The Complex Reality of Raising

 Educational Achievement for Hispanics 

 in the United States

The Interim Report of the

President’s Advisory Commission on 

Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans

September 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ............................................................................................................................................................ v

Members of the Advisory Commission and Designees.......................................................................................... vi

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Reading the Signs: Educating Our Largest-Growing Population .................................................... 5

 What Does the Latinization of America Mean to Education? ........................... ......................... 6

 The Mexican Phenomenon ................................................................................................................ 9

 Work Force Implications.................................................................................................................. 10

III. A Framework for Change: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 .......................................................... 11

 Accountability for Results................................................................................................................. 11

 State and Local Flexibility ................................................................................................................ 12

 Focusing Resources on Proven Educational Methods........................................................................ 12

 Expanded Choices for Parents .......................................................................................................... 12

 Reading First.................................................................................................................................... 13

IV. Setting the Course: The Role of Each Stakeholder .................................................................................. 14

 The Family....................................................................................................................................... 14

 Public Awareness and Motivation..................................................................................................... 14

 Educator........................................................................................................................................... 16

 Community and Faith-Based Initiatives ........................................................................................... 17

 Government Resources and Accountability ...................................................................................... 17

 Federal Government......................................................................................................................... 18

 State and Local Government ............................................................................................................ 20

V. Conclusion: Mapping the Road Ahead .................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A: Executive Order 13230............................................................................................................ 22

Appendix B: President’s Advisory Commission Working Groups.................................................................. 25

Appendix C: Schedule of Commission’s Meetings and Public Events............................................................ 26

Appendix D: Selected Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 27

Appendix E: Reporting Guidelines and Federal Report Forms...................................................................... 30

Appendix F: Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 32

iii

v

PREFACE

The events of the past year serve both to unite us and to remind us of how costly freedom can be. The 

greatness of this nation rests squarely on our efforts to preserve freedoms, protect against persecution and 

oppression and ensure equality of opportunity. The measure of our success will be determined by the level 

of opportunity we afford the most vulnerable members of our society—our children. The key to our future success 

as a nation is an excellent education for every child—today. 

The mission of this Commission, as set forth in the President’s Executive Order 13230, is to achieve educational 

excellence for Hispanic Americans. More than 30 years ago, the Federal government took the first steps to 

improve the opportunities available to Hispanic Americans with the creation in 1970 of the Cabinet Committee 

on Opportunities for Spanish Speaking People. In the decades since, researchers have produced an abundance 

of studies on education reform strategies intended to end the high attrition and poor academic performance of 

minority children. This Commission has reviewed the findings of researchers as well as the recommendations offered 

by previous advisory commissions, scholars and educational organizations. In doing so, we have focused on three 

action-oriented tasks: evaluating these findings in the context of a diverse Hispanic population, recommending 

both short- and long-term action and determining what information must still be gathered.

More than a decade ago, when the first executive order on Excellence in Education for Hispanic Americans was 

issued, the Hispanic community in the United States widely used the term Hispanic Americans. As a result, the 

current executive order, taken in part from past efforts, also uses that phrase. This Commission, however, in 

meeting its obligations, aims to ensure that all children of Hispanic heritage, regardless of where they were born 

or when they came to this country, have the same opportunities for educational advancement. Our decision to use 

the terms Latino, Hispanic and Hispanic American interchangeably throughout this report reflects the complexity 

of the heritage and circumstances of the population that is our concern. 

Regardless of terminology, this Commission is unambiguous in its purpose: to work collectively to address 

the educational issues facing children of Hispanic ancestry living in this country, so that all children have the 

opportunity to learn, to realize the American dream and to succeed.

– Enedelia Schofield and Frank Hanna 

Co-Chairs
vi 

Micaela Alvarez, Esq.

Christopher J. Barbic

Ofelia Saenz Vanden Bosch

Jose G. Canchola 

Fernando (Frank) Caldeiro

Jaime A. Escalante

Charles P. Garcia, Esq.

Norma Sanchez Garza

Alexander Gonzalez, Ph.D.

Frank Hanna, Esq.*

Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr.

Rev. Jose E. Hoyos

Patricia J. Mazzuca

Francisco J. Paret

Altagracia “Grace” Ramos

Van D. Romero

Jon Secada

Enedelia Schofield, Esq.* 

Rene Vazquez, M.D.

Octavio J. Visiedo

Ex-Officio Members

The Honorable Hector Barreto

Administrator

United States Small Business Administration

The Honorable Mel Martinez

Secretary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Honorable Paul O’Neill

Secretary

U.S. Department of the Treasury

The Honorable Rod Paige

Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

Ex-Officio Designees

Fred C. Armendariz

U.S. Small Business Administration

Anna Maria Farias, Esq.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Maria Hernandez Ferrier, Ed.D.

U.S. Department of Education

The Honorable Rosario Marin

U.S. Department of the Treasury

*Co-Chair

Members of the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
1

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 12, 2001, President George W. Bush 

created the President’s Advisory Commission on 

Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, 

charged with developing a multi-year plan to close the 

educational achievement gap facing Hispanic Americans 

and attain the goals established by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001. The Commission was tasked with submitting 

to the President an interim report, due September 30, 

2002 and a final report, due no later than March 31, 2003, 

outlining its findings and recommendations. 

To meet the President’s mandate, the Commission adopted 

a three-step strategic planning process, outlined in the 

chart below. In Phase 1, summarized in this interim report, 

we have assessed the educational landscape and evaluated 

existing data on the impact of cultural, nativity, ethnicity, 

acculturation and socioeconomic factors on the academic 

achievement of Hispanic students. 

Figure 1: Phases of Strategic Planning for Commission's Final Report

Time Lines

Phase 3

Jan.-Mar. 2003

Phase 2

Formulation of Strategies

• Confirm Guiding 

Principles and Mission

• Release Interim Report

• Establish Objectives for 

each Strategic Imperative

• Analyze Responses from 

Federal Agencies

• Incorporate Public Feedback 

from Interim Report

Sept.-Dec. 2002

Phase 1

Assessment

• Evaluate and Assess

• Identify Key Issue Areas

• Establish Time Lines 

and Resources

• Define Roles

• Define Strategic 

 Imperatives

Feb.-Aug. 2002

Implementation and Time Lines

• Document Strategic Road Map, 

including Sequencing, Phasing and

 Recommendations

• Define Milestones

• Submit Final Report to the President

Using the President’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 as the framework for the Commission’s work, members 

determined that the act’s four key elements—accountability for results, state and local flexibility, focusing 

resources on proven educational methods and expanding choices for parents—should be the criteria by which the 

Commission would evaluate and assess model programs and identify best practices. 

The President also directed the Commission to pay particular attention to research and information on the 

effectiveness of current practices that involve Hispanic parents in the education of their children and we have done 

so by forming a working subcommittee dedicated entirely to the family’s influence on educational aspirations 

and attainment. Another key task for this report is to make recommendations on the role of Federal education 

programs in helping Hispanic parents successfully prepare their children to graduate from high school, attend 

postsecondary institutions and graduate. 

In addition, the executive order stipulated that the Commission’s multi-year plan “provide for a coordinated effort 

“This nation of immigrant heritage 

believes that all children, whatever their 

circumstances, deserve a chance to learn 

and rise and succeed. This principle 

has guided my education reforms as we 

work to raise the standards of public 

schools across America and bring hope to 

every classroom for every child—I mean 

every child, not just a few, not just those 

whose parents may speak English. We 

want educational excellence ‘para todos 

que viven en este país.’” 

– President George W. Bush
2 

among parents, community leaders, business leaders, educators and public officials at the local, state and Federal 

levels. ...” To carry out this directive, members of the Commission divided into five working subcommittees 

focused on: the Family, Educator, Public Awareness and Motivation, Community and Faith-Based Initiatives and 

Government Resources and Accountability. Committee members reviewed and discussed briefings and a variety of 

reports in areas pertinent to their respective working group’s concentration. Each working group met with expert 

officials in their subject areas.

Since the Commission was sworn in on February 27, 2002, we have held seven meetings and four unprecedented 

bilingual town halls. Members of the Commission heard firsthand from more than 1,600 parents, students, 

educators, business and community leaders and public officials in diverse Hispanic communities, including East 

Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Las Vegas and Atlanta. The stories we heard were delivered to us mostly in Spanish 

by families seeking guidance on how to fulfill what for many is their American Dream—earning a high-quality 

education for their children. We left these encounters energized by their passion and fortified in our commitment 

to ease their struggle. 

In just seven short months, members of the Commission have also heard from 56 education experts, ranging 

from government policy analysts to educators who have developed cutting-edge techniques for teaching Hispanic 

students. We look forward to the panels and discussions that will be held this fall in anticipation of our final report 

to the President. 

Our evaluation of research and information led the Commission to identify several key issue areas. First and 

foremost, the way that we collect data about the education of Hispanic students oversimplifies the evidence of 

underachievement. The progress of Hispanic students is typically measured and thus defined in the aggregate. For 

example, the data tell us that among all groups in the United States, Hispanic students have the lowest rate of 

participation in early childhood development programs, the highest high school dropout rate, the highest rates of 

suspension and expulsion and the lowest college graduation rate.

To consider Hispanics in the United States as a homogeneous population ignores the real demographics. To base 

research on this erroneous assumption distorts not only the findings, but any strategies and plans we might develop 

as a result. We know that educational achievement is influenced by ethnicity, degree of acculturation, language 

preference and socioeconomic status, among other factors. Any examination of the issues and problems that 

Hispanic students face in pursuing academic achievement must reflect the complexity and multiplicity of such 

factors if it is to contribute to a sound blueprint for action. For example, the evidence tells us that populations 

who have more recently immigrated have higher school dropout rates. Consequently, our recommendations for 

closing the academic achievement gap must reflect this reality and address the different needs of native-born and 

immigrant children. 

A second key issue area identified by the Commission is the fact that very little of the research on Hispanic students 

was designed so as to provide evidence of what works toward their success. Most of the studies suggested the need 

for high academic standards, parental involvement, increased college awareness or access to technology. However, 

their findings do not show “empirically the impact of these and other factors to a point where we can definitely say 

what works and what does not,” or what works for which students (Swail 2001). 

The Commission decided to examine studies that identified factors that appear to influence educational 

attainment. One such study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, Coming of Age in the 1990s , 

found that eighth-grade educational experiences, high school completion and mode of completion, race/ethnicity, 

and continuity of postsecondary enrollment were all associated with the likelihood that students would earn a 

postsecondary degree. The 12-year longitudinal study found that:

• Disadvantaged students—those of low socioeconomic status (SES), with risk factors for dropping 

 out of high school, whose parents did not have a college education, whose mothers did not expect 

 them to complete college—were less likely than those without such factors to report that they had 

 earned a bachelor’s degree or higher and more likely to report that they had never enrolled in 
3

 postsecondary education;

• Among eighth-graders in 1988, those who performed poorly in mathematics were three times more 

 likely than high-achievers to work as laborers or mechanics 12 years later;

• The quality of a student’s academic preparation in high school was a primary determinant of whether 

 he or she completed a bachelor’s degree, regardless of demographic or other characteristics;

• Students who enroll in postsecondary education immediately after high school are more likely to 

 receive a credential than those who delay; 

• Attending a postsecondary institution full-time positively correlates with achieving a bachelor’s 

 degree or higher; and 

• Conversely, students who had attended postsecondary institutions but had not earned a bachelor’s 

 degree were considerably more likely to have attended part-time or taken time off.

The Commission concluded that, although more detailed evaluations should be conducted on Hispanic 

populations, this and similar studies do offer insight into strategies for improving the educational achievement of 

Hispanic children.

At the conclusion of Phase 1, the Commission defined five strategic imperatives:

• Coordinating a National Campaign for Action. Closing the education gap for Hispanic children 

 requires a coordinated, national campaign that will integrate the efforts of students, parents, 

 educators, community and business leaders and public officials at the local, state and Federal levels. 

• Putting College on the Radar Screen. For many Hispanic parents and their children, language and 

 cultural differences, as well as unfamiliarity with the educational system, hinder their ability to 

 envision a college degree as an achievable goal. The Commission will continue to evaluate the results of 

 a public awareness campaign to raise the ceiling of educational aspirations for Hispanic families. 

• Establishing Measurable Strategies and Goals. An effective national action plan must include 

 measurable strategies and goals, both short- and long-term, sustainable for future generations of 

 Hispanic children.

• Abandoning One-Size-Fits-All Thinking. Many in the Hispanic community share common values 

 and a common language, but the accelerating growth of Hispanic populations throughout the 

 United States poses unique challenges based on their ethnicity, language preference, socioeconomic 

 status and length of time in the United States. Our strategies, while national in scope, must reflect the great 

 diversity within the Hispanic population.

• Asking What Works and for Whom. Our research data are woefully insufficient concerning the 

 impact of important characteristics such as nationality, legal status and linguistic challenges on the 

 academic success of Hispanic children. We know far too little about which programs or strategies 

 work best and for whom. We need new scientific research. The Commission will pursue two research 

 questions through the work of various expert panels, such as the National Panel on the Development 

 of Literacy Among Language Minority Children and Youth: 

 (1) Do we have enough foundational knowledge to develop a common core of 

 information about the Hispanic community and the characteristics of its children 

 who succeed academically?

 (2) Do we know which children respond best to which types of strategies? 

The Commission will build on its Phase 1 assessment, first, by establishing objectives and analyzing responses 

from Federal agencies in Phase 2 and, finally, by conceiving an operational plan for implementation in Phase 3. 

The Commission will submit these recommendations in its final report, due by March 31, 2003. Our ultimate 
4 

goal is to develop a strategic road map that will weave together practical public policy and classroom practice, 

guiding parents, students, community leaders, business leaders, educators and public officials at the local, state and 

Federal levels in a coordinated effort to close the educational achievement gap facing Hispanic Americans.

The next three sections of this report explore in more detail the ground covered by the Commission in its first 

seven months of work. Section II, “Reading the Signs,” looks at the complex demographics of the Hispanic 

population in the United States, particularly in terms of educational achievement and challenges. Section III, 

“A Framework for Change,” analyzes the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the unprecedented opportunity 

offered by its educational reforms to improve the academic achievement of all Hispanic children. Section IV, 

“Setting the Course,” considers how different stakeholders—parents, educators, community leaders, government 

and the public—might perform their roles in correcting the systemic shortcomings in the education of Hispanics 

in the United States. Following a brief conclusion, a series of appendices provide background information.
5

II. READING THE SIGNS: 

EDUCATING OUR LARGEST-GROWING POPULATION

The United States contains the city with the second largest Latino population in the world—Los Angeles, second 

only to Mexico City. Not only is the Hispanic population in this country large and growing rapidly, it is also 

much more complex than commonly recognized. Its demographic composition is as diverse as that of Mexico and 

other Latin American countries it represents. Individuals of Mexican ancestry remain the largest subgroup, at 20.6 

million, representing nearly 60 percent of the more than 35 million Hispanics in the United States, followed by 

Puerto Ricans, Central and South Americans and Cubans. (These figures do not include the 3.8 million residents 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.) In addition, more than 35 percent of Hispanics in this country are under 

the age of 18, compared to fewer than 25 percent of non-Hispanic whites. 

Cuban 3.5%

Spaniard 0.3%

All other Hispanic 17.3%

South American 3.8%

Central American 4.8%

Dominican 2.2%

Puerto Rican 9.6%

Mexican 58.5%

Source: 2000 Census

Figure 2: Hispanic Population, by Type

Hispanics in the U.S.

The 2000 Census reports that the Hispanic population has grown by nearly 60 percent since 1990 and that more 

than 80 percent of Hispanics reside in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. In nearly every county for which the new census figures indicate an expanding 

population, the increase in Hispanic residents outpaces overall population growth. Aided by strong economic 

growth in the 1990s, Hispanic workers established themselves in communities ranging from Zebulon, N.C., 

to Dalton, Ga., to Lexington, Nebr. This demographic shift indicates that it should no longer be assumed that 

Hispanics will remain concentrated in a handful of geographic locations within the United States. 
6 

Figure 3: Highest Rate of Hispanic Population Growth, by State

NV #5

217%

NE #10

155%

MN #9

166%

AR #2

337%

KY #8

173%

TN #4

278%

AL #7

208%

GA #3

300%

SC #6

211%

NC #1

394%

Source: 2000 Census

What Does the Latinization of America Mean to Education? 

Although the Latino population of the United 

States includes many distinct groups with different 

socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, one 

element remains constant: we are losing our Latino 

students all along the education continuum. Perhaps 

this phenomenon results from weak early childhood 

cognitive development and limited early language 

development caused by factors in a child’s home—such 

as poverty, high mobility and limited parental time, 

resources and education. Perhaps it is due to poor 

academic instruction, low expectations or any number 

of other academic obstacles. The reality is that to 

eliminate these barriers, we must learn more about 

what works for a diverse Hispanic community. Analyses 

that do not distinguish among subgroups within the 

Latino population may give misleading impressions of 

educational prospects, because the obstacles differ in 

some ways among these groups. 

Throughout our time on this Commission, the one 

topic that consistently drew the most concern from the 

parents and school administrators with whom we spoke was the staggering dropout problem plaguing Hispanic 

students. For the past three decades, one out of every three Latinos has dropped out of high school and in many 

communities along the southern U.S.–Mexico border, the figure is considerably higher (see Table 1). 

“Diariamente vivo en carne propia el 

desaliento de los niños y jovenes, que no 

tienen nada que hacer, y poco a poco van 

perdiendo el interés por seguir adelante.”

– Maria Luz, 

estudiante y madre de tres hijos.

Reunión comunitaria de Los Angeles, 

el 15 de julio de 2002 

“Every day I witness the lack of motivation of children and 

teens who, not having anything to do, little by little are 

losing interest in moving forward.”

– Maria Luz, student and mother of three children.

 Los Angeles Town Hall, July 15, 2002
7

Table 1: High School Completion Rates for 18–24 Year-Olds, by Race/Ethnicity 1972–2000

Year 1972 1980 1990 2000

Totals 82.8 83.9 85.6 86.5

White, non-Hispanic 86.0 87.5 89.6 91.8

Black, non-Hispanic 72.1 75.2 83.2 83.7

Hispanic 56.2 57.1 59.1 64.1

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Dropout Rates in the United States: 

2000, based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Surveys, various years.

More than half of all Hispanic adults are first generation, that is, foreign-born immigrants (U.S. Census Bureau,

Latin American Foreign-Born Population by Sex, Age and Region of Birth: March 2000 and Population by Race and 

Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: 1990 and 2000) and many have arrived well beyond the traditional 

schooling age. Significant differences emerge in the high school completion rates for Hispanic subgroups when the 

data are disaggregated. The high school completion rate for Hispanic citizens born in the U.S., 25-29 years old, 

is 81 percent, compared to 40 percent for foreign-born Hispanics, not U.S. citizens, in the same age group (see 

Table 2). Mexican immigrants experience nearly twice the dropout rate (61 percent) of other Hispanic subgroups 

(see Table 3). 

Table 2: High School Completion Rates for all Hispanic 25–29 Year-Olds, by Citizenship, October 2000 

Citizenship Status High School Completion Rate

Born U.S. – Citizen 81.37

Foreign Born – U.S. Citizen by Naturalization 70.0

Foreign Born - Not a U.S. Citizen 40.25

Source: NCES

Among the Latinos who do complete high school, less than half pursue a postsecondary education. Forty-two 

percent of Hispanics, compared to 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites, graduated from high school and enrolled in 

a college or university immediately following graduation, according to the National Center for Education Statistics 

(see Figure 4). 

Figure 4: Percentage of Students Immediately Enrolling in College after High School, by Population, 1972-1999 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1972

1980

1990

1999

49.7%

45%

49.3%

49.8%

52.3%

60.1%

63%

42.7%

62.9%

66.3%

42.3%

49.2%

National Average

Non-Hispanic White Average

Hispanic Average

Source: NCES
8 

While the college enrollment disparity between Hispanic students and their non-Hispanic peers closed significantly 

in the 1980s, the gap began to widen dramatically in the 1990s. Even though this recent shift could be attributed 

in part to higher immigration rates, it is important to find ways both to prevent students in the educational system 

from dropping out and to educate and retain new immigrants. 

Data show that even those Hispanic students who do enroll in college are less likely than non-Hispanic whites to 

complete the required coursework to obtain an associate or bachelor’s degree. Among high school graduates 25-29 

years old, 47 percent of non-Hispanic whites have obtained a postsecondary degree, compared to 29 percent of 

Hispanics (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Educational Attainment Rates of 25–29 Year-Old High School Graduates, by Race/Ethnicity, October 2000 

10%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

37% 10% 19% 9% 20%

White, Non-Hispanic

Rates of Degree Attainment

Black, Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Associate

Bachelor

Source: NCES

If we look at an older population (aged 25 and over) and disaggregate the Hispanic subgroups, we see notable 

variations in educational attainment (see Table 3).

Table 3: Educational Attainment Rates, by Hispanic Subgroups of Students Aged 25 Years and Older 

Educational Attainment/ 

Hispanic Subgroup

Mexican 

American

Mexican 

Immigrant

Puerto 

Rican Cuban

Central 

or South 

American

Other 

Spanish

NonHispanic 

White

High School Dropout 30.96 61.14 35.18 28.79 35.71 27.47 11.30

Completed High School 33.72 21.30 27.89 36.35 29.27 30.70 33.31

Some College-No Degree 17.68 8.47 15.82 10.20 12.62 16.08 18.18

Associate Degree 6.81 3.07 7.25 6.50 5.11 7.29 8.63

Bachelor or Higher Degree 10.83 6.01 13.87 18.17 18.17 18.45 28.58

Total Percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Total Number 4,188,116 6,863,681 1,625,327 932,482 2,873,837 1,171,389 131,228,564

Source: NCES

College completion rates also differ between U.S.-born and immigrant students. More than 32 percent of U.S.-

born Hispanics complete a postsecondary education, versus 25 percent of foreign-born Hispanics who are not 

U.S. citizens (see Table 4).
9

Table 4: Educational Attainment Rate and Numbers of Hispanic 25-29 Year-Old High School Graduates, by Citizenship 

Status, October 2000

Educational Attainment/

Citizenship Status U.S.-born

Foreign-born

U.S. Citizen by 

Naturalization

Foreign-born Not 

a U.S. Citizen

Total 

Number

H.S. Graduate-Diploma or 

Equivalent (percent) 43.48% 48.20% 55.87% 784,258

Some College-No Degree 

(percent) 24.04% 28.41% 19.38% 377,000

Associate Degree (percent) 9.13% 5.59% 10.27% 150,492

Bachelor or Higher Degree 

(percent) 23.35% 17.80% 14.48% 329,330

Total Percent 100% 100% 100%

Total Number 978,742 148,435 513,903 1,641,080

Source: NCES

More than 67 percent of U.S.-born Hispanics graduate from high school. While more than one-third enrolled in 

college, most did not complete their postsecondary education at the two-year or four-year level. The questions that 

such statistics raise, for example the unique challenges faced by immigrants, remind us that any plan to improve 

educational achievement must analyze and address the characteristics of subgroups as well as the Latino population 

as a whole. 

The Mexican Phenomenon

On almost every social and economic indicator, the Mexican population in the United States performs below other 

Hispanic populations (U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic Population of the United States, Current Population SurveyMarch 2000). It is important to consider achievement for Hispanics of Mexican descent as a group, since they are 

the largest Hispanic subpopulation in the country. In addition, it is equally important to look within this group at 

the differences between those born in the United States and those born in Mexico. 

A trend that emerged from the Commission’s examination of data on Hispanic educational attainment was 

the persistently wide gap between Mexican immigrant (foreign-born) students and their U.S.-born Hispanic 

peers. This phenomenon is of special concern given that Mexican immigrants constitute 54 percent of Hispanic 

immigrants and the largest segment of all immigrants in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the 

Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000).

Addressing the educational needs of this large immigrant group will have enormous implications for their children 

and subsequent generations. Available data indicate that children born in the U.S. to Mexican immigrants attain 

educational levels comparable to those of other Hispanic subgroups. In addition, Mexican children who immigrate 

before age five graduate from high school at about the same rate as U.S.-born Mexican Americans (Grogger and 

Trejo 2002). However, although U.S.-born Mexican Americans fare better at every other level of educational 

attainment than Mexican immigrants, they still trail all other Hispanic subgroups in completing a four-year 

college degree or higher (see Table 3). 

Twenty-three percent of Mexican Americans are under the age of 10, compared to 14 percent of non-Hispanic 

whites. With nearly a quarter of the Mexican American population concentrated in these early years, their 

educational success or failure has the potential to shape the future of a significant segment of the Mexican 

population in the United States. 
10 

Work Force Implications

Labor force participation is directly proportional to educational attainment. For instance, a college graduate, 

regardless of race or ethnicity, is approximately 30 percent more likely to be employed than a person without a 

high school diploma. College graduates who are non-Hispanic white, Hispanic and African American have similar 

labor participation rates—88.8, 87.9 and 90.9 percent, respectively.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hispanics made significant strides in the labor force between 1983 and 

2000, although they trailed other minority groups in the private sector’s managerial and professional categories. 

Hispanic employment in private industry grew steadily between 1992 and 2000 from 7 percent to 10 percent, 

according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As the youngest population group in the 

United States, Hispanics will soon be the second largest segment of the civilian labor force.

Upward mobility of Hispanics into white-collar positions continues to lag behind the rest of the nation despite 

lower unemployment rates bolstered by a strong economy during the 1990s. For instance, in 1998, 58.5 percent 

of all employees in the private sector held white-collar jobs. However, only 37.5 percent of Hispanics held whitecollar jobs, 20 percentage points below that of the national average; while 41.5 percent of private-sector employees 

are considered blue collar, 63.5 percent of Hispanics hold blue-collar jobs (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 1998).

In 2002, according to the EEOC, Hispanics accounted for 61 percent of employees in U.S. agricultural production. 

In fact, the three industries with the highest rates of Hispanic employment are related to agriculture: production of 

crops, agricultural services and production of livestock. Even in agriculture, however, Hispanic representation in 

management is low. Only 23 percent of the officials and managers in the agricultural production of crops industry 

are of Hispanic descent.

In short, most Hispanics remain in low-skilled positions. Only 2 percent earn more than $75,000 a year, compared 

to nearly 11 percent of non-Hispanic whites. 

It is a well-known fact that income is also directly proportional to educational attainment. According to the 

U.S. Department of Labor, a college graduate is estimated to earn $1 million more in income and benefits over 

a lifetime than a high school graduate. The professional degree premium is about $1.7 million over a lifetime. A 

recent Rand report estimates that doubling the rate of Hispanic college graduates by the year 2010 would produce 

additional tax revenue of $13 billion through reduced public spending and increased tax contributions (Garcia 

2001). Raising the educational achievement of Hispanic students, therefore, is critical to the U.S. economy as 

well as to the individuals whose lives are shaped by poverty. If these employment statistics do not change, the 

economic consequences of an uneducated work force will strain the economy of the United States. Hispanics are 

not maximizing their income potential or developing financial security. This leads to lost tax revenues, lower rates 

of consumer spending, reduced per capita savings and increased social costs. 

To illustrate the point, let us consider a state such as Texas, which has a large Hispanic population. It is projected 

that by 2030, 70 percent of all students in Texas schools will be non-Anglo. Unless college graduation rates for 

Hispanic students increase, it is estimated that the average Texas household in 2030 will be $4,000 poorer (in 1990 

dollars) than it was in 1990 (Murdock 2002), resulting in a nearly 3 percent increase in the poverty rate.

An uneducated work force would also have a substantial impact on important domestic programs like Social Security. 

By 2050, Hispanic workers will make up nearly one-quarter of the working-age population, bearing enormous 

financial responsibility for supporting the baby boom generation’s retirement. These factors will put an additional 

strain on the current Social Security system (President’s Advisory Commission to Strengthen Social Security 2001). 
11

III. A FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE: 

THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

The enactment of the President’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has brought about the most dramatic 

educational reforms in America in the past 30 years and, in doing so, has created an unprecedented opportunity 

to improve the academic achievement of all Hispanic children. The elements of the NCLB are designed to ensure 

a high-quality education for every child in America, so that this and future generations of school children are 

prepared to complete high school and obtain a postsecondary education. NCLB encourages parents to be involved 

in their child’s education, provides information about a school’s performance in the language spoken in the home, 

holds schools accountable for results and seeks to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. 

Implementing these reforms will ultimately provide the foundation for closing the educational achievement gap 

that persists within the Hispanic community.

The four provisions of the act—accountability for results, state and local flexibility, focusing resources on proven 

educational methods and expanded choices for parents—provide a foundation for profoundly changing the 

educational system in the nation and transforming the prospects of Hispanic students for academic success in high 

school and beyond. 

Accountability for Results

Since the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965, the Federal 

government has spent more than $130 billion to improve public schools. Unfortunately, this investment in 

education has not reduced the achievement gap between affluent and lower-income students or between minority 

students and non-minority students. Currently, the educational attainment of Hispanic Americans falls well below 

that of most other groups in the United States. In the year 2000, 36 percent of Hispanic Americans did not 

complete high school, compared with only 8 percent of non-Hispanic whites (see Table 1). 

NCLB requires states to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These 

systems must be based on challenging state standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in 

grades 3-8 and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 

12 years. To ensure that no group is left behind, states must report assessment results and state progress objectives 

by poverty, race and ethnicity, disability and English proficiency. These results will include information about the 

academic achievement of Hispanic students. School districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to corrective action and restructuring measures 

aimed at getting them back on course to meet state standards. 
12 

Figure 6: Share of Fourth-Graders Proficient in Reading and Math

Whites Hispanics

40%

100%

60%

80%

40%

20%

0% 16%

Reading

34%

100%

60%

80%

40%

20%

0% 10%

Math

Source: 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress, NCES.

State and Local Flexibility

NCLB provides unprecedented flexibility to every state and every local school district in the use of Federal 

education funds. While earlier initiatives waived some program requirements, the NCLB goes much further in 

granting states and school districts flexibility in the use of Federal education funds in exchange for accountability 

for results. NCLB removes decision-making from Washington, D.C., and empowers states and districts to apply 

Federal funds towards such goals as teacher quality, English language proficiency, technology and after-school 

enrichment. All these goals are critical to improving the achievements of Hispanic students. 

Focusing Resources on Proven Educational Methods

Not enough attention has been focused on ensuring that education dollars are invested in programs that are 

research-based and proven effective in educating our children, particularly in reading and math instruction. With 

only 64 percent of Hispanic students finishing high school (see Table 1), and only about 10 percent earning a 

baccalaureate degree (see Figure 5), it is imperative that we move quickly toward programs that have demonstrated, 

through research, their effectiveness in helping students achieve academic success. 

NCLB simplifies Federal support for English language instruction by combining, into a state formula program, 

bilingual and immigrant education grants that previously benefited only a small percentage of students of limited 

English proficiency in relatively few schools. The new formula program will facilitate comprehensive planning by 

states and school districts to ensure implementation of programs that benefit all English language learning (ELL) 

students by helping them become proficient in English and meet the same high academic standards as other 

students. NCLB also inserts strong accountability into programs for ELL students, requiring states to test ELL 

children for reading and language arts in English after they have attended school in the United States for three 

consecutive years.

Expanded Choices for Parents

Too often, especially in low-income and minority areas, parents find their children trapped in persistently lowperforming and dangerous public schools with little or no recourse. NCLB offers more choices for parents with 
13

children in chronically inadequate or unsafe schools. Expanding school choice and supplemental services will 

provide an incentive for such schools to improve. Schools that fail to make AYP for two years must provide parents 

choices to enroll their child in higher-performing schools and schools that fail for three years must provide parents 

with options for supplemental services. These new options have been made available (for the 2002-03 school year) 

for students in thousands of schools already identified as needing improvement under current law. 

The Administration supports offering a menu of options to parents so that they can be advocates for their children’s 

education. Among the options available to parents under NCLB are supplemental educational services, including 

extra classes, summer school and after-school programs. (For the first time in history, Title I funds are tied directly 

to the education of the child.) Private, nonprofit and faith-based organizations are eligible to provide these services. 

Parents whose children attend persistently low-performing schools also have the option of transferring their 

children to a more successful school in their district or to a charter school. In such cases, the district is required to 

provide transportation to the new school.

Reading First

Scientific research has demonstrated that learning to read is not a “natural” process that just “happens,” but a 

complex skill that children need systematic instruction to acquire. When provided with such instruction, most 

children become successful readers. Unfortunately, too many children are not afforded the opportunity they need 

to develop this essential ability. Numerous studies show that children from low-income families are substantially 

behind their more affluent peers in the basic components of literacy development before they enter school. For 

instance, the typical child who enters Head Start as a four-year-old is able to name no more than one or two 

letters and cannot write a single letter of the alphabet. Despite efforts to prepare this child for kindergarten, the 

same child may leave Head Start a year later without significant progress in letter knowledge. Not surprisingly, the 

weaknesses in the pre-reading skills evidenced by preschoolers from low-income backgrounds are mirrored in their 

lack of exposure to experiences that support the development of these skills. Numerous studies have documented 

differences between low-income and other children: in the presence of children’s books in the home, the frequency 

of book reading with adults and the quality of language interactions between children and parents. 

The Commission shares a concern about children entering school with pre-reading skills far behind their peers 

because the relationship between the skills with which children enter school and their later academic performance 

is strikingly stable. It should be noted that NCLB includes a comprehensive reading effort called Reading First. 

This $900-million state grant program promotes the use of scientifically based research to provide high-quality 

reading instruction for grades K-3, in order to help every student in every state become a successful reader. 
14 

IV. SETTING THE COURSE: 

THE ROLE OF EACH STAKEHOLDER

The executive order creating this Commission mandated that the multi-year plan developed to address the 

educational challenges facing Hispanic populations in the U.S. “provide for a coordinated effort among parents, 

community leaders, business leaders, educators and public officials at the local, state and Federal levels...” To 

comply with the mandate, members of the Commission divided into five working subcommittees: the Family, 

Public Awareness and Motivation, Educator, Community and Faith-Based Initiatives and Government Resources 

and Accountability. In this section of the report, we begin to consider how these different stakeholders might 

contribute to correcting the systemic shortcomings in the education of Hispanics in the United States. 

The Family

Learning begins in the family. Parents who encourage their children to pursue academic interests or who aspire 

to further their own education, have a powerfully positive influence on their children. Problems arise, however, 

when parents believe that they are incapable of meeting their child’s educational needs. For Hispanic parents, 

these problems can be especially daunting and are often complicated by multiple barriers, including language and 

cultural differences and unfamiliarity with the educational process.

Research has confirmed the importance of parental involvement in very specific activities with children. Children 

who live in a home with books and have parents who value reading, develop good vocabularies and language 

skills, which are related to reading ability in the early grades. Parents who read books to their children teach them 

other important aspects of reading. In the process, children learn how to hold a book and turn its pages and 

they understand that books contain stories and information stored in the print on the page. In addition, reading 

books provides a wonderful opportunity for parents to interact in an enjoyable and positive way with their young 

children. We know that such experiences provide an important foundation for a child’s development of reading 

skills. 

Research suggests that parental involvement increases student achievement, according to Partners for Academic 

Excellence, Inc. (PACE). There are two reasons why many parents are not inclined to assume responsibility for 

their children’s education: some feel unprepared and others feel unwelcome. Parents can overcome both these 

barriers if they are willing to try and if schools make a concerted effort to establish a climate where parents feel 

welcomed. Too often, parent involvement is not a priority, especially in schools with high minority enrollments. 

The Family Working Group seeks to implement a plan to provide information and knowledge to empower the 

family to support their children’s educational success, with higher education as the ultimate goal. It is critical that 

our nation’s schools offer constructive ways for parents, especially those who face language barriers, to become 

involved in the classroom and form effective parent-student-school partnerships. Parents and teachers often find 

that working together is not as natural as might be hoped. Parents are usually eager to be involved by helping 

their children with homework or meeting with teachers in the early grades, but often find themselves lost as their 

children move into middle and high school.

Public Awareness and Motivation

In reviewing previous Commission reports, this Commission discovered that several had recommended the 

development of a public awareness campaign to raise educational expectations for Hispanic families and provide 

tools to ensure success in the pursuit of education. Public service campaigns produced by both the public and 

private sectors have proven effective in similar circumstances. Examples of such campaigns include the Ad Council 
15

and United Negro College Fund’s “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste,” the Partnership for A Drug-Free America 

and former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug crusade, Just say no.

According to the 1970 U.S. Census, just 2 percent of African Americans and 3 percent of Hispanic Americans had 

completed four years of college. In 1972, the Ad Council and the United Negro College Fund launched a public 

service campaign to raise the number of minority students earning a college degree. The “A Mind is a Terrible 

Thing to Waste” campaign helped raise more than $1.9 billion and ensure that more than 300,000 minority 

students reached their college goal.

The Commission has collected and analyzed data on the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns to influence 

the attitudes, the intentions and, ultimately, the behavior of parents and students. A cornerstone of the President’s 

vision for education reform is precisely to provide parents with information and to raise educational aspirations. 

In the fall of 2001, the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans (White House 

Initiative) developed the framework for Yes I Can!/Yo Si Puedo!, a one-year pilot public awareness campaign designed 

to (1) measure the effectiveness of an educational marketing campaign aimed at diverse Hispanic test markets and 

(2) evaluate the relationship between educational attainment and Hispanic ethnic groups, acculturation level, 

language preference and socioeconomic status.

The Public Awareness and Motivation Working Group directed the White House Initiative to work with ex-officio 

members of the Commission to develop a plan for launching a pilot program that could become the basis for a 

national campaign. The Public Awareness and Motivation Working Group is leading this effort and will continue 

to evaluate the use of a public awareness campaign to raise the ceiling of educational aspirations for Hispanic 

families, reporting their findings in the Commission’s final report. 

The White House Initiative also unveiled a new and exciting bilingual Web site, YesICan.gov/YoSiPuedo.gov, 

that provides parents with a one-stop center for information to increase college knowledge and tools to help their 

children’s Pre-K-12 education. The launch is a nationwide grassroots effort with community technology centers 

and includes public service announcments with the Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation, the country’s largest 

Spanish radio network, to make these tools available to parents, educators and community leaders. Mascot, Pablo 

the Eagle, plays host at www.YesICanKids.gov and encourages reading and the educational development of young 

children.
16 

Educator

Whether a classroom is a one-room schoolhouse or an 

advanced chemistry lab, the one essential ingredient 

for educational success is a dedicated and highly 

knowledgeable teacher. U.S. Secretary of Education 

Rod Paige recently said, “Our new education reforms 

ask a lot of America’s teachers and we owe them 

something in return. We owe them our respect. We 

owe them our support. And we owe them the training 

and the tools to succeed.” Consequently, a requirement 

of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is that every 

state ensures that there is a qualified teacher in every 

classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. Every child 

deserves highly qualified teachers, but too often the 

least experienced and least qualified teach minority 

and low-income students.

The main focus of the Educator Working Group is 

teacher recruitment, training and development and 

retention. Not only do we need good teachers, we need 

teachers with high expectations for every student. A 

strong student may do well regardless, but students 

who have difficulty learning or being motivated 

must have the guidance of a highly qualified teacher. 

Research tells us that a child who has experienced three 

successive years of “highly effective” teaching may 

show a 50-70 percent improvement in performance 

(Wright 1997). Three years of inadequate teaching 

may leave a child far behind, while excellent teaching 

may compensate for many disadvantages.

By having teachers with high expectations for every student, we believe Hispanic students are in a position to make 

significant gains in academic achievement and performance. Many teachers we interviewed at high-performing 

schools recognized that their responsibilities extended beyond the classroom, engaging the entire family in the 

educational process and helping them navigate the educational system. 

According to a U.S. Department of Education survey, fewer than 36 percent of current teachers feel “very well 

prepared” to implement curriculum and performance standards and fewer than 20 percent feel “prepared” to meet 

the needs of diverse students or English language learners. Over the next decade, school districts across America 

will need to hire 2.2 million additional teachers. States and school districts will face two daunting challenges in 

hiring teachers: attracting more people to the profession and ensuring professional development that will result in 

high-quality teachers. 

While states and educational organizations have begun to pursue different strategies to recruit and train highly 

qualified individuals, more help is needed. Through NCLB, states and local school districts have acquired multiple 

tools with which to meet new teacher quality requirements. The Educator Working Group believes that the 

professional development of teachers is vital in order to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every 

classroom. In many fields, notably math and science, knowledge advances rapidly. Research suggests that when 

professional development focuses on academic content and curriculum aligned with standards-based reform, 

teaching practice and student achievement are likely to improve (National Center for Education Statistics 1998).

“Me di cuenta durante este año que 

mi hija necesitaba ayuda en su clase 

de matemáticas. Y durante la primera 

reunión escolar de padres de familias, 

hablé con su maestra de matemáticas 

para que la ayudara, y nadie hizo 

nada, ni su consejera, ni en la oficina, 

ni su maestra. Y ella salió mal, en 

matemáticas e historia.”

– Ana S. Rivera, madre

Reunión comunitaria de Los Angeles, 

el 15 de Julio de 2002

“I realized this year that my daughter needed help in her math 

class. And, at the first open house, I spoke with her math 

teacher so that she would get help and nobody did anything, 

not her counselor, or the office, or her teacher. And she 

performed badly in math and history.” 

– Ana S. Rivera, mother

Los Angeles Town Hall, July 15, 2002
17

Teachers also need continuing professional development to address the changing demographics of America’s 

schools. Teachers who understand the cultures of the children they teach can be more effective. 

Community and Faith-Based Initiatives

The Commission, through the work of the Community and Faith-Based Initiatives Working Group, wants to 

emphasize the importance and relevance of community and faith-based partnerships in closing the educational 

achievement gap for Hispanic Americans. The working group intends to highlight those community and faithbased initiatives that are particularly effective in order to encourage, support and aid those groups that are already 

engaged in efforts to increase Hispanic educational attainment. 

Community and faith-based organizations throughout the country are working diligently with children from a 

variety of different backgrounds and socioeconomic conditions to close the achievement gap. Some are having 

success and effectively complement the educational infrastructure in educating our children. Engaged community 

stakeholders who foster a supportive and nurturing environment create a cycle from which everyone benefits. 

Families do better when their communities do better and children do better when their families do. 

As we traveled throughout the country, we met with and heard from people involved in community organizations 

at many levels and in various capacities. America’s Promise, the East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU), 

Engaging Latino Communities for Education (ENLACE) and small groups of volunteers like those who run the 

Star House program in Atlanta, Ga., all find innovative ways to help Hispanic students and families.

Thanks to foundation and corporate support, programs like America’s Promise, TELACU and ENLACE have 

the resources to undertake a more comprehensive approach in reaching out to students, families and entire 

communities. Whether a program’s goal is to help veterans learn to read and find employment or to facilitate the 

transition of Spanish-speaking students into the American educational system, these community groups have had 

a dramatic effect on those involved. 

America’s Promise has more than 550 community and state partners across the nation who are committed to 

fulfilling the Five Promises: caring adults, safe places, healthy start and future, marketable skills and opportunities 

to serve. These communities have formed grassroots coalitions among the public, private and not-for-profit sectors 

to generate more resources for young people who need them. TELACU recognized a need for additional nursing 

staff, especially Spanish-speaking staff, in local hospitals and created the Bridge to Nursing program, which 

provides scholarships and additional support for Hispanic community members who are interested in pursuing a 

career in nursing. In partnership with local schools, colleges, universities, corporations and other private entities, 

TELACU has also developed programs that aim to prepare students in their predominately Latino community to 

graduate from high school and enroll in and graduate from college. 

The Commission encourages program administrators to document the methods they use and the concrete effects 

they have on improving the educational outcomes of participants. ENLACE is taking this important step following 

its first full year of program implementation and we look forward to seeing the program’s results. 

We commend the President’s commitment to identify and support community partnerships that are effective 

in preparing all students for educational success. Whether such programs are faith-based or non-sectarian, 

the Commission believes that we must support programs that have demonstrable and proven results in better 

preparing students for college and the workforce. 

Government Resources and Accountability

The Commission recognizes that Federal, state and local governments each have particular resources that could be 

brought to bear upon the educational challenges facing Hispanic populations in the United States. We have begun 

the process of reviewing these resources and developing the strategies that might more fully engage governments 

in the coordinated strategy that we are charged with developing. 
18 

Federal Government

Every year, Federal departments and agencies manage funds for educational opportunities and communitybuilding resources that could transform the lives of Hispanic students if applied in real and meaningful ways. 

Until now, however, the Federal entities have not typically reported on the distribution of these funds in terms 

of Hispanic populations and, therefore, cannot show accountability for the impact of their funds. This problem 

is exacerbated by a lack of national consensus about the roles that the Federal government should play in helping 

parents prepare their children for college. 

The Government Resources and Accountability Working Group has identified three key roles for the Federal 

government: sponsoring research, requiring measurable outcomes and accountability and developing Federal 

monitoring tools. 

Sponsoring Research. American schools are seeing increasing populations of English language learners (ELL), 

including Hispanic students. Despite their numbers, these students are often left behind with respect to educational 

opportunity and attainment. Much of the information that has shaped education policy on this topic is anecdotal 

and important questions lack scientifically rigorous answers. 

For years, research studies have found that Hispanic children are disproportionately represented among those who 

have difficulty in school in reading, mathematics and general education attainment. For example, data from the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress for 1998 indicate that 27 percent of non-Hispanic fourth-graders 

performed below the basic level in reading achievement, compared to 60 percent of Hispanics. A polarizing debate 

has ensued around the best methods for teaching Spanish-speaking children to read in English. While proponents 

for various methods of instruction agree that children’s early language and reading development is key to their later 

success in life, limited research is available on the best methods of instruction for English language learners. 

It is important to note that Hispanics are not a uniform group. What works in rural Georgia with recent immigrants 

may not work with either third-generation Mexican-Americans in California or with Guatemalans in Florida. We 

have too little hard data concerning how students from different ethnic, linguistic, socioeconomic and geographic 

backgrounds learn to read and write proficiently. Only recently have surveys begun to assess the influence of such 

relevant factors as expectations, family attitudes and community norms.

To strengthen our research base, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. 

Department of Education, in concert with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

(NICHD), has established a national panel of literacy experts charged with: (1) summarizing the current scientific 

knowledge about literacy instruction for English language learners and (2) identifying crucial areas for additional 

research. In addition, NICHD and OERI are funding a major research program, the Biliteracy Research Network. 

From 2000-2004, the Federal government will spend nearly $30 million to study the best methods for teaching 

Spanish-speaking children to read in English and the factors that affect how well these children learn to read. Over 

the five-year course of this program, researchers will study more than 5,400 children at many locations in eight 

states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Utah) as well as Puerto 

Rico and the District of Columbia. 

Researchers will test how well children have mastered the sound systems of both Spanish and English, their early 

reading ability at given points in time, their rates of progress, the parallels between mastery of skills in one language 

and in a second language and specific characteristics of the children. These characteristics include the age at which 

a child entered an English-speaking school, the language or languages spoken in the home and neighborhood 

and the number of siblings the child has. These and other characteristics may affect how well a child learns a 

language, whether the child is able to maintain fluency in both languages and the child feelings about speaking 

those languages. 
19

These studies represent an important first step in the research that is needed and constitute only one among the 

many NICHD and OERI research networks and programs that address reading and writing. The Commission 

commends well-designed, rigorous research of the type conducted by the Biliteracy Research Network. We believe 

that speaking more than one language can be an asset in life and that there are optimal ways to teach children 

whose first language is not English that would take advantage of their early language abilities. This conviction also 

assumes, however, that our children have well-developed early language abilities, regardless of the language spoken 

in their homes. Additional research is obviously needed to identify the best instructional approaches for English 

language learning children, youth, adults and families, and, in particular, the diverse Hispanic subgroups in this 

nation. 

Require Measurable Outcomes and Accountability. Title I represents a substantial component of the Federal 

educational funding that touches the Hispanic community. Since 1965, nearly $200 billion in Title I funding (in 

constant dollars) has been spent on aid to states and school districts for the education of disadvantaged students. 

Yet there is little evidence that Title I funding has improved the education that disadvantaged Hispanic students 

receive or raised the levels at which they achieve. 

Under NCLB, Title III, the new Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), formerly the Office of 

Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, has almost doubled the resources for English Language 

Acquisition and English Language Learners. For the first time in its history, this office, established in 1967, 

requires accountability in both English Acquisition and academic achievement for students who are English 

language learners.

President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13230 mandates that Federal education programs have performance 

measures in order to gauge results (see Appendix A). Nevertheless, numerous Federally sponsored education 

programs across the government are routinely funded without measurable outcomes, sustaining the status quo 

and serving the bureaucracy rather than the citizenry in need of services. 

In August 2002, the White House Initiative sent a new two-page reporting form to the heads of 29 Federal 

departments and agencies, asking them to complete and submit the form by September 30, 2002, as provided in 

Executive Order 13230. This Commission will examine the information supplied by Federal departments and 

agencies and address the results in more detail in its final report of March 2003.

Creating Federal Monitoring Tools. In the past, the White House Initiative issued reporting guidelines to 

Federal departments and agencies, outlining criteria for evaluating Hispanic participation in Federal education 

programs. The findings were reported in annual performance reports provided by each Federal organization. These 

reports, for the most part, quantified Federal grants to Hispanic-serving institutions and employment of Hispanics 

in Federal-sector jobs. Accountability calls for measuring outcomes, however and no standards were established 

to do so. It was unclear whether Federal funds were actually helping to meet the educational needs of Hispanic 

Americans. With little or no information to indicate how the Federal government accounted for the funds it 

distributed, no determination could be made about the individuals served or whether the educational needs of 

students, parents or communities were met. 

One role of this Commission is to determine what efforts Federal departments and agencies are undertaking to 

address the educational achievement gap for Hispanic students. This charge requires the Commission to review all

programs, not only those labeled “Hispanic” or “minority.” In crafting new reporting guidelines, we have called for 

an examination of the entire budget of each Federal department to assess the success with which these departments 

address the educational needs of Hispanic students. 

The Commission received substantive guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its review 

of proposed reporting forms. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) further streamlined the reporting 

guidelines (see Appendix E) to ensure that the information they generate will enable the Commission to assess

results. The findings will be included in a subsequent report to the President.
20 

State and Local Government

State and local governments can play a critical role with a comprehensive commitment to educating all 

Hispanic students in the United States through their capacity to monitor educational program effectiveness. 

The Commission went to great lengths during the course of its work to analyze the diverse challenges that face 

the Hispanic community at the state and local levels and we believe a future action plan must incorporate ample 

opportunities to share best practices and facilitate a dialogue on what works. This experience will help form a 

repository of information and contribute to an integrated action plan that will impact every Latino student.

The commission met with education leaders in Wisconsin, Georgia, Florida and Nevada as well as members of the 

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to hear about the challenges and potential for progress at the state 

level. States with emerging Hispanic communities have been innovative and creative in responding to the needs 

of their transforming populations. Some more traditional Hispanic states such as Texas have taken the first steps 

to ensure that any student who dreams of going to college will be adequately prepared to accomplish that goal. 

Texas Governor Rick Perry has taken the advice of the state’s Special Commission on 21st Century Colleges and 

Universities, endorsing the Recommended High School Program, which was developed by leaders of the Texas 

Scholars Program and passed by the State Board of Education in 1993. Under this program, all Texas students are 

automatically assigned to a college track, having the option of completing the Minimum Graduation Program 

only with the approval of both parents and their counselor. With the implementation of the new system in 2004, 

a college preparatory track will become the norm rather than the exception in Texas.

It should be noted that on the national level, the U.S. Department of Education recently created a similar program, 

the State Scholars program, which partners the business community and educators to encourage students to 

complete academic courses above the minimum requirements for high school graduation. The goal of the program 

is to ensure equal opportunity for all students regardless of their background. Upon completion of the Scholars 

Course of Study, students are recognized and can be made eligible for admission and scholarships to any state 

college, university or technical training school. Five states will be selected for the program in October 2002. 

Furthermore, the Commission recognizes that there are many other initiatives undertaken by state and local 

agencies to overcome the educational challenges that face Hispanics. We hope that local officials will take 

advantage of the new flexibility provided by NCLB to implement the most needed changes in their schools. Every 

local school district in America and all 50 states now have the freedom to target up to 50 percent of federal nonTitle I dollars to programs that will have the most positive impact on the students they serve. 
21

V. CONCLUSION: 

MAPPING THE ROAD AHEAD

We stand at a crossroads. If we continue on our present course, one out of every three Hispanic students will be 

left without a basic high school education, no prospects for college and every likelihood of a life of poverty. If this 

already populous group, growing at five and one-half times the rate of non-Hispanic whites, does not take greater 

advantage of postsecondary education, the effect on the United States economy will be gravely negative. If the gap 

in educational achievement is ignored for another generation, the result will be millions of Hispanics relegated to 

a minimum-wage and low-skilled existence that is likely to condemn their children to an upbringing of poverty 

and risk.

To choose instead the road that leads toward a better future for Hispanic youth requires America’s leaders to accept 

the challenge. Every community must do its part to ensure the high academic standards that will result in an 

educated work force able to contribute to the prosperity and well-being of the United States.

The Commission’s March 2003 report will set forth a multi-year plan, which will include a series of recommendations 

concerning the Federal role in improving the education of Hispanic Americans:

• A monitoring system for designated executive departments and agencies, to measure and hold them 

 accountable for the coordination of their efforts to ensure that Hispanic Americans participate in 

 Federal education programs and receive educational opportunities of the highest quality; 

• Assessment measures and improvement strategies to make Federal education programs more effective 

 in helping Hispanic Americans close the educational achievement gap and attain the goals established 

 by the President’s educational blueprint, set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; and 

• Approaches that Federal education programs should adopt to ensure that Hispanic parents are 

 prepared to provide their children with the support and guidance they will need to succeed in order 

 to apply to, attend and complete postsecondary education. 

In addition, the Commission’s final report will offer recommendations concerning: 

• A National Campaign for Action. A coordinated, national campaign that will integrate the efforts of 

 students, parents, educators, community and business leaders and public officials at the local, state

 and Federal levels; 

• Putting College on the Radar Screen. The Commission will evaluate the results of a public awareness 

 campaign to raise the ceiling of educational aspirations for Hispanic families;

• Measurable Strategies and Goals. The Commission will propose measurable short- and long-term 

 strategies and goals, sustainable for future generations of Hispanic children;

• Abandoning One-Size-Fits-All Thinking. The Commission’s strategies, while national in scope, must 

 reflect the great diversity within the Hispanic population; and

• What Works and for Whom. The Commission will specify areas of new scientific research 

 through the work of various expert panels. 

The Commission will note scientific evidence of programs, methods and strategies that have demonstrated 

success in increasing parental, private sector, state and local public sector and community and faith-based group 

involvement in improving education for Hispanic Americans.
22 

Appendix A: Executive Order 13230

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and 

in order to advance the development of human potential, strengthen the Nation’s capacity to provide high-quality 

education and increase opportunities for Hispanic Americans to participate in and benefit from Federal education 

programs, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1.

There is established, in the Department of Education, the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational 

Excellence for Hispanic Americans (Commission). The Commission shall consist of not more than 25 members. 

Twenty-one of the members shall be appointed by the President. Those members shall be representatives of 

educational, business, professional and community organizations who are committed to improving educational 

attainment within the Hispanic community, as well as other persons deemed appropriate by the President. The 

President shall designate two of the appointed members to serve as Co-Chairs of the Commission. The other 

four members of the Commission shall be ex officio members, one each from the Department of Education, 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Treasury and the Small Business 

Administration. The ex officio members shall be the respective Secretaries of those agencies and the Administrator 

of the Small Business Administration, or their designees.

Section 2.

The Commission shall provide advice to the Secretary of Education (“Secretary”) and shall issue reports to the 

President, as described in section 7 below, concerning:

a. the progress of Hispanic Americans in closing the academic achievement gap and attaining the goals 

 established by the President’s “No Child Left Behind” educational blueprint; 

b. the development, monitoring and coordination of Federal efforts to promote high-quality education for 

 Hispanic Americans; 

c. ways to increase parental, State and local, private sector and community involvement in improving 

 education; and 

d. ways to maximize the effectiveness of Federal education initiatives within the Hispanic community. 

Section 3.

There is established, in the Department of Education, an office called the White House Initiative on Educational 

Excellence for Hispanic Americans (Initiative). The Initiative shall be located at, staffed and supported by the 

Department of Education and headed by a Director, who shall be a senior level executive branch official who reports 

to the Secretary. The Initiative shall provide the necessary staff, resources and assistance to the Commission and 

shall assist and advise the Secretary in carrying out his responsibilities under this order. The staff of the Initiative 

shall gather and disseminate information relating to the educational achievement gap of Hispanic Americans, 

using a variety of means, including conducting surveys, conferences, field hearings and meetings and other 

appropriate vehicles designed to encourage the participation of organizations and individuals interested in such 

issues, including parents, community leaders, academicians, business leaders, teachers, employers, employees and 

public officials at the local, State and Federal levels. To the extent permitted by law, executive branch departments 

and agencies shall cooperate in providing resources, including personnel detailed to the Initiative, to meet the 

objectives of this order. The Initiative shall include both career civil service and appointed staff with expertise in 

the area of education.

Section 4.

Executive branch departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law and practicable, shall provide any 

appropriate information requested by the Commission or the staff of the Initiative, including data relating to 

the eligibility for and participation by Hispanic Americans in Federal education programs and the progress of 
23

Hispanic Americans in closing the academic achievement gap and in achieving the goals of the President’s “No 

Child Left Behind” education blueprint. Where adequate data are not available, the Commission shall suggest the 

means for collecting the data. In accordance with the accountability goals established by the President, executive 

branch departments and agencies involved in relevant programs shall report to the President through the Initiative 

by September 30, 2002, on:

a. efforts to increase participation of Hispanic Americans in Federal education programs and services; 

b. efforts to include Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanic-serving institutions and other educational 

 institutions for Hispanic Americans in Federal education programs and services; 

c. levels of participation attained by Hispanic Americans in Federal education programs and services; and 

d. the measurable impact resulting from these efforts and levels of participation. The Department of 

 Education’s report also shall describe the overall condition of Hispanic American education and such 

 other aspects of the educational status of Hispanic Americans, as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Section 5.

Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), may apply to the Commission, any 

functions of the President under that Act, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the 

Department of Education in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General 

Services.

Section 6.

(a) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including 

per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service 

(5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).

(b) To the extent permitted by law, the Department of Education shall provide funding and administrative support 

for the Commission and the Initiative. 

Section 7.

The Commission shall prepare and submit an interim and final report to the President outlining its findings and 

recommendations as follows: 

a. The Commission shall submit an Interim Report no later than September 30, 2002. The Interim Report 

 shall describe the Commission’s examination of: 

 i. available research and information on the effectiveness of current practices at the local, State, 

 and Federal levels in closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic Americans and 

 attaining the goals established by the President’s “No Child Left Behind” educational blueprint; 

 ii. available research and information on the effectiveness of current practices involving Hispanic 

 parents in the education of their children; and 

 iii. the appropriate role of Federal agencies’ education programs in helping Hispanic parents 

 successfully prepare their children to graduate from high school and attend post secondary 

 institutions. 

b. The Commission shall issue a Final Report no later than March 31, 2003. The Final Report shall set 

 forth the Commission’s recommendations regarding: 

 i. a multi-year plan, based on the data collected concerning identification of barriers to and 

 successful models for closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic Americans, that 

 provides for a coordinated effort among parents, community leaders, business leaders, educators, 

 and public officials at the local, State and Federal levels to close the educational achievement 

 gap for Hispanic Americans and ensure attainment of the goals established by the President’s “No 

 Child Left Behind” educational blueprint. 

 ii. the development of a monitoring system that measures and holds executive branch departments 

 and agencies accountable for the coordination of Federal efforts among the designated executive 

 departments and agencies to ensure the participation of Hispanic Americans in Federal education 
24 

 programs and promote high-quality education for Hispanic Americans; 

 iii. the identification of successful methods employed throughout the Nation in increasing parental, 

 State and local, private sector and community involvement in improving education for Hispanic 

 Americans; 

 iv. ways to improve on and measure the effectiveness of Federal agencies’ education programs in 

 ensuring that Hispanic Americans close the educational achievement gap and attain the goals 

 established by the President’s “No Child Left Behind” educational blueprint; and 

 v. how Federal Government education programs can best be applied to ensure Hispanic parents 

 successfully prepare their children to attend post secondary institutions. 

Section 8.

The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting its final report, unless extended by the President.

Section 9.

Executive Order 12900 of February 22, 1994, as amended, is revoked.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE

October 12, 2001
25

Community and Faith-Based Initiatives 

Francisco J. Paret, Chair

Norma Sanchez Garza

Frank Hanna, Esq.

Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr.

Educator 

Christopher J. Barbic, Chair

Jaime A. Escalante

Alexander Gonzalez, Ph. D

Patricia J. Mazzuca

Van D. Romero

Family 

Ofelia Saenz Vanden Bosch, Chair

Micaela Alvarez, Esq.

Rev. Jose E. Hoyos

Enedelia Schofield, Esq.

Government Resources and Accountability 

Octavio J. Visiedo, Chair

Fernando (Frank) Caldeiro

Jose G. Canchola

Altagracia “Grace” Ramos

Rene Vazquez, M.D.

Public Awareness and Motivation 

Charles P. Garcia, Esq. Chair

Jose G. Canchola

Jaime A. Escalante

Jon Secada

Rene Vazquez, M.D.

Appendix B: President’s Advisory Commission Working Groups
26 

Full Commission Meeting and Swearing-In

February 27-28, 2002

Washington, D.C.

Full Commission Meeting

April 17-18, 2002

Las Vegas, Nev.

School Visit and Bilingual Town Hall 

April 17, 2002

Rancho High School

Las Vegas, Nev. 

Elementary School Visit

April 18, 2002

C.P. Squires Elementary School

Las Vegas, Nev.

Educator Working Group Commission Meeting

June 19-20, 2002

Milwaukee, Wis.

School Visit and Bilingual Town Hall

June 19, 2002

Vieau K-8 School

Milwaukee, Wis.

Family Working Group Commission Meeting

June 24-25, 2002

Atlanta, Ga.

School Visit and Bilingual Town Hall

June 24, 2002

Solidarity School

Solidarity Mission Village

Atlanta, Ga.

Government Resources and Accountability Working 

Group Commission Meeting

July 12, 2002

Washington, D.C.

Community Partnerships Working Group 

Commission Meeting

July 15, 2002

Los Angeles, Calif.

School Visit

July 15, 2002

Puente Technology Center

Los Angeles, Calif.

School Visit and Bilingual Town Hall

July 15, 2002

Huntington Park High School

Huntington Park, Calif.

Public Awareness and Motivation Working Group 

Commission Meeting

July 22, 2002

Miami, Fla.

Campus Visit

July 22, 2002

Miami-Dade Community College

Wolfson Campus

Miami, Fla.

Full Commission Meeting

August 5-6, 2002

San Diego, Calif.

Appendix C: Schedule of Commission’s Meetings and Public Events
27

Appendix D: Selected Bibliography

Previous Advisory Commission Reports 

Figueroa, R.A. and S. Hernández. 2000. Testing Hispanic Students in the United States: Technical and Policy Issues. 

The President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans.

The President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 1992. A Progress 

Report to the Secretary of Education from the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for 

Hispanic Americans.

The President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 1996. Our Nation on 

the Fault Line: Hispanic American Education.

The President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 2000. Creating the 

Will: Hispanics Achieving Educational Excellence.

Secada, W. G., R. Chavez-Chavez, E. Garcia, C. Muñoz, J. Oakes, I. Santiago-Santiago, and R. Slavin. 1998. No 

More Excuses: The Final Report of the Hispanic Dropout Project. The Hispanic Dropout Project.

The White House. 2000. Report on the White House Strategy Session on Improving Hispanic Student Achievement. 

The White House.

The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 1999. “Summary of September 

1999 Policy Seminar Series.” Educational Standards, Assessment and Accountability: A New Civil Rights Frontier.

The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 1999. What Works for Latino 

Youth: First Edition. 

The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans and the

U.S. Department of Education. 2000. What Works for Latino Youth. Second Edition.

The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 2000. Latinos in Education: 

Early Childhood, Elementary, Secondary, Undergraduate, Graduate.

Selected Reports and Testimony

Bauman, N. L. 2001. Hispanic Americans’ Growing Stake in Social Security Reform.

Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Boehner, J. and G. Judd. 2002. Resources for Reform: New Hope for America’s Most

Disadvantaged Public Schools. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Carter, S. C. 2001. No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty

Schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Carter, S. C. No Excuses: Seven Principals of Low-Income Schools Who Set 

the Standard for High Achievement. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
28 

Center for Social and Economic Studies: Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 

Committee on Population. 2002. Transforming Our Common Destiny: Hispanics in the United States.

College Board. 1999. Reaching the Top: Report of the National Task Force on Minority

High Achievement. New York, NY: College Board.

García, P. 2001. Understanding Obstacles and Barriers to Hispanic Baccalaureates,

Inter-University Program for Latino Research and the RAND Corporation. Notre Dame, IN: University

of Notre Dame.

Grogger, J. and S.J. Trejo. 2002. Falling Behind or Moving Up? The Intergenerational

Progress of Mexican Americans. San Fransisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. 

Hispanic Scholarship Fund. 2000. Revelations and Recommendations: The 2000 HSF Hispanic Education Study. 

San Fransisco, CA: Hispanic Scholarship Fund.

Ingels, S. J., et al. 2002. Coming of Age in the 1990s: The Eighth Grade Class of 1988, 12 

Years Later. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement and the National Center for Education Statistics.

Inger, Morton. 1992. Increasing the School Involvement of Hispanic Parents. New York, NY: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Jose-Kampfner, C. and F. Aparicio. 1998. “Rethinking Violence in the Educational Crisis of U.S. Latinos.” JSRI 

Research Report #38. East Lansing, MI: The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University.

Murdock, S. H. April 17, 2002. Expert Testimony to the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational 

Excellence for Hispanic Americans. Full Commission Meeting, Las Vegas, NV.

National Center for Education Statistics. 1998. “The Educational Progress of Hispanic Students.” The Condition 

of Education 1998 Issues in Focus. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. October 2000. Educational attainment of

Hispanic 25-29 year-old high school graduates, by citizenship status. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. 1998. Improving Opportunities: Strategies from 

the Secretary of Education for Hispanic and Limited English Proficient Students, A Response to the Hispanic 

Dropout Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Partners for Academic Excellence, Inc. 1997. “A History of the Partners for Academic Excellence.” From Theory 

to Practice: The PACE Experience. 

The Pew Hispanic Center. 2002. New Lows from New Highs: Latino Economic Losses in the Current Recession. 

Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

President’s Advisory Commission to Strengthen Social Security. 2001. Interim Report. Washington, DC: Author

Rumbaut, R. G. 1995. Immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean: A Socioeconomic Profile. East Lansing, 

MI: The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University.
29

Sanders, W. L., A. M. Saxton and S. P. Horn. 1997. “ The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System: A 

Quantitative, Outcome-Based Approach to Education Assessment.” Jason Millman (ed.). Grading 

Teachers, Grading Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Schargel, F. P. and J. Smink. 2001. Strategies to Help Solve Our School Dropout Problem. Larchmont, NY: Eye on 

Education.

Swail, W. S. 2001. The College Board Outreach Program Handbook. Arlington, VA: SRI International.

Tatto, M.T. et al. 2000. “The Education of Migrant Children in Michigan,” JSRI Occasional Paper #72. East 

Lansing, MI: The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University.

Teran, J. C. and R.E. Wasem. 1999. The Foreign-Born Population: A Profile. Washington, DC: Congressional 

Research Service.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2002. Closing the Gaps: The Texas Higher Education Plan. 

Austin, TX: Author

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. “Hispanic Population of the United States,” Current Population Survey - March 

2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Latin American Foreign-Born Population by Sex, Age and Region of Birth: March 2000, 

Table 4.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. “Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: 1990 and 

2000.” U.S. Census 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000. Washington, DC:

U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.1998. Job Patterns for Minorities and Women in Private 

Industry. 1998 tables, Table 1. Washington, DC: Author.

Vernez, G. and L. Mizell. 2001. Goal: To Double the Rate of Hispanics Earning a Bachelor’s Degree. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Education Center for Research on Immigration Policy.

Walsh, et al. 1993. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

Wright, P.S., S. P. Horn and W. L. Sanders. 1997. “Teacher and classroom context effects on student 

achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education.
30 

White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans institutions, and other educational institutions for Hispanic Americans in Federal education programs and services. I. Efforts to increase the participation of Hispanic Americans, Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanic-serving Fulfilling Federal reporting requirements of Executive Order 13230 a) What specific programs, projects, or initiatives did your Department undertake in fiscal year 2002 to increase the level of participation of Hispanic Americans, Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other educational institutions for Hispanic Americans (entities) in Federal education programs and services? (Please be brief and concise. For each program, project, or initiative listed, please indicate whether it is a new or continued effort, the amount of your Department’s budget that was devoted to implementing it, the number of participating entities, the number of participating Hispanic Americans, the amounts in which for the next fiscal year.) these were different from the previous fiscal year, and the totals you expect 

$ allocated (in millions)

 Continued effort

 New effort

b) 

Totals

Regarding your Department's budget, please indicate what percent was allocated for theprograms, projects, and initiatives described above. Also, indicate what percent of yourDepartment's budget was allocated for education. Of this amount, what percent was devoted toHispanic education programs and services? Finally, of your Department's discretionary funds,what percent was devoted to education? Indicate what percent of this amount was devoted to

Hispanic education programs and services. 

c) What specific steps did your Department take to ensure these programs, projects, and initiatives were institutionalized 

and made part of its on-going efforts to increase the participation of Hispanic Americans, Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other educational institutions for Hispanic Americans in Federal education programs and services?

% of budget to 

programs listed

$ change from prior FY

(+/- in millions)

$ you plan to allocate next 

FY (in millions)

 # of participating entities

 # change from prior FY (+/-)

# of participating entities you 

plan to reach next FY

# participating Hispanics

 # change from prior FY (+/-)

# of participating Hispanics 

you plan to reach next FY

% of budget to education

% of education 

budget to 

Hispanics

% of discretionary 

funds to education

% of education 

discretionary funds 

to Hispanics

Appendix E: Reporting Guidelines and Federal Report Forms
31

Fulfilling Federal reporting requirements of Executive Order 13230

II. The measurable impact resulting from these efforts and levels of participation. 

a) To what extent have (or will) the programs, projects, or initiatives undertaken by your Department help students to 

close the educational achievement gap for Hispanic Americans and ensure attainment of the goals established by 

the President's No Child Left Behind Act?

b) To what extent have (or will) the programs, projects, or initiatives undertaken by your Department help Hispanic 

parents, educators, and communities successfully prepare children to graduate from high school and attend 

postsecondary institutions?

c) Highlight models of success that helped improve achievement among Hispanic students through coordinated 

 efforts among parents, community leaders, business leaders, educators and public officials.

d) Finally, please describe any public/private partnerships your Department has or will undertake as part of your 

 efforts to meet the educational needs of Hispanic Americans.
32

Appendix F: Acknowledgements

We want to express our deep appreciation to State Farm Insurance Companies for being the national sponsor of 

the Commission. We are also appreciative of The Coca-Cola Company and Texas Instruments for supporting 

the town hall meetings. We extend special thanks to Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert for hosting the 

Commission on Capitol Hill along with a bi-partisan delegation of more than 40 Members of Congress. 

We want to convey our gratitude to the White House Initiative staff, which, under the leadership of Executive 

Director Leslie Sanchez, assisted us in our work and helped prepare this report. The staff included: Desiree Avila, 

Webber Barton, Adam Chavarria, Syddia Lee-Chee, Denise Rodriguez-Lopez and visiting fellows Jason Casellas, 

Marjon Kamrani and Eduardo Tobias. We also appreciate the assistance of new fellows Heidy Servin-Baez and 

Edgar Zazueta and legislative intern Jose G. Delgado.

We would also like to extend special thanks to individuals who assisted us at various times throughout the course 

of our work, including: Valerie F. Reyna, Ph.D., Cathleen M. Healy, Anna Cabral, Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., Sarah 

Pfeifer, M. Rene Islas, Kimberly Strycharz, Jeff LaBelle, Charley Diaz, Charles P. Blahous, Ph. D., as well as 

numerous employees of the United States Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury 

and Small Business Administration. 

We are grateful for the support and cooperation provided by Russ Whitehurst, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary, Office 

of Educational Research and Improvement and Reid Lyon, Ph.D., Chief of the Child Development and Behavior 

Branch within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National 

Institutes of Health. 

We also wish to acknowledge the special contributions of United States Treasurer Rosario Marin and United 

States Department of Education General Counsel Brian Jones to the substance and appeal of the various town hall 

meetings held across the country.

Finally, we are grateful to the many individuals in schools, universities, community and faith-based organizations, 

businesses and government throughout the country who provided the facilities and staff that contributed to the 

success of our community events: 

William C. Pelzar, College Board

Dr. Keith Mitchell, Apple Computer, Inc.

Yurima Jimenez, Tormont Publications

Dr. Eduardo J. Padron, President

Miami Dade Community College

David Lizarraga, President and CEO

The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU)

From the United States Department of Education:

United States Secretary of Education Rod Paige

Beth Ann Bryan, Sr. Advisor United States Secretary of Education Rod Paige

Laurie Rich, Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

Tom Snyder, Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Clifford Adelman, Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Francisco Garcia, Office of Migrant Education

Gloria Mounts, Committee Management Office