Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

OP 703DROP

Authors

OP 703DROP

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "OP_703DROP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1007574" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(34276) "Occasional Papers The Growing Importance of Education in California Deborah Reed Public Policy Institute of California Testimony before the California State Assembly Select Committee on Adult Education Assemblymember Carol Liu, Chair July 29, 2003 Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Introduction The United States has experienced a tremendous increase in educational attainment since the 1970s. Young adults in school today are more likely than their parents to finish high school, attend college, and graduate from college. Yet, in California the share of working-age adults who do not have a high school diploma or GED has held steady at about 20 percent since the late 1970s. The share who have not finished ninth grade has stayed at about 10 percent since the early 1970s. This paper compares trends in the educational attainment of adults in California over the last three decades to trends in the rest of the nation. The paper then explores demographic factors that help account for the low level of education in California. The substantial share of California adults with low levels of education is of particular concern because the value of education in the labor market has increased substantially. The average earnings of workers with a high school degree or less have eroded while the average earnings for those with a bachelor's degree have grown. The evidence suggests that improving the education levels of low-earning workers will help to reduce the income gap in California, improve racial and ethnic disparities, reduce poverty, and improve child well-being. The measures of education used in this analysis are based on completed formal education in high school and college. The measure of high school diploma includes those with a GED. The data used here do not allow for separate analysis of the GED or other types of adult education programs. In the discussions of the rising importance of education and social conditions, the underlying assumption is that effective adult education programs will improve workforce skills and productivity in a fashion similar to more traditional education. Education Trends in California College attendance and completion have increased substantially in California over the last three decades. The share of California working-age adults who do not have a bachelor's degree fell from 85 percent in the late 1960s to 71 percent in 2002 (Figure 1). This educational progress roughly tracks that in the rest of the nation, where the share of working-age adults without a bachelor's degree fell from 89 percent to 71 percent during the same period. 1 Percentage who do not have a B.A. degree 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 California 10 Rest of nation 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Percentage who have not attended college 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 California 10 Rest of nation 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Percentage who have not completed high school or GED 100 90 80 70 California Rest of nation 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Percentage who have not finished 9th grade 100 90 California 80 Rest of nation 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Source: Author’s calculations from the March Current Population Survey (CPS), 1968-2002. Notes: Figures for college include adults ages 25 to 64. Figures for ninth grade and high school include adults ages 19 to 64. Figure 1. Education of Adults in California and the Rest of the Nation, 1968-2002 The share of California adults who never attended college fell even more substantially, from 65 percent to 42 percent. On this measure, California has historically outperformed the rest of the nation, although the gap has nearly closed (44 percent in the rest of the nation versus 42 percent in California in 2002). At the low end of the education distribution, the trends are not as positive for California. The share of working-age adults who have not completed high school fell from 29 percent in 1968 to 19 percent in 1979 and has remained at this level since then (18 percent in 2002). In the rest of the nation, the share without a high school diploma was much higher in 1968, at 39 percent, and it has consistently fallen since that time to 13 percent in 2002. Turning to an even lower measure, those not completing ninth grade, the share in California has held at roughly 10 percent since the early 1970s, while the share in the rest of the nation fell from 21 percent in 1968 to 4 percent in 2002. 2 California has tremendous regional diversity in the share of the population with low education.1 At the time of the 2000 Census, 23 percent of Californians ages 25 and older had no high school diploma – almost 5 million people. The share without a diploma was over 30 percent in Colusa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, and Tulare Counties. Marin County had the lowest share at 9 percent. In Los Angeles County, the share was 30 percent – almost 1.8 million people. Put differently, about 36 percent of California adults who have not finished high school live in Los Angeles County, whereas Los Angeles' share of California adults is 28 percent. An appendix provides similar statistics for all 58 counties. Demographic Determinants of Education The demographic make-up of the state is the single most important factor in understanding why California has such a high share of adults who have not completed high school or even ninth grade. This section addresses three demographic factors that help determine the education trends in California: immigration, fertility, and aging. For most demographic groups defined by sex, race, ethnicity, and country of birth, the share with low education is lower in California than in the rest of the nation. For example, among white men, only 6 percent of those in California have not finished high school compared to 9 percent in the rest of the nation (Table 1). Among white women, only 5 percent in California have not finished high school compared to 7 percent in the rest of the nation. Hispanics from Mexico and Central America is the demographic group with the lowest level of education. Among those in California, 62 percent of men and 63 percent of women have not completed high school. In the rest of the nation, the shares are similar – 64 percent for men and 61 percent for women. Even among Hispanics born in the United States, the shares not completing high school are quite high relative to other native-born groups – 19 percent for men and 17 percent for women (23 percent for men and women in the rest of the nation). Southeast Asian immigrants is another group with high shares not completing high school – 13 percent for men and 23 percent for women in California. The shares in the rest of the nation are much higher for Southeast Asians – 21 percent for men and 30 percent for women. 1 For analysis of regional trends in California, see Johnson (2002). 3 Table 1. Education by Racial, Ethnic, and Immigrant Group, 2002 (percent) ALL MEN White Hispanic, U.S.-born Hispanic, from Mexico or C. Am. Hispanic, other foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Asian, from Southeast Asia Asian, other foreign-born African American Native American WOMEN White Hispanic, U.S.-born Hispanic, from Mexico or C. Am. Hispanic, other foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Asian, from Southeast Asia Asian, other foreign-born African American Native American Less Than 9th Grade Rest CA of U.S. 10 4 12 36 42 43 11 16 21 99 23 14 04 12 37 43 40 12 14 11 18 18 56 23 34 No High School Diploma or GED Rest CA of U.S. 18 13 69 19 23 62 64 20 32 45 13 21 68 6 19 11 21 57 17 23 63 61 30 29 34 23 30 7 11 11 17 14 19 Share of Population Rest CA of U.S. 24 36 62 92 11 10 10 41 36 10 24 37 62 91 11 10 10 51 37 10 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Sample includes adults ages 19 to 64. Percent with no high school diploma or GED also includes adults with less than ninth grade. Asian includes people born in Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Although low-education levels in California are similar or better than those in the rest of the nation for each demographic group, the share of the total population with low education is higher in the state. This is because the California population is made up of greater shares of low-education demographic groups (Table 1, final columns). In particular, California has greater shares of two low-education groups: Hispanics from Mexico and Central America and U.S.-born Hispanics. Combining men and women, 18 percent of California's working-age adults were born in Mexico or Central America compared to only 3 percent in the rest of the nation. Twelve percent of Californians are U.S.-born Hispanics compared to only 4 percent nationally. In the rest of the nation, nonHispanic whites, a relatively highly educated demographic group, make up 73 percent of the working-age population compared to only 48 percent in California. 4 Immigration Clearly immigration plays an important role in determining the distribution of education in California. Immigration is the driving force behind California's unique demographic mix. Of adults in California who have not completed high school, 72 percent are immigrants. In addition, many low-educated U.S.-born adults are second generation immigrants. Among U.S.-born adults in California who have not finished high school, 27 percent have at least one foreign-born parent, whereas among all U.S.-born adults in California, 19 percent have at least one foreign-born parent. In the future, secondgeneration immigrants will be one of the fastest growing population groups. Currently, nearly half of all children in California have at least one foreign-born parent (compared to 18 percent nationally). The growing share of second-generation immigrants in California results not only from the large number of immigrants in California, but also from their higher levels of fertility (Johnson et al., 2001). The California component of the National Adult Literacy Survey in 1992 demonstrated a similar role for immigration in California's low literacy rates (Jenkins and Kirsch, 1994). Statewide, 24-26 percent of adults scored at the lowest proficiency level. Nationally, the share in the lowest level of proficiency was 21-23 percent. Among foreign-born Californians, over 55 percent had literacy skills in the lowest level of proficiency, compared to 13-16 percent of U.S.-born residents. Understanding the relationship between immigration and low levels of education in California is important for developing adult education programs. The evidence shows immigrants make up the bulk of the population in need of remedial or basic adult education in California. Therefore, to be effective, these programs should be developed taking into account the needs of immigrants such as language needs and cultural differences.2 Furthermore, adult education is likely the only way to improve basic education for this population. Improvements in K-12 education are not likely to substantially increase high school completion among the foreign-born because 81 percent of adult immigrants who have not completed high school arrived at age 18 or older. Fertility High fertility rates among women with low education is another demographic factor that contributes to educational outcomes in California. Fertility is substantially higher for these women. For example, among Mexican and Central American women ages 15 to 44 in California, those with only eight years of education had an average of two children, those with a high school diploma had about 1.5 children on average, and those with a bachelor's degree had an average of just over one child (Hill and Johnson, 2002). Due to the correlation between low education and high fertility, parents tend to have lower education levels than adults overall. Among children in California, 27 percent are living in a family whose head has not completed high school, and 15 percent are living with a family head who has not completed ninth grade (Table 2). These shares are notably 2 For example, to meet the needs of Mexican immigrants, adult education programs in California could consider bi-national strategies as well as using program materials from adult education programs in Mexico. 5 higher than the shares of all adults without a high school diploma (18 percent) or who have not completed ninth grade (10 percent). Table 2. Education of Family Heads and All Adults in California, 2002 (percent) Less than ninth grade No high school diploma or GED Never attended college No B.A. degree Family Heads 15 27 49 76 All Adults 10 18 42 71 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Statistics for college include adults ages 25 to 64. Statistics for ninth grade and high school include adults ages 19 to 64. Statistics for family heads weighted by number of children. The relationship between education and fertility is valuable for understanding some important potential benefits of adult education in California. More than one-quarter of the state's children are in families that would likely benefit from remedial or basic adult education. Improving educational outcomes for parents can improve child well-being because educational attainment is a strong predictor of family income and other family resources (as shown later in this paper). Furthermore, parental education is related to a child's cognitive development and school success (Haveman and Wolfe, 1995; Manski et al., 1992; World Bank, 1993). Through these relationships, adult education for this generation of parents can improve the well-being and educational attainment of the next generation. Additionally, adult education programs might attract and benefit parents by focusing on child well-being issues including teaching parents how to navigate educational and health systems in the best interests of their children. This could be particularly valuable for the children of immigrants because their parents may not be familiar with the K-12 system in California and the importance of parental involvement in public education. Aging The aging of the population is another demographic trend that can affect the educational distribution of the workforce. During the 1970s, the United States experienced a substantial increase in the shares of young adults who completed high school, attended college, and graduated from college. The share of the working-age population that was educated prior to the 1970s becomes smaller as older cohorts reach retirement age. In the rest of the nation, aging will lead to growth in the educational attainment of the workingage population. That is, educational improvements of the working-age population (as shown in Figure 1) will continue even with no change in educational programs simply because the older cohort, who has the lowest education levels, will retire. 6 The age profile of educational attainment is not as strong in California as it is in the rest of the nation, primarily due to immigration. In California, the population that will likely retire in the next decade (those ages 55 to 64) is fairly similar to the younger population when it comes to low-education levels (Table 3). Thus, retirement of the older cohort will do little to change the share of the working-age population that has not completed high school. Table 3. Education by Age Group, 2002 (percent) Ages 65 and older Ages 55-64 Ages 45-54 Ages 35-44 Ages 25-34 Less Than 9th Grade CA REST Of U.S. 14 16 11 7 10 4 10 3 10 4 No H.S. Diploma or GED CA REST Of U.S. 26 31 19 17 16 10 18 11 19 12 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Share of Population CA REST Of U.S. 16 19 13 14 21 22 26 25 24 21 The Rising Value of Education in the California Labor Market The relatively large share of Californians with low levels of education is of particular concern in today's economy. Over the last three decades, the real value of earnings for low-educated workers has declined substantially. For example, a man with a high school diploma but no college education earned an average of $24,800 in 1969.3 A similar man earned an average of $19,900 in 2001 – a decline of 20 percent (Figure 2). For men with a bachelor's degree, average earnings rose by 10 percent, from $40,900 to $45,100. 3 Average earnings are based on a statistical model that controls for age, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. All earnings statistics are adjusted for inflation to 2001 dollars. 7 50,000 40,000 2001 $ 30,000 20,000 10,000 BA Some college High school 11 years 0 1969 1979 1989 2001 Source: Author’s calculations from the decennial Census (1970, 1980, 1990) and the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Statistics are adjusted for inflation. Average earnings are based on a statistical model that controls for age, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. See Reed (1999). Figure 2. Average Earnings in California by Education Level, 1969-2001 Economists who study labor markets often convert the earnings statistics to measures of the education premia. An education premium is the percentage increase in average earnings related to specific increases in education. In 1969, a man who finished high school could expect to earn 12 percent more than a man who finished eleventh grade but had no high school diploma or GED. By 2001, this premium increased to 21 percent (Figure 3). Over the same period, the premia for attending college and for receiving a bachelor's degree also increased substantially. Growth in the education premia is a national trend. National research suggests that several factors contributed to this shift, including technological change, international trade, immigration, declining unionization, and falling minimum wages (see Reed, 1999, for a review of this literature). 8 100 80 60 Education premia (%) 40 20 1969 2001 21 12 38 19 88 47 0 High School v. Grade Some College v. School Bachelor's v. High School Source: Author’s calculations from the decennial Census of 1970 and the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Statistics adjusted for inflation. Premia based on a statistical model that controls for age, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. See Reed (1999). Figure 3. California Labor Market Earnings Premia for Education, 1969-2001 The high education premia in California's labor market is one reason why we should be especially concerned that 18 percent of working-age adults in California have not completed high school or a GED. Thirty years ago, the average earnings of workers with this level of education was higher than it is today. Furthermore, the gap between these workers and workers with college education was much smaller than it is today. Education and Social Conditions in California The relatively large share of Californians with low education combined with the rising value of education in the labor market have important implications for social conditions in the state. This section describes four issues of concern for California that could be addressed, in part, by increasing the level of adult education in the state: income inequality, racial and ethnic wage gaps, poverty, and conditions for children. During the last two decades, income inequality has increased substantially in California. For example, the weekly wages of high-earning men (those at the 90th percentile) increased by 14 percent between 1979 and 2002. Over the same period, weekly wages for low-earning men (those at the 10th percentile) declined by 28 percent. Figure 4 shows the trend in male wage inequality as measured by the ratio between earnings at the 90th percentile to earnings at the 10th percentile. In 1979, high-earning men in California earned 4.1 times the earnings of low-earning men. By 2002, this ratio grew to 6.6. Nationally, the ratio stood at a similar level in 1979 (3.9) but grew at a slower rate, so that by 2002, California had a substantially higher level of inequality than nationally (6.6 compared to 5.6). The higher level of inequality in California can be partially 9 explained by the large share of immigrants in the state whose low education levels contribute to their low earnings. The growth in inequality is due, in part, to the rising education premia. These factors suggest that one way to reduce income inequality is to raise the earnings of workers at the bottom of the income distribution by improving their education (Reed, 1999). 7 6.5 6 5.5 Inequality index 5 4.5 4 3.5 1979 1983 1987 1991 California United States 1995 1999 2002 Source: Author’s calculations from the Earner Study of the CPS, 1979-2002. Figure 4. Inequality of Male Weekly Wages, 90/10 Ratio, 1979-2002 Improving the education of poorly educated Californians can also help to reduce racial and ethnic gaps in labor market earnings. Among full-time U.S.-born workers in California, Hispanics earn about 80 cents per dollar earned by whites (Figure 5). If Hispanic workers were to have the same distribution of education as white workers, they would earn about 93 cents per dollar. For African American full-time workers, educational differences play a smaller role. African American men earn 74 cents per dollar earned by white men, and adjusting their education would bring their relative wage to 77 cents per dollar. African American women earn a relative wage of 86 cents per dollar, and education adjustments would bring their wage to 89 cents per dollar. For Asian men born in the United States, high levels of education explain why they earn slightly more than white men ($1.03 per dollar). U.S.-born Asian women have a relative wage of $1.15 per dollar earned by white women, which is partially explained by their higher education levels.4 4 See Reed and Cheng (2003) for a fuller discussion of racial and ethnic wage gaps in the California labor market. See Reyes (2001) for a broad set of indicators of racial and ethnic gaps in well-being in California. See Cheng (2001) for a discussion of racial and ethnic gaps in home and school resources for education. 10 120 Actual If match white education 100 ___________________________________________________ 80 Percentage of white earnings 60 40 20 0 Hispanic African Asian American Hispanic African Asian American MEN WOMEN Source: Author’s calculations from the Earner Study of the CPS, 1999-2001. Notes: Sample includes U.S.-born, full-time California workers ages 25-54. GED is included as equivalent to receiving a high school diploma. See Reed and Cheng (2003). Figure 5. Racial and Ethnic Wage Gaps for U.S.-Born Workers in California, 2000 Improving educational attainment can also reduce poverty in the state. The poverty rate in California fell substantially during the economic growth of the late 1990s, declining from a high of 18.2 percent in 1993 to 12.6 percent in 2001 (Reed, 2002). However, the poverty rate remains high relative to levels of less than 10 percent in the late 1960s and late 1970s. Furthermore, the poverty rate in California is higher than that of the rest of the nation (12.6 versus 11.6).5 Among working-age adults in California, the overall poverty rate was 10 percent in 2001. For those with less than a ninth grade education, the poverty rate was 27 percent (Table 4). For those who finished at least ninth grade but did not have a high school diploma, the poverty rate was 21 percent. Those with a high school diploma or GED had a poverty rate of 11 percent. Among adults with a bachelor's degree, poverty was only 4 percent. 5 See Reed and Van Swearingen (2001) for further analysis of poverty trends in California. 11 Table 4. Poverty Rate by Education Level, Adults in California, 2001 (percent) ALL Less than 9th grade 9th to 11th grade High school diploma or GED Some college Bachelor's degree Poverty Rate 10 27 21 11 7 4 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Adults 25-64. Finally, as mentioned earlier, increasing educational attainment in the state should improve measures of child well-being. Parental education is an important determinat of family resources. Children in high-education families tend to have higher family income and are less likely to be poor (Table 5).6 Children whose parents have gone to college are also more likely to be in excellent health compared to children whose parents do not have a high school diploma (62 versus 37 percent). Thus, adult education is also an investment in the next generation. Reducing child poverty and improving child health are investments that will continue to have returns as today's children reach adulthood (Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Karoly, 2002; Karoly et al., 1998). Table 5. Child Well-Being by Education of Family Head, Children in California Less than high school High school diploma At least some college Not Poor (%) 64 83 93 Excellent Health (%) 37 48 62 Source: Poverty rates based on author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Health conditions from Furstenberg et al., 2003. Note: GED is included as equivalent to receiving a high school diploma. Conclusion Adult education is of tremendous importance in California today because a relatively large share of adults in the state would benefit from remedial and basic education. This problem cannot be addressed simply by improving the traditional K-12 system. First, such improvements would not directly benefit today's adults who have completed their formal education. Second, improvements in K-12 education will only have a limited 6 For more information on the family resources of young children in California, see Reed and Bailey (2002). 12 impact even for future cohorts as long as a substantial share of the relevant population are immigrants, many of whom never attend K-12 schools in California. Improving educational attainment is more important today than in past decades because the earnings of low-educated workers have eroded. Improving the education and skills of low-educated workers can help to reverse the trend in falling wages of low-earning workers, reduce income inequality, lower wage gaps between racial and ethnic groups, reduce poverty, and improve child well-being. 13 References Cheng, Jennifer, “At Home and in School: Racial and Ethnic Gaps in Educational Preparedness,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 2, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Duncan, Greg, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (eds.), Consequences of Growing Up Poor, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1997. Furstenberg, Frank, et al., The Well-Being of California's Children, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2003. Haveman, Robert, and Barbara Wolfe, "The Determinants of Children's Attainments: A Review of Methods and Findings," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1995, pp. 1829-1878. Hill, Laura, and Hans Johnson, Understanding the Future of California's Fertility: The Role of Immigrants, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. Jenkins, Lynn, and Irwin Kirsch, Adult Literacy in California, Educational Testing Service, Washington, D.C., 1994. Johnson, Hans, et al., “New Trends in Newborns: Fertility Rates and Patterns in California,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 1, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Johnson, Hans, "A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California's Regions," California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 5, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. Karoly, Lynn, "Investing in the Future: Reducing Poverty Through Human Capital Investments," in S. Danziger and R. Haveman (eds.), Understanding Poverty, Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press, New York, 2002. Karoly, Lynn, et al., Investing in our Children: What We Know and Don't Know About Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions, RAND, Santa Monica, California, 1998. Manski, Charles, et al., "Alternative Estimates of the Effects of Family Structure During Childhood on High School Graduation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 87, 1992, pp. 25-37. Reed, Deborah, and Jennifer Cheng, Racial and Ethnic Wage Gaps in the California Labor Market, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2003. Reed, Deborah, Poverty in California, Occasional Paper, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. Reed, Deborah, and Amanda Bailey, "California's Young Children: Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions,” California Counts, Vol. 4, No. 2, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. 15 Reed, Deborah, California's Rising Income Inequality: Causes and Concerns, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 1999. Reed, Deborah, and Richard Van Swearingen, “Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 3, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Reyes, Belinda, ed., A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. World Bank, World Development Report, Washington, D.C., 1993. 16 Appendix. Adult Population with No High School Diploma or GED by California County, 2000 Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Share Within County 18 12 16 18 14 36 13 28 11 32 32 15 41 18 32 31 23 20 30 35 9 15 19 36 23 12 32 20 10 Share Within Number State 168,281 3 93 0 4,096 0 22,477 0 4,176 0 3,927 0 81,867 2 5,235 0 11,480 0 147,937 3 5,077 0 12,298 0 34,258 1 2,220 0 120,981 2 24,033 0 9,256 0 4,673 0 1,770,524 36 25,901 1 16,080 0 1,821 0 10,906 0 42,247 1 1,483 0 1,046 0 77,061 2 16,455 0 6,309 0 Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba Share Within County 21 10 12 25 17 25 26 17 19 29 14 15 21 17 17 17 15 16 16 15 30 27 24 19 38 16 20 20 28 Share Within Number State 372,419 8 15,835 0 1,770 0 234,473 5 129,270 3 7,876 0 253,594 5 308,849 6 112,065 2 95,953 2 22,964 0 72,164 1 51,220 1 184,800 4 27,684 1 17,952 0 375 0 4,978 0 40,028 1 46,237 1 78,427 2 13,260 0 8,826 0 1,790 0 78,512 2 6,129 0 93,872 2 19,299 0 9,924 0 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3. Notes: Ages 25 and older. Statewide, 23 percent of adults had no high school diploma or GED. 17 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

OP 703DROP

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(94) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/the-growing-importance-of-education-in-california/op_703drop/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8349) ["ID"]=> int(8349) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:49" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3536) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "OP 703DROP" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "op_703drop" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "OP_703DROP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1007574" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(34276) "Occasional Papers The Growing Importance of Education in California Deborah Reed Public Policy Institute of California Testimony before the California State Assembly Select Committee on Adult Education Assemblymember Carol Liu, Chair July 29, 2003 Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Introduction The United States has experienced a tremendous increase in educational attainment since the 1970s. Young adults in school today are more likely than their parents to finish high school, attend college, and graduate from college. Yet, in California the share of working-age adults who do not have a high school diploma or GED has held steady at about 20 percent since the late 1970s. The share who have not finished ninth grade has stayed at about 10 percent since the early 1970s. This paper compares trends in the educational attainment of adults in California over the last three decades to trends in the rest of the nation. The paper then explores demographic factors that help account for the low level of education in California. The substantial share of California adults with low levels of education is of particular concern because the value of education in the labor market has increased substantially. The average earnings of workers with a high school degree or less have eroded while the average earnings for those with a bachelor's degree have grown. The evidence suggests that improving the education levels of low-earning workers will help to reduce the income gap in California, improve racial and ethnic disparities, reduce poverty, and improve child well-being. The measures of education used in this analysis are based on completed formal education in high school and college. The measure of high school diploma includes those with a GED. The data used here do not allow for separate analysis of the GED or other types of adult education programs. In the discussions of the rising importance of education and social conditions, the underlying assumption is that effective adult education programs will improve workforce skills and productivity in a fashion similar to more traditional education. Education Trends in California College attendance and completion have increased substantially in California over the last three decades. The share of California working-age adults who do not have a bachelor's degree fell from 85 percent in the late 1960s to 71 percent in 2002 (Figure 1). This educational progress roughly tracks that in the rest of the nation, where the share of working-age adults without a bachelor's degree fell from 89 percent to 71 percent during the same period. 1 Percentage who do not have a B.A. degree 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 California 10 Rest of nation 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Percentage who have not attended college 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 California 10 Rest of nation 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Percentage who have not completed high school or GED 100 90 80 70 California Rest of nation 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Percentage who have not finished 9th grade 100 90 California 80 Rest of nation 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Source: Author’s calculations from the March Current Population Survey (CPS), 1968-2002. Notes: Figures for college include adults ages 25 to 64. Figures for ninth grade and high school include adults ages 19 to 64. Figure 1. Education of Adults in California and the Rest of the Nation, 1968-2002 The share of California adults who never attended college fell even more substantially, from 65 percent to 42 percent. On this measure, California has historically outperformed the rest of the nation, although the gap has nearly closed (44 percent in the rest of the nation versus 42 percent in California in 2002). At the low end of the education distribution, the trends are not as positive for California. The share of working-age adults who have not completed high school fell from 29 percent in 1968 to 19 percent in 1979 and has remained at this level since then (18 percent in 2002). In the rest of the nation, the share without a high school diploma was much higher in 1968, at 39 percent, and it has consistently fallen since that time to 13 percent in 2002. Turning to an even lower measure, those not completing ninth grade, the share in California has held at roughly 10 percent since the early 1970s, while the share in the rest of the nation fell from 21 percent in 1968 to 4 percent in 2002. 2 California has tremendous regional diversity in the share of the population with low education.1 At the time of the 2000 Census, 23 percent of Californians ages 25 and older had no high school diploma – almost 5 million people. The share without a diploma was over 30 percent in Colusa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, and Tulare Counties. Marin County had the lowest share at 9 percent. In Los Angeles County, the share was 30 percent – almost 1.8 million people. Put differently, about 36 percent of California adults who have not finished high school live in Los Angeles County, whereas Los Angeles' share of California adults is 28 percent. An appendix provides similar statistics for all 58 counties. Demographic Determinants of Education The demographic make-up of the state is the single most important factor in understanding why California has such a high share of adults who have not completed high school or even ninth grade. This section addresses three demographic factors that help determine the education trends in California: immigration, fertility, and aging. For most demographic groups defined by sex, race, ethnicity, and country of birth, the share with low education is lower in California than in the rest of the nation. For example, among white men, only 6 percent of those in California have not finished high school compared to 9 percent in the rest of the nation (Table 1). Among white women, only 5 percent in California have not finished high school compared to 7 percent in the rest of the nation. Hispanics from Mexico and Central America is the demographic group with the lowest level of education. Among those in California, 62 percent of men and 63 percent of women have not completed high school. In the rest of the nation, the shares are similar – 64 percent for men and 61 percent for women. Even among Hispanics born in the United States, the shares not completing high school are quite high relative to other native-born groups – 19 percent for men and 17 percent for women (23 percent for men and women in the rest of the nation). Southeast Asian immigrants is another group with high shares not completing high school – 13 percent for men and 23 percent for women in California. The shares in the rest of the nation are much higher for Southeast Asians – 21 percent for men and 30 percent for women. 1 For analysis of regional trends in California, see Johnson (2002). 3 Table 1. Education by Racial, Ethnic, and Immigrant Group, 2002 (percent) ALL MEN White Hispanic, U.S.-born Hispanic, from Mexico or C. Am. Hispanic, other foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Asian, from Southeast Asia Asian, other foreign-born African American Native American WOMEN White Hispanic, U.S.-born Hispanic, from Mexico or C. Am. Hispanic, other foreign-born Asian, U.S.-born Asian, from Southeast Asia Asian, other foreign-born African American Native American Less Than 9th Grade Rest CA of U.S. 10 4 12 36 42 43 11 16 21 99 23 14 04 12 37 43 40 12 14 11 18 18 56 23 34 No High School Diploma or GED Rest CA of U.S. 18 13 69 19 23 62 64 20 32 45 13 21 68 6 19 11 21 57 17 23 63 61 30 29 34 23 30 7 11 11 17 14 19 Share of Population Rest CA of U.S. 24 36 62 92 11 10 10 41 36 10 24 37 62 91 11 10 10 51 37 10 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Sample includes adults ages 19 to 64. Percent with no high school diploma or GED also includes adults with less than ninth grade. Asian includes people born in Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Although low-education levels in California are similar or better than those in the rest of the nation for each demographic group, the share of the total population with low education is higher in the state. This is because the California population is made up of greater shares of low-education demographic groups (Table 1, final columns). In particular, California has greater shares of two low-education groups: Hispanics from Mexico and Central America and U.S.-born Hispanics. Combining men and women, 18 percent of California's working-age adults were born in Mexico or Central America compared to only 3 percent in the rest of the nation. Twelve percent of Californians are U.S.-born Hispanics compared to only 4 percent nationally. In the rest of the nation, nonHispanic whites, a relatively highly educated demographic group, make up 73 percent of the working-age population compared to only 48 percent in California. 4 Immigration Clearly immigration plays an important role in determining the distribution of education in California. Immigration is the driving force behind California's unique demographic mix. Of adults in California who have not completed high school, 72 percent are immigrants. In addition, many low-educated U.S.-born adults are second generation immigrants. Among U.S.-born adults in California who have not finished high school, 27 percent have at least one foreign-born parent, whereas among all U.S.-born adults in California, 19 percent have at least one foreign-born parent. In the future, secondgeneration immigrants will be one of the fastest growing population groups. Currently, nearly half of all children in California have at least one foreign-born parent (compared to 18 percent nationally). The growing share of second-generation immigrants in California results not only from the large number of immigrants in California, but also from their higher levels of fertility (Johnson et al., 2001). The California component of the National Adult Literacy Survey in 1992 demonstrated a similar role for immigration in California's low literacy rates (Jenkins and Kirsch, 1994). Statewide, 24-26 percent of adults scored at the lowest proficiency level. Nationally, the share in the lowest level of proficiency was 21-23 percent. Among foreign-born Californians, over 55 percent had literacy skills in the lowest level of proficiency, compared to 13-16 percent of U.S.-born residents. Understanding the relationship between immigration and low levels of education in California is important for developing adult education programs. The evidence shows immigrants make up the bulk of the population in need of remedial or basic adult education in California. Therefore, to be effective, these programs should be developed taking into account the needs of immigrants such as language needs and cultural differences.2 Furthermore, adult education is likely the only way to improve basic education for this population. Improvements in K-12 education are not likely to substantially increase high school completion among the foreign-born because 81 percent of adult immigrants who have not completed high school arrived at age 18 or older. Fertility High fertility rates among women with low education is another demographic factor that contributes to educational outcomes in California. Fertility is substantially higher for these women. For example, among Mexican and Central American women ages 15 to 44 in California, those with only eight years of education had an average of two children, those with a high school diploma had about 1.5 children on average, and those with a bachelor's degree had an average of just over one child (Hill and Johnson, 2002). Due to the correlation between low education and high fertility, parents tend to have lower education levels than adults overall. Among children in California, 27 percent are living in a family whose head has not completed high school, and 15 percent are living with a family head who has not completed ninth grade (Table 2). These shares are notably 2 For example, to meet the needs of Mexican immigrants, adult education programs in California could consider bi-national strategies as well as using program materials from adult education programs in Mexico. 5 higher than the shares of all adults without a high school diploma (18 percent) or who have not completed ninth grade (10 percent). Table 2. Education of Family Heads and All Adults in California, 2002 (percent) Less than ninth grade No high school diploma or GED Never attended college No B.A. degree Family Heads 15 27 49 76 All Adults 10 18 42 71 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Statistics for college include adults ages 25 to 64. Statistics for ninth grade and high school include adults ages 19 to 64. Statistics for family heads weighted by number of children. The relationship between education and fertility is valuable for understanding some important potential benefits of adult education in California. More than one-quarter of the state's children are in families that would likely benefit from remedial or basic adult education. Improving educational outcomes for parents can improve child well-being because educational attainment is a strong predictor of family income and other family resources (as shown later in this paper). Furthermore, parental education is related to a child's cognitive development and school success (Haveman and Wolfe, 1995; Manski et al., 1992; World Bank, 1993). Through these relationships, adult education for this generation of parents can improve the well-being and educational attainment of the next generation. Additionally, adult education programs might attract and benefit parents by focusing on child well-being issues including teaching parents how to navigate educational and health systems in the best interests of their children. This could be particularly valuable for the children of immigrants because their parents may not be familiar with the K-12 system in California and the importance of parental involvement in public education. Aging The aging of the population is another demographic trend that can affect the educational distribution of the workforce. During the 1970s, the United States experienced a substantial increase in the shares of young adults who completed high school, attended college, and graduated from college. The share of the working-age population that was educated prior to the 1970s becomes smaller as older cohorts reach retirement age. In the rest of the nation, aging will lead to growth in the educational attainment of the workingage population. That is, educational improvements of the working-age population (as shown in Figure 1) will continue even with no change in educational programs simply because the older cohort, who has the lowest education levels, will retire. 6 The age profile of educational attainment is not as strong in California as it is in the rest of the nation, primarily due to immigration. In California, the population that will likely retire in the next decade (those ages 55 to 64) is fairly similar to the younger population when it comes to low-education levels (Table 3). Thus, retirement of the older cohort will do little to change the share of the working-age population that has not completed high school. Table 3. Education by Age Group, 2002 (percent) Ages 65 and older Ages 55-64 Ages 45-54 Ages 35-44 Ages 25-34 Less Than 9th Grade CA REST Of U.S. 14 16 11 7 10 4 10 3 10 4 No H.S. Diploma or GED CA REST Of U.S. 26 31 19 17 16 10 18 11 19 12 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Share of Population CA REST Of U.S. 16 19 13 14 21 22 26 25 24 21 The Rising Value of Education in the California Labor Market The relatively large share of Californians with low levels of education is of particular concern in today's economy. Over the last three decades, the real value of earnings for low-educated workers has declined substantially. For example, a man with a high school diploma but no college education earned an average of $24,800 in 1969.3 A similar man earned an average of $19,900 in 2001 – a decline of 20 percent (Figure 2). For men with a bachelor's degree, average earnings rose by 10 percent, from $40,900 to $45,100. 3 Average earnings are based on a statistical model that controls for age, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. All earnings statistics are adjusted for inflation to 2001 dollars. 7 50,000 40,000 2001 $ 30,000 20,000 10,000 BA Some college High school 11 years 0 1969 1979 1989 2001 Source: Author’s calculations from the decennial Census (1970, 1980, 1990) and the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Statistics are adjusted for inflation. Average earnings are based on a statistical model that controls for age, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. See Reed (1999). Figure 2. Average Earnings in California by Education Level, 1969-2001 Economists who study labor markets often convert the earnings statistics to measures of the education premia. An education premium is the percentage increase in average earnings related to specific increases in education. In 1969, a man who finished high school could expect to earn 12 percent more than a man who finished eleventh grade but had no high school diploma or GED. By 2001, this premium increased to 21 percent (Figure 3). Over the same period, the premia for attending college and for receiving a bachelor's degree also increased substantially. Growth in the education premia is a national trend. National research suggests that several factors contributed to this shift, including technological change, international trade, immigration, declining unionization, and falling minimum wages (see Reed, 1999, for a review of this literature). 8 100 80 60 Education premia (%) 40 20 1969 2001 21 12 38 19 88 47 0 High School v. Grade Some College v. School Bachelor's v. High School Source: Author’s calculations from the decennial Census of 1970 and the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Statistics adjusted for inflation. Premia based on a statistical model that controls for age, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. See Reed (1999). Figure 3. California Labor Market Earnings Premia for Education, 1969-2001 The high education premia in California's labor market is one reason why we should be especially concerned that 18 percent of working-age adults in California have not completed high school or a GED. Thirty years ago, the average earnings of workers with this level of education was higher than it is today. Furthermore, the gap between these workers and workers with college education was much smaller than it is today. Education and Social Conditions in California The relatively large share of Californians with low education combined with the rising value of education in the labor market have important implications for social conditions in the state. This section describes four issues of concern for California that could be addressed, in part, by increasing the level of adult education in the state: income inequality, racial and ethnic wage gaps, poverty, and conditions for children. During the last two decades, income inequality has increased substantially in California. For example, the weekly wages of high-earning men (those at the 90th percentile) increased by 14 percent between 1979 and 2002. Over the same period, weekly wages for low-earning men (those at the 10th percentile) declined by 28 percent. Figure 4 shows the trend in male wage inequality as measured by the ratio between earnings at the 90th percentile to earnings at the 10th percentile. In 1979, high-earning men in California earned 4.1 times the earnings of low-earning men. By 2002, this ratio grew to 6.6. Nationally, the ratio stood at a similar level in 1979 (3.9) but grew at a slower rate, so that by 2002, California had a substantially higher level of inequality than nationally (6.6 compared to 5.6). The higher level of inequality in California can be partially 9 explained by the large share of immigrants in the state whose low education levels contribute to their low earnings. The growth in inequality is due, in part, to the rising education premia. These factors suggest that one way to reduce income inequality is to raise the earnings of workers at the bottom of the income distribution by improving their education (Reed, 1999). 7 6.5 6 5.5 Inequality index 5 4.5 4 3.5 1979 1983 1987 1991 California United States 1995 1999 2002 Source: Author’s calculations from the Earner Study of the CPS, 1979-2002. Figure 4. Inequality of Male Weekly Wages, 90/10 Ratio, 1979-2002 Improving the education of poorly educated Californians can also help to reduce racial and ethnic gaps in labor market earnings. Among full-time U.S.-born workers in California, Hispanics earn about 80 cents per dollar earned by whites (Figure 5). If Hispanic workers were to have the same distribution of education as white workers, they would earn about 93 cents per dollar. For African American full-time workers, educational differences play a smaller role. African American men earn 74 cents per dollar earned by white men, and adjusting their education would bring their relative wage to 77 cents per dollar. African American women earn a relative wage of 86 cents per dollar, and education adjustments would bring their wage to 89 cents per dollar. For Asian men born in the United States, high levels of education explain why they earn slightly more than white men ($1.03 per dollar). U.S.-born Asian women have a relative wage of $1.15 per dollar earned by white women, which is partially explained by their higher education levels.4 4 See Reed and Cheng (2003) for a fuller discussion of racial and ethnic wage gaps in the California labor market. See Reyes (2001) for a broad set of indicators of racial and ethnic gaps in well-being in California. See Cheng (2001) for a discussion of racial and ethnic gaps in home and school resources for education. 10 120 Actual If match white education 100 ___________________________________________________ 80 Percentage of white earnings 60 40 20 0 Hispanic African Asian American Hispanic African Asian American MEN WOMEN Source: Author’s calculations from the Earner Study of the CPS, 1999-2001. Notes: Sample includes U.S.-born, full-time California workers ages 25-54. GED is included as equivalent to receiving a high school diploma. See Reed and Cheng (2003). Figure 5. Racial and Ethnic Wage Gaps for U.S.-Born Workers in California, 2000 Improving educational attainment can also reduce poverty in the state. The poverty rate in California fell substantially during the economic growth of the late 1990s, declining from a high of 18.2 percent in 1993 to 12.6 percent in 2001 (Reed, 2002). However, the poverty rate remains high relative to levels of less than 10 percent in the late 1960s and late 1970s. Furthermore, the poverty rate in California is higher than that of the rest of the nation (12.6 versus 11.6).5 Among working-age adults in California, the overall poverty rate was 10 percent in 2001. For those with less than a ninth grade education, the poverty rate was 27 percent (Table 4). For those who finished at least ninth grade but did not have a high school diploma, the poverty rate was 21 percent. Those with a high school diploma or GED had a poverty rate of 11 percent. Among adults with a bachelor's degree, poverty was only 4 percent. 5 See Reed and Van Swearingen (2001) for further analysis of poverty trends in California. 11 Table 4. Poverty Rate by Education Level, Adults in California, 2001 (percent) ALL Less than 9th grade 9th to 11th grade High school diploma or GED Some college Bachelor's degree Poverty Rate 10 27 21 11 7 4 Source: Author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Notes: Adults 25-64. Finally, as mentioned earlier, increasing educational attainment in the state should improve measures of child well-being. Parental education is an important determinat of family resources. Children in high-education families tend to have higher family income and are less likely to be poor (Table 5).6 Children whose parents have gone to college are also more likely to be in excellent health compared to children whose parents do not have a high school diploma (62 versus 37 percent). Thus, adult education is also an investment in the next generation. Reducing child poverty and improving child health are investments that will continue to have returns as today's children reach adulthood (Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Karoly, 2002; Karoly et al., 1998). Table 5. Child Well-Being by Education of Family Head, Children in California Less than high school High school diploma At least some college Not Poor (%) 64 83 93 Excellent Health (%) 37 48 62 Source: Poverty rates based on author’s calculations from the March CPS, 2001-2002. Health conditions from Furstenberg et al., 2003. Note: GED is included as equivalent to receiving a high school diploma. Conclusion Adult education is of tremendous importance in California today because a relatively large share of adults in the state would benefit from remedial and basic education. This problem cannot be addressed simply by improving the traditional K-12 system. First, such improvements would not directly benefit today's adults who have completed their formal education. Second, improvements in K-12 education will only have a limited 6 For more information on the family resources of young children in California, see Reed and Bailey (2002). 12 impact even for future cohorts as long as a substantial share of the relevant population are immigrants, many of whom never attend K-12 schools in California. Improving educational attainment is more important today than in past decades because the earnings of low-educated workers have eroded. Improving the education and skills of low-educated workers can help to reverse the trend in falling wages of low-earning workers, reduce income inequality, lower wage gaps between racial and ethnic groups, reduce poverty, and improve child well-being. 13 References Cheng, Jennifer, “At Home and in School: Racial and Ethnic Gaps in Educational Preparedness,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 2, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Duncan, Greg, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (eds.), Consequences of Growing Up Poor, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1997. Furstenberg, Frank, et al., The Well-Being of California's Children, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2003. Haveman, Robert, and Barbara Wolfe, "The Determinants of Children's Attainments: A Review of Methods and Findings," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1995, pp. 1829-1878. Hill, Laura, and Hans Johnson, Understanding the Future of California's Fertility: The Role of Immigrants, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. Jenkins, Lynn, and Irwin Kirsch, Adult Literacy in California, Educational Testing Service, Washington, D.C., 1994. Johnson, Hans, et al., “New Trends in Newborns: Fertility Rates and Patterns in California,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 1, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Johnson, Hans, "A State of Diversity: Demographic Trends in California's Regions," California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 5, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. Karoly, Lynn, "Investing in the Future: Reducing Poverty Through Human Capital Investments," in S. Danziger and R. Haveman (eds.), Understanding Poverty, Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press, New York, 2002. Karoly, Lynn, et al., Investing in our Children: What We Know and Don't Know About Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions, RAND, Santa Monica, California, 1998. Manski, Charles, et al., "Alternative Estimates of the Effects of Family Structure During Childhood on High School Graduation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 87, 1992, pp. 25-37. Reed, Deborah, and Jennifer Cheng, Racial and Ethnic Wage Gaps in the California Labor Market, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2003. Reed, Deborah, Poverty in California, Occasional Paper, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. Reed, Deborah, and Amanda Bailey, "California's Young Children: Demographic, Social, and Economic Conditions,” California Counts, Vol. 4, No. 2, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2002. 15 Reed, Deborah, California's Rising Income Inequality: Causes and Concerns, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 1999. Reed, Deborah, and Richard Van Swearingen, “Poverty in California: Levels, Trends, and Demographic Dimensions,” California Counts, Vol. 3, No. 3, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2001. Reyes, Belinda, ed., A Portrait of Race and Ethnicity in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, 2000. World Bank, World Development Report, Washington, D.C., 1993. 16 Appendix. Adult Population with No High School Diploma or GED by California County, 2000 Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Share Within County 18 12 16 18 14 36 13 28 11 32 32 15 41 18 32 31 23 20 30 35 9 15 19 36 23 12 32 20 10 Share Within Number State 168,281 3 93 0 4,096 0 22,477 0 4,176 0 3,927 0 81,867 2 5,235 0 11,480 0 147,937 3 5,077 0 12,298 0 34,258 1 2,220 0 120,981 2 24,033 0 9,256 0 4,673 0 1,770,524 36 25,901 1 16,080 0 1,821 0 10,906 0 42,247 1 1,483 0 1,046 0 77,061 2 16,455 0 6,309 0 Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba Share Within County 21 10 12 25 17 25 26 17 19 29 14 15 21 17 17 17 15 16 16 15 30 27 24 19 38 16 20 20 28 Share Within Number State 372,419 8 15,835 0 1,770 0 234,473 5 129,270 3 7,876 0 253,594 5 308,849 6 112,065 2 95,953 2 22,964 0 72,164 1 51,220 1 184,800 4 27,684 1 17,952 0 375 0 4,978 0 40,028 1 46,237 1 78,427 2 13,260 0 8,826 0 1,790 0 78,512 2 6,129 0 93,872 2 19,299 0 9,924 0 Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3. Notes: Ages 25 and older. Statewide, 23 percent of adults had no high school diploma or GED. 17 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:49" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "op_703drop" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/OP_703DROP.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }