• Print
  • PDF
  • Download
  • Copy Chart
  • Embed
    This feature allows you to add a graph to your website or blog. The graph will automatically update whenever data are added to kidsdata.org.

School Connectedness


School Connectedness, by Race/Ethnicity: 2006-2008 See Source and Notes
(Race/Ethnicity: All; Level of Connectedness to School: All)

California Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 32.3% 48.5% 19.3%
Asian 44.9% 44.9% 10.2%
Caucasian/White 49.2% 40.2% 10.6%
Hispanic/Latino 38.9% 48.1% 13.0%
Native American/Alaska Native 38.8% 44.8% 16.4%
Pacific Islander 42.0% 44.8% 13.1%
Multiethnic 42.3% 44.8% 12.9%
Other 40.9% 44.3% 14.7%
Alameda County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 28.6% 52.0% 19.4%
Asian 40.1% 49.2% 10.6%
Caucasian/White 51.2% 39.6% 9.2%
Hispanic/Latino 36.3% 50.0% 13.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 37.0% 47.0% 16.0%
Pacific Islander 39.1% 48.7% 12.2%
Multiethnic 39.5% 47.4% 13.0%
Other 38.0% 48.9% 13.1%
Alpine County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black N/A N/A N/A
Asian N/A N/A N/A
Caucasian/White LNE LNE LNE
Hispanic/Latino LNE LNE LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander N/A N/A N/A
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other N/A N/A N/A
Amador County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 39.6% 48.9% 11.5%
Hispanic/Latino 36.0% 58.2% 5.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 38.0% 49.7% 12.3%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 35.2% 54.1% 10.7%
Other 36.3% 48.2% 15.5%
Butte County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 41.4% 40.4% 18.1%
Asian 50.5% 42.3% 7.2%
Caucasian/White 52.3% 38.2% 9.4%
Hispanic/Latino 46.0% 42.0% 12.0%
Native American/Alaska Native 43.7% 42.8% 13.6%
Pacific Islander 46.6% 41.8% 11.6%
Multiethnic 46.5% 43.5% 10.1%
Other 45.6% 43.7% 10.6%
Calaveras County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 57.0% 35.6% 7.3%
Hispanic/Latino 49.6% 39.9% 10.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 61.6% 36.4% 2.0%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 62.7% 32.0% 5.4%
Other 66.2% 29.3% 4.5%
Colusa County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 46.8% 43.3% 9.9%
Hispanic/Latino 39.7% 47.6% 12.6%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other 29.4% 52.9% 17.7%
Contra Costa County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 24.8% 51.3% 23.8%
Asian 41.8% 47.7% 10.5%
Caucasian/White 47.9% 40.4% 11.6%
Hispanic/Latino 30.9% 52.4% 16.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 33.5% 44.5% 22.1%
Pacific Islander 33.3% 49.2% 17.5%
Multiethnic 38.3% 46.5% 15.3%
Other 35.8% 47.4% 16.8%
Del Norte County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian 36.7% 50.2% 13.1%
Caucasian/White 44.4% 47.5% 8.1%
Hispanic/Latino 39.8% 48.8% 11.4%
Native American/Alaska Native 43.0% 52.5% 4.5%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 42.2% 51.0% 6.8%
Other 46.9% 45.2% 8.0%
El Dorado County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 41.6% 37.8% 20.6%
Asian 48.9% 38.3% 12.8%
Caucasian/White 52.9% 37.9% 9.2%
Hispanic/Latino 40.7% 48.2% 11.1%
Native American/Alaska Native 44.5% 38.0% 17.5%
Pacific Islander 42.1% 45.7% 12.2%
Multiethnic 50.0% 39.0% 11.0%
Other 47.6% 39.5% 12.9%
Fresno County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 31.9% 47.9% 20.2%
Asian 37.6% 49.0% 13.4%
Caucasian/White 44.4% 42.4% 13.1%
Hispanic/Latino 36.8% 47.6% 15.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 32.9% 48.7% 18.5%
Pacific Islander 32.4% 47.0% 20.7%
Multiethnic 36.3% 47.1% 16.6%
Other 37.7% 44.9% 17.4%
Glenn County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian 29.7% 51.5% 18.8%
Caucasian/White 45.4% 42.9% 11.6%
Hispanic/Latino 43.7% 47.6% 8.7%
Native American/Alaska Native 34.5% 51.3% 14.2%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 41.0% 50.6% 8.5%
Other 45.1% 43.7% 11.2%
Humboldt County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 41.2% 48.0% 10.7%
Asian 50.3% 42.5% 7.3%
Caucasian/White 53.8% 36.6% 9.6%
Hispanic/Latino 47.1% 43.3% 9.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 43.1% 45.1% 11.8%
Pacific Islander 49.0% 44.3% 6.7%
Multiethnic 49.9% 40.3% 9.8%
Other 48.2% 36.6% 15.2%
Imperial County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 39.6% 45.2% 15.2%
Asian 36.5% 49.2% 14.3%
Caucasian/White 47.4% 38.8% 13.8%
Hispanic/Latino 45.5% 43.2% 11.2%
Native American/Alaska Native 38.5% 37.8% 23.7%
Pacific Islander 47.1% 37.3% 15.6%
Multiethnic 45.5% 39.7% 14.8%
Other 42.2% 42.2% 15.6%
Inyo County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 45.5% 44.0% 10.5%
Hispanic/Latino 34.7% 52.9% 12.4%
Native American/Alaska Native 30.2% 62.3% 7.5%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 35.0% 55.5% 9.5%
Other LNE LNE LNE
Kern County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 35.0% 49.2% 15.8%
Asian 51.5% 39.3% 9.3%
Caucasian/White 47.7% 41.3% 10.9%
Hispanic/Latino 43.4% 44.9% 11.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 39.3% 44.9% 15.8%
Pacific Islander 37.0% 29.6% 33.5%
Multiethnic 43.9% 43.5% 12.6%
Other 40.0% 44.2% 15.8%
Kings County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 33.9% 46.9% 19.3%
Asian 38.6% 55.0% 6.4%
Caucasian/White 38.8% 46.3% 14.9%
Hispanic/Latino 28.3% 53.0% 18.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 35.0% 46.0% 19.1%
Pacific Islander 42.1% 49.3% 8.6%
Multiethnic 37.6% 47.9% 14.5%
Other 40.8% 44.9% 14.3%
Lake County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 28.6% 39.2% 32.3%
Asian 23.1% 36.6% 40.3%
Caucasian/White 38.3% 43.6% 18.1%
Hispanic/Latino 35.9% 43.9% 20.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 28.9% 44.8% 26.3%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 29.3% 46.8% 23.9%
Other 24.9% 48.1% 27.0%
Lassen County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 43.6% 46.4% 10.0%
Hispanic/Latino 42.8% 47.7% 9.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 40.9% 39.8% 19.3%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 32.1% 56.1% 11.8%
Other 46.6% 35.6% 17.8%
Los Angeles County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 31.6% 49.6% 18.8%
Asian 47.6% 43.3% 9.1%
Caucasian/White 49.6% 39.6% 10.8%
Hispanic/Latino 38.9% 48.9% 12.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 34.9% 47.9% 17.2%
Pacific Islander 44.5% 44.1% 11.4%
Multiethnic 42.0% 44.4% 13.6%
Other 40.0% 44.6% 15.4%
Madera County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 29.5% 45.5% 24.9%
Asian 38.9% 32.2% 28.9%
Caucasian/White 41.3% 46.0% 12.7%
Hispanic/Latino 33.4% 49.7% 16.9%
Native American/Alaska Native 35.2% 45.8% 19.0%
Pacific Islander 31.9% 48.5% 19.6%
Multiethnic 36.6% 44.0% 19.4%
Other 38.0% 47.7% 14.3%
Marin County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 37.0% 46.3% 16.7%
Asian 52.2% 40.0% 7.8%
Caucasian/White 61.4% 32.0% 6.6%
Hispanic/Latino 47.1% 42.2% 10.7%
Native American/Alaska Native 45.3% 41.9% 12.8%
Pacific Islander 41.6% 42.9% 15.5%
Multiethnic 52.9% 39.3% 7.8%
Other 54.8% 35.5% 9.7%
Mariposa County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 48.9% 40.6% 10.6%
Hispanic/Latino LNE LNE LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other 42.2% 42.3% 15.5%
Mendocino County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 35.2% 34.6% 30.2%
Asian 31.9% 47.5% 20.6%
Caucasian/White 42.7% 45.3% 12.0%
Hispanic/Latino 38.9% 48.3% 12.7%
Native American/Alaska Native 35.9% 43.4% 20.7%
Pacific Islander 23.1% 56.0% 20.9%
Multiethnic 42.3% 42.2% 15.5%
Other 44.0% 41.6% 14.4%
Merced County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 39.9% 43.1% 17.0%
Asian 47.2% 47.1% 5.7%
Caucasian/White 43.7% 44.4% 11.9%
Hispanic/Latino 41.7% 45.7% 12.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 36.0% 48.5% 15.5%
Pacific Islander 31.7% 58.9% 9.5%
Multiethnic 41.0% 48.5% 10.5%
Other 37.6% 49.6% 12.8%
Modoc County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 53.0% 42.9% 4.1%
Hispanic/Latino LNE LNE LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other LNE LNE LNE
Mono County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 44.9% 41.8% 13.4%
Hispanic/Latino 51.4% 40.0% 8.6%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other LNE LNE LNE
Monterey County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 34.6% 47.4% 18.0%
Asian 39.5% 49.6% 10.9%
Caucasian/White 42.7% 46.6% 10.7%
Hispanic/Latino 39.1% 49.9% 11.0%
Native American/Alaska Native 37.2% 47.8% 15.1%
Pacific Islander 39.3% 52.9% 7.8%
Multiethnic 37.1% 51.3% 11.7%
Other 34.9% 48.8% 16.2%
Napa County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 45.2% 39.2% 15.7%
Asian 57.2% 34.0% 8.7%
Caucasian/White 54.5% 35.4% 10.1%
Hispanic/Latino 50.0% 41.3% 8.7%
Native American/Alaska Native 40.2% 43.4% 16.4%
Pacific Islander 55.9% 36.8% 7.3%
Multiethnic 49.7% 39.2% 11.1%
Other 47.4% 40.7% 11.9%
Nevada County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 48.7% 42.6% 8.7%
Asian 61.3% 26.9% 11.8%
Caucasian/White 55.7% 37.3% 7.0%
Hispanic/Latino 51.3% 40.8% 7.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 46.9% 39.6% 13.5%
Pacific Islander 54.0% 34.7% 11.3%
Multiethnic 52.9% 39.5% 7.6%
Other 49.3% 39.4% 11.3%
Orange County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 40.9% 42.5% 16.6%
Asian 49.2% 41.8% 9.1%
Caucasian/White 56.6% 35.5% 8.0%
Hispanic/Latino 44.9% 45.0% 10.2%
Native American/Alaska Native 48.9% 38.3% 12.8%
Pacific Islander 49.1% 40.6% 10.3%
Multiethnic 50.8% 39.9% 9.3%
Other 49.4% 39.7% 10.8%
Placer County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 44.4% 35.6% 20.0%
Asian 52.1% 38.1% 9.8%
Caucasian/White 59.5% 33.2% 7.3%
Hispanic/Latino 51.5% 37.3% 11.2%
Native American/Alaska Native 50.5% 36.6% 12.8%
Pacific Islander 47.5% 38.4% 14.1%
Multiethnic 50.8% 36.8% 12.4%
Other 52.1% 36.3% 11.6%
Plumas County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 36.7% 45.9% 17.4%
Hispanic/Latino 29.8% 66.0% 4.2%
Native American/Alaska Native 41.8% 48.9% 9.3%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other 33.5% 49.8% 16.7%
Riverside County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 34.4% 48.9% 16.7%
Asian 44.3% 44.3% 11.4%
Caucasian/White 49.6% 39.2% 11.2%
Hispanic/Latino 39.4% 48.2% 12.4%
Native American/Alaska Native 39.1% 45.6% 15.4%
Pacific Islander 41.8% 45.3% 13.0%
Multiethnic 42.6% 45.6% 11.8%
Other 41.4% 45.5% 13.1%
Sacramento County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 36.1% 46.1% 17.8%
Asian 41.8% 48.5% 9.7%
Caucasian/White 45.7% 44.0% 10.4%
Hispanic/Latino 39.4% 48.0% 12.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 39.0% 45.9% 15.0%
Pacific Islander 45.1% 42.8% 12.1%
Multiethnic 42.1% 45.5% 12.3%
Other 39.3% 46.4% 14.3%
San Benito County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 37.4% 39.5% 23.1%
Asian 40.2% 43.4% 16.4%
Caucasian/White 44.3% 43.1% 12.6%
Hispanic/Latino 39.7% 48.0% 12.4%
Native American/Alaska Native 45.0% 44.3% 10.7%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 38.2% 48.1% 13.7%
Other 41.1% 45.4% 13.4%
San Bernardino County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 31.9% 49.1% 19.0%
Asian 43.6% 43.9% 12.5%
Caucasian/White 42.9% 45.1% 12.1%
Hispanic/Latino 36.9% 49.8% 13.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 35.3% 48.8% 15.9%
Pacific Islander 41.5% 44.9% 13.6%
Multiethnic 39.0% 47.7% 13.3%
Other 36.5% 47.5% 16.0%
San Diego County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 29.2% 48.4% 22.4%
Asian 41.6% 45.7% 12.6%
Caucasian/White 46.4% 41.6% 12.0%
Hispanic/Latino 35.1% 49.3% 15.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 36.8% 44.3% 18.9%
Pacific Islander 42.0% 44.2% 13.7%
Multiethnic 40.3% 45.5% 14.2%
Other 39.6% 43.4% 17.0%
San Francisco County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 28.1% 49.7% 22.3%
Asian 34.8% 54.8% 10.4%
Caucasian/White 41.6% 48.2% 10.2%
Hispanic/Latino 31.5% 50.9% 17.6%
Native American/Alaska Native 32.8% 30.5% 36.7%
Pacific Islander 32.7% 54.2% 13.0%
Multiethnic 37.5% 47.7% 14.8%
Other 40.2% 42.1% 17.7%
San Joaquin County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 25.0% 47.8% 27.2%
Asian 30.9% 51.2% 17.9%
Caucasian/White 41.3% 43.8% 14.9%
Hispanic/Latino 29.6% 49.1% 21.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 33.1% 45.5% 21.4%
Pacific Islander 31.9% 50.2% 17.9%
Multiethnic 34.0% 47.7% 18.4%
Other 34.0% 44.2% 21.8%
San Luis Obispo County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 43.5% 37.0% 19.4%
Asian 54.7% 34.3% 11.0%
Caucasian/White 55.7% 36.8% 7.5%
Hispanic/Latino 50.1% 40.4% 9.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 46.9% 43.5% 9.5%
Pacific Islander 51.8% 34.7% 13.5%
Multiethnic 48.7% 42.8% 8.5%
Other 50.3% 40.4% 9.3%
San Mateo County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 40.7% 46.5% 12.8%
Asian 53.1% 39.6% 7.3%
Caucasian/White 56.8% 36.0% 7.2%
Hispanic/Latino 46.4% 43.1% 10.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 50.8% 36.0% 13.1%
Pacific Islander 50.0% 39.7% 10.3%
Multiethnic 51.4% 39.7% 9.0%
Other 49.8% 39.1% 11.1%
Santa Barbara County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 37.2% 44.2% 18.6%
Asian 43.4% 46.9% 9.7%
Caucasian/White 49.4% 40.0% 10.6%
Hispanic/Latino 38.3% 47.5% 14.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 41.7% 43.3% 15.0%
Pacific Islander 37.3% 49.7% 13.0%
Multiethnic 42.3% 45.0% 12.7%
Other 41.2% 44.6% 14.2%
Santa Clara County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 38.6% 45.8% 15.6%
Asian 49.8% 41.8% 8.4%
Caucasian/White 53.8% 37.1% 9.0%
Hispanic/Latino 40.3% 47.4% 12.2%
Native American/Alaska Native 45.2% 39.7% 15.1%
Pacific Islander 44.4% 44.9% 10.8%
Multiethnic 46.2% 43.4% 10.4%
Other 44.5% 44.6% 10.9%
Santa Cruz County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 34.3% 44.5% 21.3%
Asian 46.4% 42.8% 10.8%
Caucasian/White 46.2% 43.3% 10.5%
Hispanic/Latino 42.6% 45.9% 11.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 40.5% 44.4% 15.1%
Pacific Islander 41.4% 39.9% 18.6%
Multiethnic 44.2% 43.5% 12.3%
Other 42.9% 42.6% 14.5%
Shasta County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 36.4% 41.5% 22.1%
Asian 34.3% 48.7% 17.0%
Caucasian/White 49.2% 38.9% 11.9%
Hispanic/Latino 46.4% 42.8% 10.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 43.2% 38.4% 18.5%
Pacific Islander 39.2% 52.9% 8.0%
Multiethnic 45.8% 41.3% 13.0%
Other 39.5% 42.9% 17.6%
Sierra County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 45.5% 41.2% 13.3%
Hispanic/Latino LNE LNE LNE
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic LNE LNE LNE
Other LNE LNE LNE
Siskiyou County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 46.3% 44.9% 8.8%
Hispanic/Latino 45.1% 45.8% 9.2%
Native American/Alaska Native 52.1% 39.3% 8.6%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 46.0% 47.5% 6.5%
Other 44.1% 43.8% 12.1%
Solano County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 25.2% 52.3% 22.6%
Asian 33.0% 55.6% 11.3%
Caucasian/White 38.6% 48.3% 13.1%
Hispanic/Latino 31.9% 49.9% 18.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 31.9% 50.0% 18.1%
Pacific Islander 27.7% 58.5% 13.7%
Multiethnic 32.3% 52.9% 14.8%
Other 32.3% 49.6% 18.2%
Sonoma County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 38.9% 44.1% 17.0%
Asian 42.6% 44.7% 12.7%
Caucasian/White 51.4% 39.5% 9.1%
Hispanic/Latino 42.7% 44.2% 13.1%
Native American/Alaska Native 45.7% 40.1% 14.2%
Pacific Islander 41.7% 46.0% 12.3%
Multiethnic 47.8% 43.0% 9.2%
Other 48.8% 39.9% 11.3%
Stanislaus County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 26.0% 49.6% 24.4%
Asian 37.7% 45.5% 16.9%
Caucasian/White 40.7% 45.8% 13.5%
Hispanic/Latino 31.5% 49.1% 19.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 32.9% 47.5% 19.6%
Pacific Islander 41.1% 44.5% 14.3%
Multiethnic 34.5% 46.9% 18.6%
Other 37.3% 43.0% 19.7%
Sutter County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 26.5% 46.6% 26.8%
Asian 38.3% 49.2% 12.5%
Caucasian/White 42.0% 44.9% 13.2%
Hispanic/Latino 33.7% 49.8% 16.5%
Native American/Alaska Native 36.8% 43.2% 20.0%
Pacific Islander 31.7% 52.6% 15.7%
Multiethnic 34.6% 50.3% 15.0%
Other 37.5% 48.4% 14.2%
Tehama County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian LNE LNE LNE
Caucasian/White 55.6% 35.6% 8.8%
Hispanic/Latino 47.8% 44.2% 8.1%
Native American/Alaska Native 47.3% 39.5% 13.1%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 49.4% 42.2% 8.5%
Other 44.9% 42.3% 12.9%
Trinity County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black N/A N/A N/A
Asian N/A N/A N/A
Caucasian/White N/A N/A N/A
Hispanic/Latino N/A N/A N/A
Native American/Alaska Native N/A N/A N/A
Pacific Islander N/A N/A N/A
Multiethnic N/A N/A N/A
Other N/A N/A N/A
Tulare County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 29.9% 47.0% 23.1%
Asian 40.6% 45.2% 14.2%
Caucasian/White 45.3% 41.0% 13.7%
Hispanic/Latino 36.5% 47.1% 16.3%
Native American/Alaska Native 37.1% 46.1% 16.9%
Pacific Islander 45.6% 38.6% 15.8%
Multiethnic 40.3% 42.0% 17.7%
Other 42.3% 41.1% 16.6%
Tuolumne County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian 57.2% 32.7% 10.1%
Caucasian/White 46.1% 40.7% 13.1%
Hispanic/Latino 48.8% 37.1% 14.1%
Native American/Alaska Native 50.9% 33.8% 15.3%
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 48.9% 37.7% 13.4%
Other 39.1% 44.9% 16.0%
Ventura County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 39.5% 43.9% 16.6%
Asian 51.3% 39.9% 8.8%
Caucasian/White 53.7% 37.8% 8.5%
Hispanic/Latino 43.8% 45.4% 10.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 46.8% 39.0% 14.2%
Pacific Islander 45.1% 41.2% 13.7%
Multiethnic 48.5% 41.5% 10.1%
Other 46.0% 43.0% 11.0%
Yolo County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black 23.8% 59.1% 17.0%
Asian 40.6% 47.6% 11.8%
Caucasian/White 42.9% 45.4% 11.7%
Hispanic/Latino 33.6% 51.6% 14.8%
Native American/Alaska Native 33.0% 39.3% 27.6%
Pacific Islander 21.5% 56.6% 21.9%
Multiethnic 37.1% 48.9% 14.0%
Other 32.5% 47.1% 20.4%
Yuba County Percent
Race/Ethnicity High Medium Low
African American/Black LNE LNE LNE
Asian 15.9% 73.5% 10.6%
Caucasian/White 49.8% 38.6% 11.6%
Hispanic/Latino 35.8% 51.5% 12.6%
Native American/Alaska Native LNE LNE LNE
Pacific Islander LNE LNE LNE
Multiethnic 40.2% 48.0% 11.7%
Other 39.7% 49.0% 11.3%

Definition: Percentage of public school students in grades 7, 9, and 11 reporting their level of connectedness to school, by race/ethnicity. School connectedness includes being treated fairly, feeling close to people, feeling happy, feeling part of, and feeling safe at school.

Data Source: California Department of Education, California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd). http://www.wested.org/chks

Footnote: N/A indicates that the survey was not administered in that period. LNE indicates that for a specific answer there were fewer than 20 respondents. The level of connectedness to school is based on a scale created from student responses to five survey questions. See http://chks.wested.org/using_results/resilience for more detail. Exercise caution in making comparisons across districts, because elementary and high school districts may not include all grade levels.

Learn More About this Topic

Measures of School Connectedness on Kidsdata.org

On kidsdata.org, indicators of school connectedness come from the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) through a partnership with WestEd, which developed and administers the CHKS, and the California Department of Education and include student reports of:

  • Caring adults at school
  • High expectations by teachers and other adults
  • Opportunities for meaningful participation at school
  • Total school assets (a summary measure that captures caring relationships, high expectations, and meaningful participation at school)
  • School connectedness (another summary measure, comparable to a national survey, that includes student reports of being treated fairly, feeling close to people, feeling happy, feeling a part of, and feeling safe at school)

Why This Topic Is Important

School environments can play a critical role in fostering resilience – the ability to thrive in spite of adversity – among children and youth. (1) Resilience is associated with healthy development and the avoidance of risky behavior, such as abuse of alcohol and other drugs, early sexual activity, and suicidal thoughts/actions. Research has identified three key factors that promote resilience in young people, thereby protecting them from risk and helping them succeed; all of these factors can be cultivated in school environments:

  • Caring relationships with adults: Supportive connections to others who model and support healthy development and well being
  • High expectations by adults: Consistent communication of direct and indirect messages that youth can and will succeed
  • Opportunities for participation and contribution: Involvement of youth in relevant, engaging, and interesting activities with opportunities to contribute

Research also has shown that students' feelings toward school are related to academic performance, violent or disruptive behavior, substance use, and emotional problems. Students who say they feel connected to school (such as believing that adults at school care about them) are less likely to exhibit problems in these social and behavioral areas.

Sources for narrative:

1. WestEd. (2008). "California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) Survey Content Guidebook for Module A."
  http://www.wested.org/cs/chks/print/docs/chks_reportnarratives.html

2. "Wingspread Declaration: A National Strategy for Improving School Connectedness." (2004). Journal of School Health, 74(7), 229-299. http://www.jhsph.edu/wingspread/Septemberissue.pdf

Policy Implications

Students’ sense of connectedness to school largely depends on the level and nature of adult support, peer groups, and the school environment. At the school level, classroom management, discipline policies, school size, and providing youth with opportunities to participate in and contribute to activities during and after school all can affect the level of student connectedness. Education leaders can pursue policies that enhance school connectedness, thus increasing a key protective factor correlated with better school outcomes and less risky behavior. (1)

According to research and subject experts, policy options that could improve school connectedness include:

  • Creating learning environments that allow for better connections between students and caring adults, which can include creating smaller learning environments (1, 2, 3)
  • Developing fair and consistent school discipline policies that are equitably enforced (1, 2, 3)
  • Improving the classroom climate, such as facilitating student self-management (e.g., monitoring and regulating their own behavior) and decision-making, and valuing empathy and consistency among teachers (1, 2)
  • Creating clean and pleasant school physical environments that set student expectations for safety and positive relationships (1)
  • Creating opportunities for parents to participate actively and meaningfully in their children’s academics and their school, and creating trusting relationships between parents and school staff (1, 3)
  • Providing students with a range of skills necessary to be engaged in school, e.g. problem-solving, interpersonal, self-regulatory, and academic skills (2), and setting high expectations along with the support necessary to meet them (3)
  • Offering professional development and appropriate decision-making authority to teachers and school administrators so that they can be more supportive of students’ multi-faceted needs (1, 2)

For more policy ideas and information, see WestEd, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Department of Education’s database of Signature Practices of Distinguished Schools. Also see Policy Implications on kidsdata.org under Bullying/Harassment at School, Pupil Support Service Personnel, and Truancy, Suspensions & Expulsions.

Sources for this narrative:

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School Connectedness: Strategies for Increasing Protective Factors Among Youth. http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/adolescenthealth/pdf/connectedness.pdf
  2. McNeeley, et al. (2002). Promoting School Connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. (Journal of School Health). http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwche/Promoting%20School%20Connectedness%20Evidence%20from%20the%20Natl%20Longitudinal%20Study%20of%20Adolescent%20Health.pdf
  3. Journal of School Health. (2004). Wingspread Declaration on School Connections. http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rstudy/64

How Children Are Faring

California students in grades 7, 9, and 11 are more likely to report that teachers and other adults at school have high expectations of them (43-57% in 2006-08) than they are to say that those adults are caring (29-39%), or that opportunities for meaningful participation at school are available to them (12-16%). Levels of “total school assets” – a summary measure that includes student reports of caring adults, high expectations, and meaningful participation – consistently are highest for 7th-grade girls (37% reported high levels of total school assets in 2006-08) and lowest for non-traditional male students (22%). Non-traditional students are those enrolled in Community Day Schools or Continuation Education.

School connectedness, which includes student reports of being treated fairly, feeling close to people, feeling happy, feeling a part of, and feeling safe at school, varies by race/ethnicity. Caucasian/White and Asian American students consistently are most likely to report high levels of connectedness (49% and 45%, respectively, in 2006-08), while African American/Black students are least likely to report high levels (32%). However, from 2003-05 to 2006-08, the percentage of students reporting high levels of school connectedness increased for all racial/ethnic groups, as well as for all grade levels and for both boys and girls.

Research and Links

Websites with Related Information

Key Reports

County/Regional Reports