Standard errors for tract-level school enrollment ratios from ACS tables

My organization often needs to estimate the net school enrollment ratio of children and youth ages 3-24 (inclusive) for various levels of geography including census tracts. For larger geographies, we estimate this directly from the PUMS and calculate standard errors using replicate weights. For tracts though we’re stuck with what we can get from Table B14003 SEX BY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY TYPE OF SCHOOL BY AGE FOR THE POPULATION 3 YEARS AND OVER. Obtaining the numerator, the total number of students enrolled in public or private school between the ages of 3 and 24, requires summing 24 individual estimates in the table, which breaks enrollment down by age, gender, and control of school. I’ve used the methods outlined by Census in their “Accuracy of the Data” documents to obtain the approximated SE for this sum but I have serious doubts that these approximations tell us much of anything given that so many individual MoE estimates have to be aggregated. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way to calculate or even indirectly estimate the SE for school enrollment of this age range at the census tract level? Thank you!
Parents
  • This once again illustrates the fact that the detailed tables need a thorough review. I "screamed" loud and clear about this problem regarding labor force participation and unemployment rate calculation, until, at long last, a table was added with a simple tabulation (I think it's B40). Clearly similar lobbying is needed for B14003.

    The basic problem comes, originally, from the fact that the detailed tables were designed by the subject matter experts in the Bureau, who did (and still do) not understand the needs of small area data users. They use 3 and 4 way crosstabs at the national level. We're much more likely to need simple frequencies or two-way cross tabs.
Reply
  • This once again illustrates the fact that the detailed tables need a thorough review. I "screamed" loud and clear about this problem regarding labor force participation and unemployment rate calculation, until, at long last, a table was added with a simple tabulation (I think it's B40). Clearly similar lobbying is needed for B14003.

    The basic problem comes, originally, from the fact that the detailed tables were designed by the subject matter experts in the Bureau, who did (and still do) not understand the needs of small area data users. They use 3 and 4 way crosstabs at the national level. We're much more likely to need simple frequencies or two-way cross tabs.
Children
No Data