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and American Indian or Alaska Native. Note that the term African American was added to the Black category; and

the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander category was separated from the

much larger Asian or Other Pacific Islander category. The Native Hawaiian or

Other Pacific Islander category includes persons descended from the original

peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. The Asian category is

defined as persons descended from the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast

Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea,

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

For data on ethnicity, the categories are Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or

Latino. “Hispanic” is the term commonly used in the eastern U.S., while “Latino”

is typical in the west. OMB hopes the use of both terms will encourage improved

reporting.

OMB did not add a “multiracial” category, but is allowing individuals to report

one or more races when they self-identify. Guidelines for implementing this decision, including questionnaire design, instructions, and tabulation specifications,

are not complete at this time. In the next few months, further review by statistical

and policy experts will take place, with recommendations to be submitted to OMB

during 1998.

These decisions will impact many levels of government and many agencies. Users

of racial and ethnic data are concerned about their ability to report trend data,

given the new categories. For those who must collect and report racial and ethnic

data to the federal government, including schools, there are concerns about the

ease, cost, and timing of implementing the new systems.

In the state survey, states responded to questions about the estimated impact of

possible changes to the racial and ethnic categories on the revision of data collection forms, changes in computer systems, and training of staff. The states that had

already made changes in the categories they used to collect such data and therefore

had some experience with such a process, generally estimated the degree of impact to be less than those states that were currently considering revisions or had no

current plans for revision. Similarly, states that had made revisions estimated a

shorter period of time required to implement changes in the categories than did

those which had not.

References

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. State

Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications, NCES 98-034, by Nancy Carey,

Cassandra Rowand, Elizabeth Farris. Shelley Burns, project officer. Washington,

D.C: 1998.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Racial

and Ethnic Classifications Used by Public Schools, NCES 96-092, by Nancy Carey

and Elizabeth Farris. Judi Carpenter, project officer. Washington, D.C: 1996.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives. Statistical Agencies. Collection

and Reporting of Race and Ethnicity Data. GAO/T-GGD-97-92. Statement of

Bernard L. Ungar, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues,

General Government Division, April 23, 1997.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” Federal Register, October 30,

1997 (FR 58782-58790).

U.S. Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, “Race

and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting,” 1977.

In the state survey, in 1997, eight states reported that they were using additional

categories beyond the standard OMB categories to classify the race and ethnicity

of their students. Five of the eight states—Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio—used a “multiracial” category. North Carolina also used an “other”

category without specification, while Rhode Island used an “other” category only

for limited English proficient and special education students. A “multiracial” or

an “other” category cannot be aggregated into the standard five OMB categories.

In addition, California separated Filipino from the Asian or Pacific Islander category, and Alaska separated the American Indian or Alaskan Native category into

two categories. Three other states—Arizona, Kansas, and Maryland— reported

they were considering modifying the categories, for example, by adding some form

of a “multiracial” or “other” category.

Even within states, reporting has been inconsistent. For example, in Virginia, the

city of Alexandria collects racial and ethnic data on students according to the five

standard categories, but in adjoining Fairfax County, school officials have added a

“multiracial” category to the student registration form. In California, local schools

can decide which racial and ethnic categories to use. As a result, San Diego schools

offer 19 racial and ethnic options, including a “multiracial” category, while San

Francisco schools use nine options with no “multiracial” category (U.S. GAO,

1997).

Did schools believe that proposed revisions applied to their

students?

During the public comment process, OMB received suggestions for revisions to

the standard categories. In the survey of schools, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which eight of these revisions would apply to students in their

schools (table 2). The proportion of schools reporting that these proposed revisions were not an issue or were a minor issue ranged from 69 to 93 percent. The

proportion of schools reporting that any of the revisions was a significant issue

ranged from 3 to 12 percent. Relatively few schools—1 to 11 percent—reported

that they had already included or were soon to implement any of these revisions.

Table 2.—Percentage of public schools indicating whether suggested

revisions to the standard federal categories for classifying

race and ethnicity are a significant issue for students at their

school or have already been/soon will be implemented: 1995

NOTE: Percentages do not sum to 100 percent because those responding “a moderate issue” are

not shown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response

Survey System, School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications, FRSS 53, 1995.

What are the new standards, and when do they take effect?

In October 1997, OMB announced its decision about the revised standards for

federal data on race and ethnicity. The new categories were used by the Census

Bureau in the 2000 Census Dress Rehearsal in spring 1998 and will be used in the

Suggested revision

Not an 

issue/minor 

issue

A significant 

issue

Already included 

or soon to be 

implemented

Adding a general "multiracial" category 69 12 6

Allowing individuals to write in a

 racial or an ethnic designation 69 10 9

Adding an "other" category 73 6 11

Changing the name of the "black" 

 category to "African American" 73 10 4

Changing the name of the 

 "American Indian or Alaskan Native" 

 category to "Native American" 77 9 4

Adding specific combinations 

 of the current categories 83 5 1

Including Native Hawaiian as a

 separate category or as part 

 of a "Native American" category 93 3 1

Adding additional racial

 or ethnic designations 92 3 1