CHAPTER 8
Psychological Well-Being and Educational Achievement Among Immigrant Youth1
Grace Kao
Since enactment of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the United States has witnessed a large influx of immigrants who a e diverse in their ethnic and social backgrounds. The 1965 act eliminated severe restrictions on Asia and Africa by placing identical numerical limits on migrants from all countries, including those of the Western Hemisphere. Unlike earlier waves of immigrants who were predominantly European, most post-1965 immigrants to the United States have come from Asia and Latin America.
The new immigrants have generated much research about their experiences, but most of the studies have focused on the socioeconomic attainment of adult migrants. As a result, researchers know little about the social-psychological costs to those who migrate. In addition, research on adult migrants is more comprehensive than that on children. Children of adult migrants may suffer more than their native peers in managing two conflicting worlds—their parents and their peers. Moreover, the increased diversity in metropolitan-area schools is largely driven by the growing numbers of Hispanic and Asian children. For instance, the Population Reference Bureau (1989) has estimated that over
half of all students from 49 of the 100 largest school districts are black, Hispanic, or Asian.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on immigrant and ethnic differences in social-psychological well-being and educational achievement of adolescent youth. The focus is on the following questions: How do immigrant (first-generation) children and native-born children of immigrants (second-generation children) differ from native-born (third-generation and beyond) whites of native-born parents in their psychological well-being? Second, to what extent can generational differences in psychological well-being be attributed to difficulty with English, prior educational experiences, and enrollment in specialized programs? Third, how are generational differences in psychological well-being associated with educational performance?
This chapter is organized as follows. First, I review previous research that implies three social-psychological dimensions on which immigrant children may differ from native-born children. I then review racial, ethnic, and generational patterns of educational achievement and explore why there is an apparent anomaly as immigrant children may have lower self-perceptions yet still manage to do well in school, despite the well-documented link between mental health and educational performance among adolescents (Covington, 1984; March, 1986; Rosenberg, 1989; Rosenberg et al., 1989). Then I describe the data, from the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988, used for the analyses. Next, descriptive and empirical analyses are explained, focusing on the relationship between immigrant status and psychological well-being, as well as the link between psychological well-being and educational performance.
Psychological Stress Of Immigration On Adults And Children
While historic and ethnographic research on the adaptation processes of immigrant adults clearly documents the immense stress and burden on self-esteem that accompanies settlement in a foreign locale, it is less clear whether children suffer compa-
rable stress. Anecdotal evidence suggests that children may adapt to American society more quickly, since they learn English faster than their adult counterparts. In addition, children may be less committed to or knowledgeable about cultural practices of their parents' country of origin; therefore, their acculturation process may be less strained.
Immigrant children and children of immigrants may, however, experience additional sources of anxiety. Children of immigrant parents must maneuver through the world of their parents and that of mainstream America. Moreover, norms of parent-child relationships in middle-class America may be at odds with norms of parental authority in the country of origin (Dornbusch et al., 1987). Increased reliance on children further threatens traditional parental authority when children serve as translators, since they may be the only members of their families who speak and write English well enough to communicate with others. They are more likely than children of native-born parents to assume adult-like roles at an early age, since they become their family's only means of communicating with English-speaking society. While these experiences may extend a sense of empowerment to children in immigrant families, more likely such children may be embarrassed by their parents' inability to function in an English-speaking adult world. Moreover, they may resent their parents for subjecting them to adult responsibilities in contrast to the American notion of a childhood free of such chores.
Psychological Well-Being Of Immigrant Youth
Because immigrant minority youth experience greater psychological strains in their adaptation process than native-born whites, I explore the aspects of psychological well-being that are most likely to differentiate immigrant adolescents from their native-born counterparts. Since the migration experience has been documented to produce significant psychological distress, ''even among the best prepared and most motivated and even under the most receptive of circumstances" (Portes and Rumbaut, 1990:144), it is worthwhile to examine how immigrant youth and native-born youth of immigrant parents differ in psychological well-being from native-born youth of native-born parents.
First, youth from immigrant families may feel greater alienation among their school peers (Padilla and Durán, 1995). The extent to which recent arrivals to the United States are isolated at school can be devastating, since they are not only visibly foreign to native white youth but also to their native-born ethnic counterparts. Feelings of alienation among immigrant adolescents stem not only from visual cues such as dress but also their lack of fluency in English. In fact, recent immigrants are sometimes referred to as being "fresh off the boat" by their ethnic counterparts. Native-born ethnics may be extremely motivated to differentiate themselves (who only look nonwhite) from same ethnics (who not only look nonwhite but have "foreign" customs and beliefs) in order to make themselves seem more American. Because minority immigrant youth face additional difficulties stemming from their minority and ''foreigner" status, one might expect them to report higher rates of alienation from school peers.
Moreover, they may suffer in terms of their self-esteem and feelings of self-efficacy (Padilla and Durán, 1995). Immigrant youth may have diminished feelings of self-efficacy because adapting to life in the United States can promote feelings of helplessness (Portes and Rumbaut, 1990). Refugee groups such as the Indochinese or Cubans as well as more recent arrivals may be especially vulnerable to feelings of low self-efficacy since they are more likely to attribute their circumstances to influences beyond their control. Self-efficacy is an especially vital dimension of adolescent well-being because it signals the extent to which teenagers believe they can influence their future outcomes. Youth who believe they have much control over the direction of their lives are more likely to take responsibility for their actions and are more motivated to work toward their ambitions (Bandura, 1993, 1995). Therefore, self-efficacy fosters motivation, thus promoting engagement in learning activities that lead to increased proficiency in educational skills (Bandura, 1995; Zimmerman, 1995). Hence, self-efficacy is associated with elevated aspirations and achievement.
Immigrant and minority youth may also be prone to low self-esteem as they come to terms with issues of self-identification (Rumbaut, 1994). Some researchers have argued that because immigrant adolescents are more likely to encounter stressful
events, they may be at greater risk of low self-esteem (Padilla and Durán, 1995). For instance, Padilla and Duran concluded from their study of immigrant youth that "immigrant students have very low self-images in general and low appraisals of their intellectual, physical, or social attributes" (Padilla and Durán, 1995:139). However, while Padilla and Durán documented the source of stress in the lives of immigrant Mexican students, they did not provide comparable data for native-born whites. Thus, it is unclear whether immigrant youth suffer in their overall mental health relative to white native-born youth.
Ethnic And Immigrant Patterns In Educational Achievement
Researchers agree that there is a positive relationship between self-esteem and grades (and self-efficacy and grades), although the causal order between psychological well-being and grade performance is unclear (Rosenberg et al., 1995). For instance, Covington (1984) argues that the lower academic performance of some minority youth stems from their lower self-esteem. Thus, in order to improve their academic performance, school intervention programs must focus on raising the self-esteem of minority students. Other researchers (Rosenberg et al., 1989) argue that grades have a stronger effect on self-esteem than self-esteem has on grades. They posit that, while there is some reciprocal influence between performance and self-esteem, the primary causal mechanism is that performance leads to changes in self-esteem. Since I am primarily concerned with how the relationship between these characteristics may differ for immigrant youth and because the data I use are cross-sectional, I cannot evaluate the debate regarding the correct causal order between grades and psychological well-being.
Despite myriad reasons to be concerned with the psychological well-being of immigrant children and the well-known association between social-psychological status and educational achievement, recent studies suggest that immigrant youth and native-born youth of immigrant parents perform well in school (Rumbaut, 1990; Caplan et al., 1991; Kao and Tienda, 1995). Since positive self-perceptions are associated with higher scholastic achievement, one may expect immigrant children to earn lower
grades than their native-born counterparts (Covington, 1984). However, immigrant children, on average, earn similar or higher grades than their same-race third-generation counterparts (Kao and Tienda, 1995). Despite the additional stresses experienced by immigrant children, they manage to excel at school. In fact, much of the literature on Asian American youth focuses on their educational successes (Sue and Okazaki, 1990; Kao, 1995). Many recent studies of the schooling experiences of immigrant children comment on the propensity of teachers to prefer recent immigrants to their more "Americanized" counterparts because they are often more responsive to the authority of teachers (Rumbaut, 1995). However, there is no concrete evidence that teachers favor immigrant youth in their evaluation of students' schoolwork.
DATA AND DEFINITION OF VARIABLES
To explore our research questions, I used the 1988 NELS. This national survey utilized a two-stage probability sampling design that first selected a nationally representative sample of 1,052 schools, from which 24,599 eighth graders were surveyed. The study then followed them at two-year intervals through 1994, when most of the sample members were about 20 years old. It is unique not only because it began before the transition to high school, thus capturing a psychologically tumultuous period, but also because it oversampled Hispanics and Asians. In addition, NELS also surveyed school administrators, parents, and teachers (National Center for Education Statistics, 1990). Because NELS oversampled Hispanics and Asians and because it interviewed parents and students, immigrant differences in psychological well-being and educational achievement can be examined. Because the base-year survey included more recent immigrants and larger samples of minority students, for these analyses I relied solely on the 1988 base-year survey.
DESCRIPTIVE TABULATIONS
Overall, immigrant Asian, Hispanic, and black youth tend to have lower psychological well-being scores. Figure 8-1 presents race and generational differences in locus of control or feelings of
self-efficacy in graphic form. (These are the same numbers that appear in Table 8-1 under "Locus of control"). Locus of control was constructed by NCES from a battery of six questions. The average scores of all nonmissing items were taken and then standardized such that the mean score is zero and the standard deviation is one. Simply put, the higher the score, the more a youth feels in control of his or her life (for more detailed information about how these variables were constructed, see Table 8-2). The floor or baseline of this graph (as well as subsequent figures) is set at the level of white native-born youth of native-born parents. This group (white native-born youth of native-born parents) is the logical comparison group because they are the majority both in terms of race and immigrant status. The colors of the bar correspond with their immigrant status, such that light gray columns correspond to immigrant youth, dark gray bars represent native-born youth with one immigrant parent, and white columns depict native-born youth with native-born parents. Immigrant youth who are Asian, Hispanic, or black all suffer from a de-
pressed sense of control over their lives. In addition, Hispanic youth of any generational status feel less self-efficacy than native-born whites with native-born parents. The graph clearly shows the influence of minority status on self-efficacy for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; in addition, immigrant minority youth clearly suffer in their feelings of control over their lives compared to native-born whites with native-born parents. The patterns in this figure are consistent with findings on adult immigrants; immigrant status coupled with minority status negatively influences feelings of self-efficacy.
I also examined racial and generational differences in self-concept (or self-esteem). Overall, I did not find a consistent pattern among the racial/generational groups in self-esteem, except that black youth tend to have extremely positive self-conceptions.2 Numerous researchers have found this apparent anomaly and explain it by stressing the importance of family and friends in determining the self-esteem of black youth and the relative lack of influence of others' views of them. For instance, Hughes and Demo (1989) argue that blacks' belief that racial discrimination limits their socioeconomic opportunities becomes reflected in their relatively low self-efficacy but not their self-esteem. Self-esteem is determined primarily by significant others such as friends and family rather than the society (or school) at large, while self-efficacy has more to do with feelings of control over one's life chances.
Next, I examined the extent to which immigrant minority youth feel alienated from their school peers (see Figure 8-2). To do this, I constructed a measure of alienation or "being unpopular," using an item that asked students to evaluate whether their peers see them as "very popular," "somewhat popular," or "not at all popular." Those who answered ''not at all popular" received a score of one for being unpopular and zero otherwise. Thus, groups with higher scores feel more alienated or think that they do not fit in with their school peers. To a great extent this mea-
2 |
Due to space limitations, I have not included these patterns in graphic form; see Table 8-1 for tabulations. |
TABLE 8-1 Descriptive Characteristics of Eighth-and Tenth-Grade Youth by Race and Generational Status
|
Asians |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.117*** |
0.062 |
-0.063** |
|
(0.605) |
(0.583) |
(0.656) |
Self-concept |
-0.029 |
0. 080** |
-0.135* |
|
(0.643) |
(0.664) |
(0.622) |
Unpopular |
0.248*** |
0.186 |
0.184 |
|
(0.432) |
(0.389) |
(0.388) |
Middle school GPA |
3.323*** |
3.357*** |
2.905 |
|
(0.652) |
(0.679) |
(0.832) |
Math test scores |
54.626*** |
58.409*** |
51.850 |
|
(9.857) |
(9.986) |
(11.267) |
Reading test scores |
50.856*** |
56.034*** |
49.936** |
|
(9.616) |
(9.310) |
(10.108) |
Proportion female |
0.499 |
0.481 |
0.487 |
|
(0500) |
(0.500) |
(0.501) |
Parent's education |
14.651 |
16.199*** |
14.995* |
|
(2.705) |
(2.841) |
(2.409) |
Family income |
3.815*** |
6.415*** |
5.150 |
(in $10,000) |
(3.816) |
(4.967) |
(4.010) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.150*** |
0.126 *** |
0.021* |
|
(0.357) |
(0.333) |
(0.144) |
|
Hispanics |
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.202*** |
-0.105*** |
-0.102*** |
0.056 |
|
(0.628) |
(0.641) |
(0.648) |
(0.605) |
Self-concept |
-0.066 |
-0.058 |
-0.009 |
-0.016 |
|
(0.638) |
(0.668) |
(0.660) |
(0.662) |
Unpopular |
0.252*** |
0.231*** |
0.163 |
0.170 |
|
(0.435) |
(0.421) |
(0.370) |
(0.376) |
Middle school GPA |
2.759'** |
2.779*** |
2.757*** |
2.959 |
|
(0.738) |
(0.718) |
(0.735) |
0.751) |
Math test scores |
45.882*** |
46.676*** |
46.282*** |
52.547 |
|
(9.100) |
(8.758) |
(8.990) |
(9.837) |
Reading test scores |
45.065*** |
46.722*** |
47.399*** |
52.355 |
|
(9.187) |
(9.154) |
(9.322) |
(9.717) |
Proportion female |
0.504 |
0.536* |
0.511 |
0.498 |
|
(0.501) |
(0.499) |
(0.500) |
(0.500) |
Parent's education |
12.049*** |
12.595*** |
13.280*** |
14.546 |
|
(2.630) |
(2.623) |
(2.166) |
(2.433) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
2.240*** |
2.779*** |
2.857*** |
4.648 |
|
(2.522) |
(2.890) |
(2.275) |
(3.900) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.238*** |
0.180*** |
0.101*** |
0.007 |
|
(0.426) |
(0.384) |
(0.301) |
(0.085) |
|
Asians |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Mostly non-English language |
0.530*** |
0.323*** |
0.058*** |
|
(0.500) |
(0.468) |
(0.234) |
Mostly English |
0.216*** |
0.420*** |
0.105*** |
|
(0.412) |
(0.494) |
(0.307) |
English only |
0.104*** |
0.131*** |
0.817*** |
|
(0.306) |
0.338) |
(0.388) |
Ever repeated a grade |
0.126 |
0.049*** |
0.132 |
|
(0.332) |
(0.217) |
(0.340) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.108*** |
0.043*** |
0.021 |
|
(0.311) |
(0.203) |
(0.144) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.109*** |
0.033 |
0.079** |
|
(0.312) |
(0.180) |
(0.270) |
Currently enrolled in gifted classes |
0.322*** |
0.377*** |
0.302*** |
|
(0.468) |
(0.485) |
(0.460) |
N |
659 |
440 |
187 |
|
Hispanics |
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Mostly non-English language |
0.604*** |
0.475*** |
0.208*** |
0.006 |
|
(0.490) |
(0.500) |
(0.406) |
(0.077) |
Mostly English |
0.087*** |
0.242*** |
0.344*** |
0.039 |
|
(0.283) |
(0.428) |
(0.475) |
(0.194) |
English only |
0.071*** |
0.103*** |
0.347*** |
0.948 |
|
(0.257) |
(0.305) |
(0.476) |
(0.223) |
Ever repeated a grade |
0.248*** |
0.209*** |
0.215*** |
0.148 |
|
(0.433) |
(0.407) |
(0.411) |
(0.355) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.074*** |
0.042*** |
0.028*** |
0.012 |
|
(0.262) |
(0.201) |
(0.165) |
(0.108) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.130*** |
0.062*** |
0.062*** |
0.034 |
|
(0.337) |
(0.242) |
(0.241) |
(0.182) |
Currently enrolled in gifted classes |
0.178 |
0.172 |
0.178 |
0.187 |
|
(0.383) |
(0.377) |
(0.383) |
(0.390) |
N |
360 |
880 |
1,259 |
13,952 |
|
Blacks |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.128** |
0.030 |
-0.075*** |
|
(0.657) |
(0.613) |
(0.622) |
Self-concept |
0.058 |
0.211*** |
0.190*** |
|
(0.682) |
(0.654) |
(0.606) |
Unpopular |
0.256* |
0.183 |
0.128*** |
|
(0.439) |
(0.388) |
(0.334) |
Middle school GPA |
2.990 |
2.852 |
2.723*** |
|
(0.699) |
(0.710) |
(0.692) |
Math test scores |
47.902*** |
46.623*** |
44.122*** |
|
(9.201) |
(9.948) |
(8.333) |
Reading test scores |
48.185*** |
48.441*** |
45.027*** |
|
(10.541 ) |
(10.284) |
(9.005) |
Proportion female |
0.471 |
0.516 |
0.512 |
|
(0.502) |
(0.502) |
(0.500) |
Parent's education |
14.116 |
14.678 |
13.351*** |
|
(2.681) |
(2.537) |
(2.113) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
2.838*** |
3.627** |
2.303*** |
|
(2.725) |
(3.259) |
(2.246) |
|
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
0.115 |
0.072 |
0.056 |
|
(0.594) |
(0.605) |
(0.605) |
Self-concept |
0.043 |
0.044* |
-0.016 |
|
(0.686) |
(0.674) |
(0.662) |
Unpopular |
0.218 |
0.144 |
0.170 |
|
(0.414) |
(0.352) |
(0.376) |
Middle school GPA |
3.138** |
3.061*** |
2.959 |
|
(0.721) |
(0.712) |
(0.751) |
Math test scores |
55.119*** |
53.973*** |
52.547 |
|
(10.338) |
(9.976) |
(9.837) |
Reading test scores |
54.133* |
53.500** |
52.355 |
|
(9.712) |
(9.522) |
(9.717) |
Proportion female |
0.497 |
0.501 |
0.498 |
|
(0.501) |
(0.500) |
(0.500) |
Parent's education |
15.803*** |
15.052*** |
14.546 |
|
(2.891) |
(2.632) |
(2.433) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
5.764*** |
5.743*** |
4.648 |
|
(4.948) |
(4.531) |
(3.900) |
|
Blacks |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.046*** |
0.082*** |
0.009 |
|
(0.211) |
(0.275) |
(0.092) |
Mostly non-English language |
0.161*** |
0.082*** |
0.008 |
|
(0.370) |
(0.275) |
(0.090) |
Mostly English |
0.126*** |
0.139*** |
0.029* |
|
(0.334) |
(0.348) |
(0.167) |
English only |
0.667*** |
0.697*** |
0.955 |
|
(0.474) |
(0.462) |
(0.209) |
Ever repeated a grade |
0.205 |
0.185 |
0.252*** |
|
(0.406) |
(0.390) |
(0.434) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.084*** |
0.033* |
0.028*** |
|
(0.280) |
(0.179) |
(0.165) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.065 |
0.047 |
0.089*** |
|
(0.248) |
(0.213) |
(0.285) |
Currently enrolled in gifted classes |
0.205 |
0.216 |
0.225*** |
|
(0.406) |
(0.414) |
(0.418) |
N |
87 |
122 |
2,292 |
***p < .001;**p < .01;*p < .05. SOURCE: National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988. |
|
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.083*** |
0.058*** |
0.007 |
|
(0.276) |
(0.235) |
(0.085) |
Mostly non-English language |
0.249*** |
0.109*** |
0.006 |
|
(0.433) |
(0.312) |
(0.077) |
Mostly English |
0.223*** |
0.270*** |
0.039 |
|
(0.417) |
(0.444) |
(0.194) |
English only |
0.446*** |
0.563*** |
0.948 |
|
(0.498) |
(0.496) |
(0.223) |
Ever repeated a grade |
0.144 |
0.129 |
0.148 |
|
(0.352) |
(0.335) |
(0.355) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.073*** |
0.031*** |
0.012 |
|
(0.261) |
(0.174) |
(0.108) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.050 |
0.029 |
0.034 |
|
(0.219) |
(0.167) |
(0.182) |
Currently enrolled in gifted classes |
0.262** |
0.202 |
0.187 |
|
(0.441) |
(0.401) |
(0.390) |
N |
192 |
769 |
13,952 |
TABLE 8-2 Definition of Variables
Psychological Well-Being |
1. Locus of control is the composite of the items listed below. BYS44K is a reverse scoring item, so the values were reversed before performing computations. Each of these six items was standardized separately to a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. All nonmissing components were averaged. |
BYS44B I don't have enough control over the direction of my life. |
BYS44C In my life, good luck is more important than hard work. |
BYS44F When I try to get ahead, somebody or something stops me. |
BYS44G My plans hardly ever work out; planning makes me unhappy. |
BYS44K I am almost certain I can make my plans works. |
BYS44M Chance and luck are very important in my life. |
2. Self-concept is the composite of the items listed below. BYS44A, BYS44D, BYS44E, and BYS44H are reverse scoring items, so the values were reversed before performing computations. Each of the above seven items was standardized separately to a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. All nonmissing items were averaged. |
BYS44A I feel good about myself. |
BYS44D I feel I am a person of worth, the equal of other people. |
BYS44E I am able to do things as well as most other people. |
BYS44H On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. |
BYS44I I feel useless at times. |
BYS44J At times I think I am no good at all |
BYS44L I feel I do not have much to be proud of. |
3. Unpopular (alienation) (= 1 when BYS56A = 3). |
Exact wording: |
BYS56A "How do you think other students in your classes see you? As popular? Answer categories: I = Very, 2 = Somewhat, 3 = Not at all." |
School Achievement Outcomes |
1. GPA is an average of the self-reports for grades in the four subject areas (English, mathematics, science, social studies). It was computed by converting the response categories to a five-point scale (mostly A's = 4, B's = 3, C's = 2, D's = 1, mostly below D = .5) and taking the mean of all nonmissing values of these four variables equally weighted. The mean was rounded to one decimal place. The range for BYGRADS is 0.5 to 4.0. |
Exact wording: BYS81 "For each of the school subjects listed below, mark the statement that best describes your grades from sixth grade up till now." |
(answer categories: "Mostly A's (a numerical average of 90 to 100); mostly B's (80 to 89); |
mostly C's (70 to 79); mostly D's (60 to 69); mostly below D (below 60); does not-apply to me—my classes are not graded.)'' |
2. Math Standardized Test Score |
"Mathematics (40 questions, 30 minutes). Test items included word problems, graphs, equations, quantitative comparisons, and geometric figures. Some questions could be answered by simple application of skills or knowledge; others required the student to demonstrate a more advanced level of comprehension and/or problem solving." |
3. Reading Standardized Test Score |
"Reading Comprehension (21 questions, 21 minutes). This subtest contained five short reading passages, with three to six questions about the content of each. Questions encompassed understanding the meaning of words in context, identifying figures of speech, interpreting the author's perspective, and evaluating the passage as a whole." |
Family Background Characteristics |
1. Family Income: Exact wording BYP80: "What was your total family income from all sources in 1987? (If you are not sure about the amount, please estimate.)" |
1 = none; 2 = less than $1,000; 3 = $1,000-$2,999; 4 = $3,000-$4,999; 5 = $5,000-$7,999; 6 = $7,500-$9,999; 7 = $10,000-$14,999; 8 = $15,000-$19,999; 9 = $20,000-$24,999; 10 = $25,000-$34,999; 11 = $35,000-$49,999; 12 = $50,000-$74,999; 13 = $75,000-$99,999; 14 = $100,000-$199,999; 15 = $200,000 or more |
All categories recoded to midpoint value to ease interpretation of t-test results. |
2. Parent's Education |
Parent's education characterizes the level of education attained by either of the parents of the student. It was constructed by NCES using parent questionnaire data (BYP30 and BYP31). Student data (BYS34A and BYS34B) were used whenever parent data were either missing or not available. |
School Experiences |
1. Ever Repeated (BYS74). Exact wording: "Were you ever held back (made to repeat) a grade in school? (Yes or No)." |
2. Ever Skipped (BYP41). Exact wording: "Was your eighth grader ever skipped a grade in school? (Yes or No)." |
Home Language Use |
• Non-English only • Non-English dominant • English dominant • English only |
Variable constructed by NCES. Taken from student questionnaire; when student item was missing, parent questionnaire information was used. |
Program Participation |
1. Bilingual Education |
2. Gifted Classes |
Exact wording BYS68: "Are you enrolled in any of the following special programs/services? (A) Classes for gifted or talented students. (B) Special instruction for those whose first language is not English—for example, bilingual education or English as a second language (not regular English classes)." |
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (1990). |
sure captures the relative comfort level of students at school. Again, immigrant youth of all racial and ethnic backgrounds feel more alienated from their school peers than native-born whites of native-born parents. These patterns are consistent with the difficulty of adaptation and acceptance of immigrant youth. They may be ostracized from both nonimmigrant white and minority children for being different. In contrast, native-born minority youth of native-born parents are relatively well integrated in school compared to their immigrant counterparts. Native-born African Americans of native-born parents are most likely to feel accepted by their relevant school peers.
The relationship between psychological well-being and academic performance among youth is well established; hence, since minority immigrant youth are susceptible to low self-efficacy and feelings of alienation, one might expect their precarious psychological well-being to negatively influence their academic achievement (Rosenberg et al., 1989, 1995). In fact, Figure 8-3 clearly shows that immigrant youth tend to earn higher grades than their
native-born counterparts. This pattern of immigrants' success in school is not consistent among Hispanics because this figure does not take into account differences in socioeconomic status. Subsequent figures present estimates of the influence of race and generational status after taking into account variations in socioeconomic background.
Table 8-1 presents descriptive tabulations of major psychological well-being and academic achievement outcome measures as well as background characteristics of each racial/generation group. The asterisks indicate the significance levels of t-test re-suits comparing each racial/generation group to native-born white youth with U.S.-born parents.
As the graphs indicated, immigrant minority youth especially suffer from low feelings of self-efficacy (or locus of control) and are more likely to feel "unpopular" or alienated at school. However, they do not differ from native white youth in self-esteem. Native-born Asian and Hispanic youth with immigrant parents also are more prone to feelings of alienation from their peers. Hispanic youth have the worst feelings about themselves, with little difference between foreign-born and native-born youth of foreign-born parents; however, their poor well-being scores may stem from the low socioeconomic status of their families. The upcoming empirical analyses will allow us to differentiate the influence of immigrant status and ethnicity from that of social class.
Generational differences in academic outcomes are substantial among Asian youth. Asians with immigrant parents (regardless of whether they are immigrant or native-born) tend to have higher grades and perform better on standardized math and reading tests. Native-born Asians with immigrant parents have especially high achievement test scores since they benefit from having English-language skills compared to their foreign-born counterparts. Part of the striking difference by generational status among Asians may be due to ethnic differences in the composition of immigrant youth, native-born youth of foreign-born parents, and native-born youth of native-born parents. Native-born Asians of native-born parents have greater shares of Filipinos and Pacific Islanders, who tend to have lower achievement outcomes, while first-and second-generation youth include greater numbers of Chinese, Southeast Asians, and South Asians, all of whom have
higher performance measures. Because of the small sample sizes that result after dividing the Asian sample by ethnicity and generational status, I can only examine how generational status influences outcomes for the two largest Asian ethnic groups: Chinese and Filipinos. I also examine Mexicans and other Hispanics in subsequent tabulations. In addition, severely LEP (limited English proficient) students were inadvertently excluded from the sampling frame of the base-year survey of NELS since their lack of English skills makes it difficult for them to fill out a questionnaire. Hence, the negative influence of having no or little English-language skills is underestimated in all of the models.
In contrast, for Hispanic youth, generational status seems to have little effect on academic performance. However, note that Hispanic immigrants tend to be less educated and have lower incomes than their native-born counterparts. Hence, one would expect Hispanic children of immigrants to have poorer educational outcomes. In fact, elsewhere we found that after controlling for parental socioeconomic status, Hispanic children of immigrant parents (both foreign-born and native-born youth) had slightly higher educational outcomes (Kao and Tienda, 1995). Similar to Asians, black youth with immigrant parents (both foreign-and native-born youth) tend to have better scholastic performance than blacks with native-born parents. Unlike Asians, however, immigrant blacks tend to perform at slightly higher levels than native-born blacks of immigrant parents. These patterns provide some evidence of Portes's (1995) segmented assimilation thesis, which argues that some minority groups assimilate downward since their native-born same-ethnic counterparts occupy somewhat lower status than immigrants. Specifically, because of the unique position of blacks in American society, and the tendency to identify blacks as members of the underclass, black immigrants are faced with prospects of assimilation that may down-grade their odds of socioeconomic mobility.
One reason that black immigrant youth tend to be more successful in school can be attributed to their parents' higher levels of education and family income compared to native-born parents of native-born blacks. Again, these descriptive tabulations support the notion of segmented assimilation, thus motivating immigrant black parents to emphasize their immigrant and ethnic iden-
tification as distinct from black Americans (Waters, 1994). A similar argument can be made for Hispanic immigrants (see Matute-Bianchi, 1986).
Note that native-born Asian youth with immigrant parents, on average, have at least one parent with a college degree (mean = 16.202 years of school), which is the highest of any racial/immigrant group. They also have a mean family income of more than $60,000, compared to $46,000 for white native youth. This is in stark contrast to their immigrant counterparts, whose parents have, on average, more than a high school education (mean = 14.639 years of school) and whose family income is in the mid-$30,000 range. In contrast to the vast generational differences between Asian families, there is little generational differentiation in the material resources available to Hispanic households. The typical Hispanic youth has at least one parent with only a high school education (mean ranges from 12.197 to 13.370 years of school) and family incomes in the $20,000 range. Again, while Hispanic families who have lived in the United States longer tend to have more education and income, differences between the generations are modest.
Hispanic families are also distinct in their extensive use of Spanish at home. About 83 percent of immigrant Hispanic youth use their native language primarily or exclusively at home, while the comparable figure for immigrant Asians is 68 percent. Among native-born youth of foreign-born parents, 58 percent still use Spanish primarily at home, while the figure is about 43 percent for native-born Asians with immigrant parents. Almost 82 percent of Asian native-born youth of native-born parents speak only English at home, while only 39 percent of their Hispanic counterparts do so. Hispanic immigrant youth are more likely than their white or Asian native-born peers to be enrolled in a bilingual program. These patterns suggest that Hispanic families are more likely to retain their native language than are their Asian counterparts, which may make it more difficult for their children to gain acceptance from non-Hispanic peers at school. Moreover, participation in bilingual programs can physically isolate participants from the rest of the student body. Again, recall that these figures somewhat underestimate the numbers of families who do not speak English at home since severely LEP youth were excluded
from the base-year sample of the NELS. However, since severely LEP youth were excluded on an individual basis, there is no reason to suspect that their exclusion disproportionately affects certain racial and ethnic groups.
Previous school experiences of being held back or skipping a grade can have significant consequences on students' academic orientations (Pallas, 1989). Researchers have most often argued that grade retention does more harm than good because the experience can lower self-esteem, increase the odds of premature school withdrawal, and disrupt peer groups. An exception to the pervasive scholarly position on grade retention is a recent book on grade retention in primary school by Alexander et al. (1994). They found that grade retention improved children's test scores relative to their low-achieving peers who were not held back. Moreover, while low-achieving first graders had low self-esteem prior to being held back a grade, after retention their self-esteem rose, presumably because their grades and test scores were much better during their second time in first grade. However, their self-esteem was considerably lower than either the poor-performing nonretainees and other nonretainees by the time they reached eighth grade. In other words, the experience of repeating first grade had negative impacts on self-esteem seven years later.
With respect to previous and current educational experiences, native-born Asians of immigrant parents are less likely to have ever repeated a grade and Hispanic youth of all generational statuses are more likely to have ever repeated a class. In addition, only black native-born youth of native-born parents are more likely than whites to have ever repeated a class. While these descriptive tabulations show a distinct ethnic difference in patterns of grade retention, they do not clearly show generational differences in the likelihood of repeating a grade except among blacks.
In contrast, Asian youth of all generational statuses as well as black native-born youth of native-born parents are more likely to be currently enrolled in a gifted or honors class than their white counterparts. While Asians' higher participation in gifted classes is consistent with their higher test scores and grade point averages (GPAs), it is unclear why blacks, who have lower test scores and GPAs, are more likely to be enrolled in honors classes compared to whites.
Overall, I found immigrant minority youth to feel less in control of their lives and more alienated from school peers than whites of native-born parents. Immigrant youth also tend to have parents who earn less money and are less well educated than their minority counterparts of native-born parents. However, despite immigrant minorities' relatively disadvantaged backgrounds and additional difficulties in gaining acceptance by school peers, they do as well or better academically than their third-generation minority counterparts. Moreover, immigrant youth do not suffer from low self-esteem relative to native-born whites of native-born parents. These tabulations show immigrant youth to be relatively resilient in their academic performance despite feelings of limited control over their lives and their difficult social adaptation at school.
Table 8-3 presents tabulations that show how generational status influences the outcomes of Chinese, Filipino, and Mexican youth. These are the only ethnic groups that are large enough to divide into the three generational groups. For Chinese youth, immigrant status has a noticeable negative influence on locus of control and is associated with increased feelings of alienation. However, Chinese youth of immigrant parents (both native-born and immigrant youth) tend to have better academic outcomes than native-born youth of native-born parents who are same ethnics or whites. Filipinos do not suffer in terms of psychological well-being, although youth with immigrant parents perform well compared to their counterparts with native-born parents.
The psychological profiles of Mexican children are worse than that of Hispanics overall. Immigrant Mexican youth have extremely low self-efficacy and self-concept and are more likely to feel alienated at school. However, because immigrant Mexican children come from relatively low socioeconomic status (SES) family backgrounds, I cannot differentiate the influences of immigrant status from class in these tabulations. It is clear that, despite their lower family SES, immigrant Mexican children have remarkable school outcomes—their grades and test scores are comparable to native-born Mexicans (either with immigrant or native-born parents) who have more privileged family backgrounds.
EMPIRICAL ANALYSES
To disentangle the influences of immigrant status and ethnicity from SES on psychological well-being, Table 8-4 presents ordinary least squares and logistic regression estimates of the effects of race and generational status on psychological well-being indicators: locus of control, self-concept, and alienation (feeling "unpopular"). Model 1 of each outcome measure includes only race, generational status variables, and gender in order to quickly document descriptive variations in psychological well-being. Model 2 adds parents' SES, as measured by their education and family income. Since adults from low SES backgrounds are more likely to exhibit signs of low self-esteem and because immigrant groups differ dramatically in their material well-being and educational backgrounds, I want to differentiate the potential effects of the migration experience from SES on the outcome measures. Finally, model 3 under each outcome variable adds other dimensions of student life that may account for discrepant psychological well-being outcomes of immigrant and nonimmigrant youth. First, I include measures of home language use since lack of English being spoken at home, especially among children with immigrant parents, may signal parents' relative inability to communicate in English. Hence, these youth may be more susceptible to low self-efficacy and increased feelings of alienation at school.3 Previous school experiences, such as skipping or repeating a grade, may foster feelings of incompatibility with peers at school. Finally, enrollment in bilingual education programs may further isolate minority children from the rest of the school; hence, I expect enrollment in these programs to increase alienation among youth. On the other hand, enrollment in gifted classes should be associated with higher levels of self-esteem and achievement.
Some of the results of Table 8-4 are summarized in Figures 8-4 and 8-5. Figure 8-4 presents estimates of the influence of race and generational status on self-efficacy after controlling for variations
TABLE 8-3 Descriptive Characteristics of Eighth-Grade Youth, by Ethnicity and Generational Status
|
Chinese |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.241*** |
0.011 |
0.073 |
|
(0.591) |
(0.567) |
(0.757) |
Self-concept |
-0.115 |
-0.021 |
-0.058 |
|
(0.644) |
(0.709) |
(0.659) |
Unpopular |
0.349*** |
0.283** |
0.192 |
|
(0.479) |
(0.453) |
(0.402) |
Middle school GPA |
3.356*** |
3.447*** |
2.992 |
|
(0.654) |
(0.568) |
(0.957) |
Math test scores |
56.802*** |
61.363*** |
53.077 |
|
(9.350) |
(8.531) |
(13.564) |
Reading test scores |
49.480** |
58.204*** |
49.797 |
|
(10.166) |
(7.887) |
(10.538) |
Proportion female |
0.500 |
0.472 |
0.500 |
|
(0.502) |
(0.502) |
(0.510) |
Parent's education |
14.045* |
15,944*** |
14.923 |
|
(2.758) |
(3,252) |
(2.607) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
3.353*** |
6.160*** |
4.708 |
|
(3.490) |
(4.481) |
(4.247) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.201*** |
0.111*** |
0.038 |
|
(0.403) |
(0.316) |
(0.196) |
Mostly non-English language |
0.619*** |
0.454*** |
0.077*** |
|
(0.487) |
(0.500) |
(0.272) |
|
Filipinos |
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.156 |
0.011 |
-0.006 |
0.056 |
|
(0.631) |
(0.553) |
(0.806) |
(0.605) |
Self-concept |
-0.043 |
0.023 |
-0.330 |
-0.016 |
|
(0.578) |
(0.641) |
(0.561) |
(0.662) |
Unpopular |
0.207 |
0.198 |
0.312 |
0.170 |
|
(0.407) |
(0.400) |
(0.479) |
(0.376) |
Middle school GPA |
3.203** |
3.247*** |
3.013 |
2.959 |
|
(0.687) |
(0.689) |
(0.740) |
(0.751) |
Math test scores |
50.736 |
56.085*** |
53.651 |
52.547 |
|
(9.600) |
(9.888) |
(11.786) |
(9.837) |
Reading test scores |
49.181** |
54.587* |
55.297 |
52.355 |
|
(9.219) |
(9.239) |
(9.983) |
(9.717) |
Proportion female |
0.454 |
0.444 |
0.500 |
0.498 |
|
(0.500) |
(0.499) |
(0.516) |
(0.500) |
Parent's education |
15.426*** |
15.896*** |
13.875 |
14.546 |
|
(1.973) |
(2.214) |
(1.147) |
(2.433) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
3.912 |
5.558* |
3.797 |
4.648 |
|
(3.044) |
(4.165) |
(1.382) |
(3.900) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.139*** |
0.217*** |
0.000 |
0.007 |
|
(0.347) |
(0.414) |
(0.000) |
(0.085) |
Mostly non-English language |
0.518*** |
0.278*** |
0.062** |
0.006 |
|
(0.502) |
(0.450) |
(0.250) |
(0.077) |
|
Chinese |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Mostly English |
0.134*** |
0.333*** |
0.192*** |
|
(0.342) |
(0.474) |
(0.402) |
English only |
0.045*** |
0.102*** |
0.692*** |
|
(0.208) |
(0.304) |
(0.471) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
0.121 |
0.029** |
0.208 |
|
(0.327) |
(0.167) |
(0.415) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.143*** |
0.111*** |
0.077** |
|
(0.351) |
(0.316) |
(0.272) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.144*** |
0.037 |
0.043 |
|
(0.353) |
(0.191) |
(0.209) |
Currently en rolled in gifted classes |
0.317*** |
0.402*** |
0.400** |
|
(0.467) |
(0.493) |
(0.500) |
N |
134 |
107 |
25 |
|
Filipinos |
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Mostly English |
0.269*** |
0.417*** |
0.000 |
0.039 |
|
(0.445) |
(0.495) |
(0.000) |
(0.194) |
English only |
0.074*** |
0.087*** |
0.938 |
0.948 |
|
(0.263) |
(0.283) |
(0.250) |
(0.223) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
0.119 |
0.027*** |
0.200 |
0.148 |
|
(0.325) |
(0.164) |
(0.414) |
(0.355) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.131 *** |
0.009 |
0.000 |
0.012 |
|
(0.339) |
(0.093) |
(0.000) |
(0.108) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.091** |
0.009 |
0.000 |
0.034 |
|
(0.289) |
(0.096) |
(0.000) |
(0.182) |
Currently enrolled in gifted classes |
0.216 |
0.291** |
0.333 |
0.187 |
|
(0.413) |
(0.456) |
(0.488) |
(0.390) |
N |
108 |
114 |
16 |
13,952 |
|
Mexicans |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.282*** |
-0.151*** |
-0.113*** |
|
(0.619) |
(0.626) |
(0.633) |
Self-concept |
-0.148** |
-0.098** |
-0.025 |
|
(0.620) |
(0.649) |
(0.663) |
Unpopular |
0.288*** |
0.263*** |
0.140* |
|
(0.454) |
(0.441) |
(0.348) |
Middle school GPA |
2.707*** |
2.760*** |
2.743*** |
|
(0.734) |
(0.700) |
(0.743) |
Math test scores |
45.393*** |
45.639*** |
46.383*** |
|
(8.721) |
(7.891) |
(8.903) |
Reading test scores |
43.420*** |
45.772*** |
47.671*** |
|
(8.590) |
(8.575) |
(9.193) |
Proportion female |
0.500 |
0.545* |
0.521 |
|
(0.501) |
(0.498) |
(0.500) |
Parent's education |
11.200*** |
11.887*** |
13.066*** |
|
(2.071) |
(2.165) |
(1.997) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
1.796*** |
2.239*** |
2.773*** |
|
(1.869) |
(2.037) |
(2.103) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.251*** |
0.169*** |
0.112*** |
|
(0.435) |
(0.375) |
(0.315) |
Mostly non-English language |
0.612*** |
0.515*** |
0.191*** |
|
(0.488) |
(0.500) |
(0.393) |
|
Other Hispanics |
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Psychological Well-Being—Grade 8 |
|
|
|
|
Locus of control |
-0.086** |
-0.049* |
-0.068** |
0.056 |
|
(0.620) |
(0.684) |
(0.685) |
(0.605) |
Self-concept |
0.012 |
0.003 |
-0.025 |
-0.016 |
|
(0.656) |
(0.642) |
(0.683) |
(0.662) |
Unpopular |
0.219 |
0.166 |
0.206 |
0.170 |
|
(0.416) |
(0.373) |
(0.405) |
(0.376) |
Middle school GPA |
2.853 |
2.796** |
2.803** |
2.959 |
|
(0.746) |
(0.681) |
(0.747) |
(0.751) |
Math test scores |
46.970*** |
48.547*** |
46.674*** |
52.547 |
|
(10.121) |
(9.844) |
(9.103) |
(9.837) |
Reading test scores |
47.662*** |
48.484*** |
47.613*** |
52.355 |
|
(9.732) |
(9.591) |
(9.658) |
(9.717) |
Proportion female |
0.496 |
0.487 |
0.541 |
0.498 |
|
(0.502) |
(0.501) |
(0.499) |
(0.500) |
Parent's education |
13.512*** |
14.000** |
14.033** |
14.546 |
|
(2.968) |
(2.984) |
(2.400) |
(2.433) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
2.990*** |
3.783** |
3.290*** |
4.648 |
|
(3.324) |
(4.008) |
(2.446) |
(3.900) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
|
Non-English language only |
0.187*** |
0.218*** |
0.045*** |
0.007 |
|
(0.391) |
(0.414) |
(0.208) |
(0.085) |
Mostly non-English language |
0.610*** |
0.366*** |
0.082*** |
0.006** |
|
(0.490) |
(0.483) |
(0.275) |
(0.077) |
|
Mexicans |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parents |
Mostly English |
0.087*** |
0.227*** |
0.396*** |
|
(0.282) |
(0.419) |
(0.489) |
English only |
0.050*** |
0.089*** |
0.302*** |
|
(0.219) |
(0.285) |
(0.460) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
0.273*** |
0.214*** |
0.214*** |
|
(0.447) |
(0.410) |
(0.410) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.081*** |
0.042*** |
0.025** |
|
(0.274) |
(0.200) |
(0.157) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.141*** |
0.067*** |
0.047 |
|
(0.349) |
(0.250) |
(0.212) |
Currently Enrolled in gifted classes |
0.186 |
0.149* |
0.162 |
|
(0.390) |
(0.356) |
(0.369) |
N |
215 |
578 |
763 |
***p < .001; **p < 01 *p < .05. SOURCE: National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988. |
in SES background. These columns correspond exactly to the regression coefficients in model 2 under ''Locus of Control" in Table 8-4. Overall, minority immigrant youth are most susceptible to low self-efficacy. Moreover, native-born minority youth of native-born parents also have lower self-efficacy than their native-born counterparts with immigrant parents. This pattern indirectly suggests the changing nature of the minority experience in this country. As immigrants, minority youth must struggle with the acculturation process and learn to understand how things
|
Other Hispanics |
Whites |
||
|
Immigrant Generation |
Native-Born of Foreign-Born Parents |
Native-Born of Native-Born Parent |
Native-Born of Native-Born parents |
Mostly English |
0.106*** |
0.269*** |
0.238*** |
0.039 |
|
(0.309) |
(0.445) |
(0.427) |
(0.194) |
English only |
0.098*** |
0.147*** |
0.635*** |
0.948 |
|
(0.298) |
(0.355) |
(0.482) |
(0.223) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
0.184 |
0.180 |
0.212** |
0.148 |
|
(0.390) |
(0.386) |
(0.409) |
(0.355) |
Ever skipped a grade |
0.050*** |
0.052*** |
0.029* |
0.012 |
|
(0.219) |
(0.222) |
(0.169) |
(0.108) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
0.147*** |
0.062* |
0.069** |
0.034 |
|
(0.356) |
(0.242) |
(0.254) |
(0.182) |
Currently enrolled in gifted classes |
0.200 |
0.222 |
0.198 |
0.187 |
|
(0.402) |
(0.416) |
(0.400) |
(0.390) |
N |
121 |
195 |
242 |
13,952 |
work in the United States. Native-born youth of immigrant parents are more Americanized than their immigrant counterparts and suffer less in feelings of self-efficacy. However, native-born minority youth of native-born parents may become increasingly frustrated with their more limited path to upward mobility, as some researchers have argued in explaining the relatively low self-efficacy of blacks. Thus, it is likely that native-born children of immigrant parents have the highest sense of self-efficacy, while immigrant youth suffer primarily from their immigrant status and
TABLE 8-4 Effects of Race and Immigrant Status on Psychological Well-Being of Eighth Graders
|
Locus of Control |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
0.066*** |
-0.478*** |
-0.845*** |
|
(0.007) |
(0.028) |
(0.031) |
Asian immigrant |
-0.169*** |
-0.159*** |
-0.197*** |
|
(0.024) |
(0.025) |
(0.029) |
Asian native of foreign-born |
0.010 |
-0.063* |
-0.093** |
|
(0.030) |
(0.030) |
(0.032) |
Asian native of native-born |
-0.114* |
-0.135** |
-0.077 |
|
(0.045) |
(0.045) |
(0.046) |
Hispanic immigrant |
-0.253*** |
-0.132*** |
-0.019 |
|
(0.033) |
(0.033) |
(0.039) |
Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-0.155*** |
-0.066** |
-0.009 |
|
(0.021) |
(0.022) |
(0.026) |
Hispanic native of native-born |
-0.153*** |
-0.087*** |
-0.020 |
|
(0.018) |
(0.018) |
(0.021) |
Black immigrant |
-0.180** |
-0.100 |
-0.105 |
|
(0.066) |
(0.066) |
(0.068) |
Black native of foreign-born |
-0.021 |
-0.015 |
0.051 |
|
(0.056) |
(0.056) |
(0.058) |
Black native of native-born |
-0.126*** |
-0.062*** |
-0.010 |
|
(0.014) |
(0.014) |
(0.015) |
White immigrant |
0.063 |
-0.006 |
0.011 |
|
(0.045) |
(0.046) |
(0.046) |
White native of foreign-born |
0.021 |
-0.009 |
-0.012 |
|
(0.023) |
(0.023) |
(0.023) |
|
Self-Concept |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
0.100*** |
-0.259*** |
-0.603*** |
|
(0.007) |
(0.030) |
(0.034) |
Asian immigrant |
-0.012 |
-0.006 |
-0.096** |
|
(0.026) |
(0.026) |
(0.031) |
Asian native of foreign-born |
0.092** |
0.039 |
-0.022 |
|
(0.031) |
(0.032) |
(0.034) |
Asian native of native-born |
-0.120* |
-0.130** |
-0.088 |
|
(0.047) |
(0.048) |
(0.050) |
Hispanic immigrant |
-0.048 |
0.037 |
0.058 |
|
(0.034) |
(0.036) |
(0.043) |
Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-0.032 |
0.028 |
0.033 |
|
(0.022) |
(0.023) |
(0.028) |
Hispanic native of native-born |
0.011 |
0.050* |
0.068** |
|
(0.019) |
(0.019) |
(0.023) |
Black immigrant |
0.068 |
0.142* |
0.109 |
|
(0.069) |
(0.071) |
(0.075) |
Black native of foreign-born |
0.232*** |
0.220*** |
0.257*** |
|
(0.059) |
(0.059) |
(0.064) |
Black native of native-born |
0.211*** |
0.259*** |
0.304*** |
|
(0.015) |
(0.015) |
(0.016) |
White immigrant |
0.058 |
0.018 |
0.010 |
|
(0.047) |
(0.049) |
(0.051) |
White native of foreign-born |
0.061* |
0.045 |
0.026 |
|
(0.024) |
(0.025) |
(0.026) |
|
Locus of Control |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Female |
-0.029*** |
-0.026** |
-0.079*** |
|
(0.008) |
(0.008) |
(0.008) |
Parent's education |
|
0.033*** |
0.012** |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.002) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.013*** |
0.009*** |
|
|
(0.001) |
(0.001) |
Middle school GPA |
|
|
0.252*** |
|
|
|
(0.006) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-0.094*** |
|
|
|
(0.027) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
-0.084*** |
|
|
|
(0.022) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.017 |
|
|
|
(0.017) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.053*** |
|
|
|
(0.012) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
-0.007 |
|
|
|
(0.029) |
Currently enrolled in bilingual education program |
|
|
-0.150*** |
|
|
|
(0.021) |
Currently enrolled in a giffed program |
|
0.005 |
|
Adjusted R2 |
0.013 |
0.045 |
0.136 |
|
Self-Concept |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Female |
-0.234*** |
-0.231*** |
-0.274*** |
|
(0.009) |
(0.009) |
(0.009) |
Parent's education |
|
0.022*** |
0.003 |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.002) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.009*** |
0.007*** |
|
|
(0.001) |
(0.001) |
Middle school GPA |
|
|
0.219*** |
|
|
|
(0.007) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
-0.062* |
|
|
|
(0.029) |
Non-English only |
|
|
0.021 |
|
|
|
(0.024) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.053** |
|
|
|
(0.019) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.004 |
|
|
|
(0.013) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
0.056 |
|
|
|
(0.032) |
Currently enrolled in bilingual education program |
|
|
-0.042 |
|
|
|
(0.023) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
0.033** |
|
Adjusted R2 |
0.042 |
0.055 |
0.116 |
|
Unpopular (Alienation)a |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
-1.633*** |
-0.959*** |
-0.605*** |
|
(0.032) |
(0.132) |
(0.147) |
Asian immigrant |
0.481*** |
0.445*** |
0.376** |
|
(0.102) |
(0.103) |
(0.124) |
Asian native of foreign-born |
0.124 |
0.261* |
0.235 |
|
(0.130) |
(0.132) |
(0.146) |
Asian native of native-born |
0.133 |
0.178 |
0.161 |
|
(0.208) |
(0.209) |
(0.210) |
Hispanic immigrant |
0.455** |
0.267 |
0.095 |
|
(0.146) |
(0.147) |
(0.167) |
Hispanic native of foreign-born |
0.380*** |
0.232* |
0.089 |
|
(0.092) |
(0.093) |
(0.114) |
Hispanic native of native-born |
-0.043 |
-0.164 |
-0.238* |
|
(0.088) |
(0.089) |
(0.100) |
Black immigrant |
0.275 |
0.174 |
0.129 |
|
(0.302) |
(0.303) |
(0.305) |
Black native of foreign-born |
0.072 |
0.027 |
-0.022 |
|
(0.269) |
(0.270) |
(0.272) |
Black native of native-born |
-0.339*** |
-0.489*** |
-0.485*** |
|
(0.076) |
(0.077) |
(0.078) |
White immigrant |
0.349 |
0.444* |
0.401* |
|
(0.196) |
(0.198) |
(0.204) |
White native of foreign-born |
-0.232* |
-0.161 |
-0.189 |
|
(0.116) |
(0.116) |
(0.120) |
Female |
0.093* |
0.079* |
0.099* |
|
(0.040) |
(0.040) |
(0.040) |
|
Unpopular (Alienation)a |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
-0.029** |
-0.011 |
|
|
(0.010) |
(0.010) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
-0.055*** |
-0.050*** |
|
|
(0.007) |
(0.007) |
Middle school GPA |
|
|
-0.207*** |
|
|
|
(0.027) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
0.388*** |
|
|
|
(0.114) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
0.188 |
|
|
|
(0.097) |
Mostly English |
|
|
-0.050 |
|
|
|
(0.083) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.030 |
|
|
|
(0.056) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
0.396** |
|
|
|
(0.125) |
Currently enrolled in bilingual education program |
|
|
-0.191 |
|
|
|
(0.104) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.212*** |
Adjusted R2 |
0.005 |
0013 |
0.020 |
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05. a Logistic regression model in which unpopular = 1; psuedo R2 presented in place of adjusted R2 SOURCE: National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988: Base Year. |
third-generation youth (native-born youth of native-born parents) suffer from their minority status.
Figure 8-5 presents estimates of the effects of race and generational status on alienation at school, controlling for SES differences. These estimates are taken from model 2 of the "unpopular" models in Table 8-4. It is clear that immigrant youth of all ethnic backgrounds suffer from feelings of alienation from their school peers. Moreover, native-born Asians (both with immigrant and native-born parents) and native-born Hispanics of immigrant parents also experience feelings of discomfort compared to native-born whites with native-born parents. Only native-born Hispanics and African Americans of native-born parents feel accepted by their peers. This pattern of low acceptance of Asians of all generational status groups may be due to their small numbers, which makes it unlikely for Asian youth to attend schools with significant numbers of same ethnics.
Results of the full models are presented in Table 8-4. As expected, minority immigrant children are less likely to feel efficacious. Specifically, model 1 shows that immigrants, all His-
panic youth, and immigrant and native-born blacks feel less in control of their lives than do native-born whites of native-born parents. These effects persist even after adding measures of parental SES, which suggests that minority immigrant status negatively affects young people's feelings of self-efficacy.
To disentangle the influence of immigrant minority status on self-efficacy, I add measures of home language use, grades, and school experiences in model 3. Again, while there are certainly reciprocal effects between grades and psychological well-being, I am less interested in the causal order between the two than how the association between grades and psychological well-being may differ among immigrant youth. Overall, these characteristics account for all of the negative influences of minority generational status on self-esteem for all groups except Asian youth of immigrant parents. In other words, the lower self-efficacy of Hispanic and black youth is completely accounted for after including measures of home language use, grades, and school experiences in
model 3. As expected, GPA is positively associated with feelings of efficacy, while having ever repeated a grade lowers feelings of self-efficacy.
The languages used at home and at school are also associated with self-efficacy. Again, I find that youth whose families primarily use a non-English language suffer in their self-efficacy. Presumably, immigrants who have difficulty communicating in English face greater hardships in their daily lives, which can lead to feelings of helplessness. Youth who are currently enrolled in a bilingual program are also more likely to feel that their lives are out of their control.
In contrast to the results on self-efficacy, I find little group differentiation in terms of self-concept, except that black second-generation and native-born youth tend to have extremely high levels of self-concept. Thus, I find no support for Padilla and Durán's (1995) expectation that immigrant youth suffer more from low self-esteem than do native-born youth. However, youth whose home language is not English have lower self-concept than those whose home language is exclusively English. Those children who speak mostly English tend to have higher self-esteem than their counterparts who speak only English at home. Presumably those who speak mostly English at home are families who have sufficient English skills and have maintained their language of origin.
Some immigrant minority youth, however, feel more alienated at school than their native white counterparts. Immigrant Asians and Hispanics are most likely to feel ''unpopular" at school, while American blacks are least likely to feel alienated at school. Native-born Hispanics of immigrant parents also feel more alienated than white natives, while there is weak evidence that second-generation Asian youth also do not fit in as well as whites. Moreover, while SES and gender reduce almost one-half of the racial/generational effects for Hispanics, they have little bearing on the magnitude of the racial/generational effects among Asians.
Table 8-5 presents identical models as Table 8-4, except here I use more differentiated measures of ethnicity within the racial categories used earlier. The results generally parallel our findings for Table 8-4. Most noticeable are the ethnic group differences in feelings of acceptance. Chinese youth of immigrant par-
ents (both foreign-born and native-born) feel alienated at school, and these effects cannot be accounted for by SES differences or school experiences. However, Filipino youth do not significantly differ from whites in feelings of alienation. Similarly, Mexican immigrant youth are also alienated from their school peers, but gender and SES account for one-half of the effect of being a foreign-or native-born child of foreign-born parents. However, adding SES and gender to the models actually increases the association between race and generational status among native-born Mexicans of native-born parents. Again, I can account for the remainder of the differences by including measures of home language use, grades, and school experiences for foreign-and native-born youth of foreign-born parents among Mexicans, but these characteristics do not explain the experiences of native-born Mexicans of native-born parents.
Table 8-6 presents the effects of race and immigrant status on academic performance, using a layout comparable to Table 8-4. Again, I summarize the findings for GPA outcomes controlling for SES (model 2) in Figure 8-6. Essentially, I found that Asians with immigrant parents have the highest grades. In model 1, Asian and white immigrant youth and children of immigrants tend to earn higher marks than their native-born counterparts of native-born parents. Asian children of immigrant parents (both foreign-born and native-born youth) also earn higher grades and math test scores, while Asian native-born youth of immigrant parents have higher reading test scores as well. Native-born Asians of native-born parents perform at comparable levels to white native-born youth of native-born parents except in reading scores. Asians are unique because native-born children of immigrant parents perform as well on grades and better than immigrant children on math and reading scores. Elsewhere I argued that children of immigrant parents, regardless of their own immigration histories, benefit from their parents' optimism and expectations, which drive them to achieve (Kao and Tienda, 1995).
After controlling for differences in socioeconomic background, Hispanic immigrant youth tend to have higher grades than their same-ethnic native-born counterparts of native-born parents. Note that while immigrant Hispanics in model 2 are statistically indistinguishable from whites in their grades, native-born Hispanics of native-born parents earn lower grades than
TABLE 8-5 Effects of Ethnicity and Immigrant Status on Psychological Well-Being: Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, and Other Hispanic Youths
|
Locus of Control |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
0.061*** |
-0.481*** |
-0.840*** |
|
(0.007) |
(0.031) |
(0.035) |
Chinese immigrant |
-0.286*** |
-0.234*** |
-0.279*** |
|
(0.053) |
(0.053) |
(0.058) |
Chinese native of foreign-born |
-0.035 |
-0.096 |
-0.136* |
|
(0.059) |
(0.059) |
(0.059) |
Chinese native of native-born |
0.028 |
-0.022 |
0.022 |
|
(0.122) |
(0.123) |
(0.126) |
Filipino immigrant |
-0.203*** |
-0.232*** |
-0.207*** |
|
(0.059) |
(0.058) |
(0.061) |
Filipino native of foreign-born |
-0.047 |
-0.111* |
-0.132* |
|
(0.057) |
(0.056) |
(0.057) |
Filipino native of native-born |
-0.051 |
-0.027 |
-0.104 |
|
(0.153) |
(0.150) |
(0.163) |
Mexican immigrant |
-0.327*** |
-0.177*** |
-0.073 |
|
(0.042) |
(0.043) |
(0.051) |
Mexican native of foreign-born |
-0.195*** |
-0.084** |
-0.030 |
|
(0.026) |
(0.027) |
(0.032) |
Mexican native of native-born |
-0.157*** |
-0.100*** |
-0.026 |
|
(0.023) |
(0.023) |
(0.026) |
Other Hispanic immigrant |
-0.131* |
-0.079 |
0.055 |
|
(0.056) |
(0.055) |
(0.061) |
Other Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-0.094* |
-0.066 |
0.026 |
|
(0.044) |
(0.045) |
(0.047) |
Other Hispanic native of native-born |
-0.112** |
-0.086* |
0.009 |
|
(0.040) |
(0.040) |
(0.042) |
|
Self-Concept |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
0. 108* * * |
-0.263*** |
-0.619*** |
|
(0.007) |
(0.034) |
(0.039) |
Chinese immigrant |
-0.096 |
-0.049 |
-0.128* |
|
(0.056) |
(0.058) |
(0.065) |
Chinese native of foreign-born |
-0.011 |
-0.063 |
-0.150* |
|
(0.063) |
(0.064) |
(0.065) |
Chinese native of native-born |
-0.039 |
-0.078 |
-0.062 |
|
(0.127) |
(0.129) |
(0.136 |
Filipino immigrant |
-0.035 |
-0.048 |
-0.083 |
|
(0.063) |
(0.062) |
(0.067) |
Filipino native of foreign-born |
0.030 |
-0.014 |
-0.075 |
|
(0.061) |
(0.061) |
(0.063) |
Filipino native of native-born |
-0.311 |
-0.288 |
-0.453* |
|
(0.162) |
(0.161) |
(0.180) |
Mexican immigrant |
-0.127** |
-0.009 |
-0.021 |
|
(0.044) |
(0.046) |
(0.057) |
Mexican native of foreign-born |
-0.067* |
0.016 |
0.017 |
|
(0.028) |
(0.029) |
(0.035) |
Mexican native of native-born |
0.000 |
0.042 |
0.066* |
|
(0.024) |
(0.025) |
(0.028) |
Other Hispanic immigrant |
0.031 |
0.065 |
0.120 |
|
(0.059) |
(0.060) |
(0.067) |
Other Hispanic native of foreign-born |
0.020 |
0.040 |
0.080 |
|
(0.047) |
(0.048) |
(0.052) |
Other Hispanic native of native-born |
0.005 |
0.027 |
0.083 |
|
(0.042) |
(0.043) |
(0.046) |
|
Locus of Control |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Female |
-0.032*** |
-0.026** |
-0.079*** |
|
(0.009) |
(0.009) |
(0.009) |
Parent's education |
|
0.034*** |
0.011*** |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.002) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.011*** |
0.008*** |
|
|
(0.001) |
(0.001) |
Middle school grades |
|
|
0.258*** |
|
|
|
(0.007) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-0.100** |
|
|
|
(0.032) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
-0.086** |
|
|
|
(0.027) |
Mostly English |
|
|
-0.011 |
|
|
|
(0.020) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.052*** |
|
|
|
(0.014) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
-0.001 |
|
|
|
(0.037) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-0.155*** |
|
|
|
(0.025) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
-0.001 |
|
|
|
(0.013) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.012 |
0.044 |
0.139 |
|
Self-Concept |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Female |
-0.255*** |
-0.249*** |
-0.288*** |
|
(0.010) |
(0.010) |
(0.010) |
Parent's education |
|
0.022*** |
0.002 |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.003) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.009*** |
0.006*** |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.002) |
Middle school grades |
|
|
0.228*** |
|
|
|
(0.008) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-0.055 |
|
|
|
(0.035) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
0.017 |
|
|
|
(0.030) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.032 |
|
|
|
(0.022) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
0.001 |
|
|
|
(0.015) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
0.033 |
|
|
|
(0.041) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-0.049 |
|
|
|
(0.028) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
0.034* |
|
|
|
(0.014) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.038 |
0.051 |
0.114 |
|
Unpopular (Alienation)a |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
-1.615*** |
-0.837*** |
-0.485** |
|
(0.033) |
(0.148) |
(0.164) |
Chinese immigrant |
0.944*** |
0.873*** |
0.760** |
|
(0.207) |
(0.209) |
(0.232) |
Chinese native of foreign-born |
0.691** |
0.831*** |
0.779** |
|
(0.222) |
(0.224) |
(0.241) |
Chinese native of native-born |
0.421 |
0.421 |
0.422 |
|
(0.513) |
(0.516) |
(0.522) |
Filipino immigrant |
0.265 |
0.265 |
0.115 |
|
(0.253) |
(0.254) |
(0.270) |
Filipino native of foreign-born |
0.182 |
0.278 |
0.222 |
|
(0.245) |
(0.247) |
(0.259) |
Filipino native of native-born |
1.116 |
1.065 |
1.204* |
|
(0.571) |
(0.572) |
(0.581) |
Mexican immigrant |
0.622*** |
0.351 |
0.198 |
|
(0.185) |
(0.188) |
(0.212) |
Mexican native of foreign-born |
0.519*** |
0.300** |
0.157 |
|
(0.108) |
(0.111) |
(0.138) |
Mexican native of native-born |
-0.199 |
-0.346** |
-0.422** |
|
(0.116) |
(0.117) |
(0.130) |
Other Hispanic immigrant |
0.275 |
0.164 |
-0.008 |
|
(0.253) |
(0.255) |
(0.272) |
Other Hispanic native of foreign-born |
0.047 |
-0.020 |
-0.181 |
|
(0.210) |
(0.211) |
(0.225) |
Other Hispanic native of native-born |
0.271 |
0.193 |
0.156 |
|
(0.180) |
(0.181) |
(0.184) |
Female |
0.063 |
0.047 |
0.070 |
|
(0.044) |
(0.044) |
(0.045) |
|
Unpopular (Alienation)a |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
-0.035** |
-0.013 |
|
|
(0.011) |
(0.011) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
-0.059*** |
-0.053*** |
|
|
(0.008) |
(0.008) |
Middle school grades |
|
|
-0.228*** |
|
|
|
(0.031) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
0.358** |
|
|
|
(0.138) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
0.220 |
|
|
|
(0.120) |
Mostly English |
|
|
-0.078 |
|
|
|
(0.099) |
English Only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.001 |
|
|
|
(0.062) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
0.511*** |
|
|
|
(0.152) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-0.254* |
|
|
|
(0.126) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
-0.227*** |
|
|
|
(0.065) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.005 |
0.015 |
0.023 |
***p <.001; **p < .01; *p < .05. a Logistic regression model in which unpopular = 1; pseudo R2 presented in place of adjusted R2. SOURCE: National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988: Base Year. |
TABLE 8-6 Influence of Race and Immigrant Status on Academic Achievement: Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White Eighth Graders
|
Grades |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
2.879*** |
1.761*** |
2.209*** |
|
(0.008) |
(0.033) |
(0.032) |
Asian immigrant |
0.371*** |
0.370*** |
0.321*** |
|
(0.029) |
(0.029) |
(0.032) |
Asian native of foreign-born |
0.408*** |
0.263*** |
0.158*** |
|
(0.036) |
(0.035) |
(0.035) |
Asian native of native-born |
-0.045 |
-0.081 |
-0.095 |
|
(0.054) |
(0.053) |
(0.051) |
Hispanic immigrant |
-0.192*** |
0.031 |
0.020 |
|
(0.039) |
(0.039) |
(0.044) |
Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-0.178*** |
-0.019 |
-0.034 |
|
(0.026) |
(0.025) |
(0.029) |
Hispanic native of native-born |
-0.196*** |
-0.085*** |
-0.076** |
|
(0.022) |
(0.021) |
(0.023) |
Black immigrant |
0.041 |
0.113 |
0.112 |
|
(0.079) |
(0.078) |
(0.077) |
Black native of foreign-born |
-0.103 |
-0.110 |
-0.141* |
|
(0.067) |
(0.066) |
(0.066) |
Black native of native-born |
-0.230*** |
-0.119*** |
-0.111*** |
|
(0.017) |
(0.017) |
(0.017) |
White immigrant |
0.187*** |
0.072 |
0.040 |
|
(0.054) |
(0.054) |
(0.052) |
White native of foreign-born |
0.109*** |
0.063* |
0.051 |
|
(0.027) |
(0.027) |
(0.026) |
Female |
0.144*** |
0.152*** |
0.150*** |
|
(0.010) |
(0.010) |
(0.010) (Table continued on next page) |
|
Math Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
52.667*** |
32.796*** |
38.054*** |
|
(0.105) |
(0.412) |
(0.417) |
Asian immigrant |
2.235*** |
2.355*** |
2.650*** |
|
(0.388) |
(0.363) |
(0.416) |
Asian native of foreign-born |
6.008*** |
3.231*** |
2.546*** |
|
(0.470) |
(0.437) |
(0.454) |
Asian native of native-born |
-0.542 |
-1.521* |
-1.012 |
|
(0.709) |
(0.658) |
(0.663) |
Hispanic immigrant |
-6.498*** |
-2.456*** |
-0.730 |
|
(0.527) |
(0.500) |
(0.570) |
Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-5.687*** |
-2.694*** |
-1.782*** |
|
(0.341) |
(0.323) |
(0.376) |
Hispanic native of native-born |
-6.098*** |
-3.885*** |
-3.242*** |
|
(0.287) |
(0.271) |
(0.300) |
Black immigrant |
-4.498*** |
-3.346*** |
-2.776** |
|
(1.054) |
(0.986) |
(1.007) |
Black native of foreign-born |
-5.756*** |
-5.785*** |
-5.095*** |
|
(0.887) |
(0.824) |
(0.845) |
Black native of native-born |
-8.255*** |
-6.006*** |
-5.497*** |
|
(0.220) |
(0.210) |
(0.218) |
White immigrant |
2.734*** |
0.517 |
0.769 |
|
(0.709) |
(0.675) |
(0.679) |
White native of foreign-born |
1.585*** |
0.469 |
0.723* |
|
(0.362) |
(0.341) |
(0.338) |
Female |
-0.561*** |
-0.371** |
-0.942*** |
|
(0.133) |
(0.125) |
(0.125) |
|
Grades |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
0.073*** |
0.045*** |
|
(0.002) |
(0.002) |
|
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.013*** |
0.006*** |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.001) |
Psychological Well-Being |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
|
|
0.246*** |
|
|
|
(0.009) |
Self-concept |
|
|
0.103*** |
|
|
|
(0.009) |
Unpopular |
|
|
-0.043*** |
|
|
|
(0.013) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
0.047 |
|
|
|
(0.030) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
0.040 |
|
|
|
(0.024) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.010 |
|
|
|
(0.019) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.375*** |
|
|
|
(0.013) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
0.086** |
|
|
|
(0.033) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-0.176*** |
|
|
|
(0.024) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
0.375*** |
|
|
|
(0.012) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.040 |
0.114 |
0.276 |
|
Math Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
1.245*** |
0.931*** |
|
(0.030) |
(0.030) |
|
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.371*** |
0.282*** |
|
|
(0.020) |
(0.019) |
Psychological Well-Being |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
|
|
2.592*** |
|
|
|
(0.123) |
Self-concept |
|
|
-0.033 |
|
|
|
(0.115) |
Unpopular |
|
|
0.488** |
|
|
|
(0.165) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-0.868* |
|
|
|
(0.386) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
-1.234*** |
|
|
|
(0.315) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.031 |
|
|
|
(0.247) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-4.675*** |
|
|
|
(0.173) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
1.298** |
|
|
|
(0.423) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-4.216*** |
|
|
|
(0.306) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
5.403*** |
|
|
|
(0.157) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.106 |
0.252 |
0.362 |
|
Reading Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
51.270*** |
32.805*** |
38.168*** |
|
(0.105) |
(0.418) |
(0.425) |
Asian immigrant |
-1.326*** |
-1.281*** |
-0.088 |
|
(0.385) |
(0.368) |
(0.423) |
Asian native of foreign-born |
3.886*** |
1.458** |
1.305** |
|
(0.467) |
(0.443) |
(0.462) |
Asian native of native-born |
-2.233** |
-2.938*** |
-2.219** |
|
(0.705) |
(0.668) |
(0.674) |
Hispanic immigrant |
-7.148*** |
-3.560*** |
-1.110 |
|
(0.522) |
(0.505) |
(0.580) |
Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-5.547*** |
-2.833*** |
-1.590*** |
|
(0.338) |
(0.327) |
(0.383) |
Hispanic native of native-born |
-4.813*** |
-2.889*** |
-1.901*** |
|
(0.286) |
(0.275) |
(0.306) |
Black immigrant |
|
-2.772** |
-1.571 |
|
(1.060) |
(1.014) |
(1.035) |
Black native of foreign-born |
-3.768*** |
-3.728*** |
-3.314*** |
|
(0.885) |
(0.839) |
(0.861) |
Black native of native-born |
-7.199*** |
-5.276*** |
-4.524*** |
|
(0.219) |
(0.213) |
(0.222) |
White immigrant |
1.940** |
0.229 |
1.068 |
|
(0.703) |
(0.683) |
(0.690) |
White native of foreign-born |
1.309*** |
0.409 |
0.554 |
|
(0.359) |
(0.346) |
(0.344) |
Female |
1.847*** |
2.006*** |
1.486*** |
|
(0.132) |
(0.126) |
(0.127) |
Parent's education |
|
1.190*** |
0.883*** |
|
|
(0.031) |
(0.031) |
|
Reading Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.242*** |
0.153*** |
|
|
(0.020) |
(0.019) |
Psychological Well-Being |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
|
|
3.054*** |
|
|
|
(0.125) |
Self-concept |
|
|
-0.035 |
|
|
|
(0.117) |
Unpopular |
|
|
0.346* |
|
|
|
(0.168) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-1.292** |
|
|
|
(0.394) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
-1.815*** |
|
|
|
(0.320) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.271 |
|
|
|
(0.252) |
English only |
|
|
— |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-4.192*** |
|
|
|
(0.176) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
1.164** |
|
|
|
(0.430) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-6.042*** |
|
|
|
(0.311) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
3.875*** |
|
|
|
(0.160) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.085 |
0.202 |
0.303 |
***p < .001; **p> < .01; *p < .05. SOURCE: National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988: Base Year. |
same-SES native-born whites of native-born parents. The inclusion of socioeconomic status accentuates the immigrant advantage for Hispanics. Hence, the gradual erosion of academic performance by generational status is clear and raises troubling questions regarding what it is about the prolonged effects of minority status that decreases educational outcomes.
However, Hispanic youth of all generational backgrounds earn lower grades and lower math and reading test scores than white youth. The difference in GPAs between foreign-born and native-born Hispanics of immigrant parents and whites is rendered insignificant after the inclusion of family background, while individual schooling experience variables make little difference to these effects. However, even with these control measures, Hispanic third-generation youth still earn lower grades. All Hispanics earn lower test scores than white native-born youth of native-born parents. Overall, Hispanic youth with immigrant parents earn higher grades and math test scores after controlling for SES,
while they earn higher reading scores after including controls for SES and individual school experiences than their counterparts with native-born parents.
Among blacks, youth with immigrant parents earn comparable grades while American blacks earn lower grades and lower math and reading test scores than white native-born youth. The general pattern of higher academic performance among immigrant youth is apparent across all groups, although it is most stunning among blacks and Asians. It is clear that among blacks acculturation is linked to lower academic performance and test scores across each of the models.
Furthermore, these results suggest that psychological well-being and academic outcomes are positively associated. Note that locus of control is strongly associated with all three measures of school achievement, yet immigrant youth suffer from feelings of low self-efficacy. These results support Bandura's (1995) thesis that feelings of greater self-efficacy foster motivation and development of learning skills, although I cannot establish the causal order in these models. It is still unclear, however, how immigrant youth manage to succeed in school compared to their native-born counterparts (both same ethnics and whites) despite feelings of low self-efficacy. Youth from immigrant households may also be disadvantaged in their achievement test scores since households that mostly use a non-English language have youth with lower math and reading test scores.
Another facet of the experience of immigrant youth is their higher enrollment rates in bilingual programs in eighth grade, which is associated with lower grades and lower math and reading test scores. No doubt, immigrant youth are overrepresented in bilingual programs, yet some still manage to earn remarkably high scores, especially compared to their minority counterparts from native-born families. Having ever repeated a grade is associated with lower grades and lower achievement test scores, while the experience of having ever skipped a grade is linked to higher grades and math test scores.
To examine whether these stunning generational differences among Asians can be attributed to differences in the ethnic composition of racial groups, Table 8-7 examines the influence of ethnicity and generational status. Overall, the degeneration of
TABLE 8-7 Influence of Ethnicity and Immigrant Status on Academic Achievement: Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, and Other Hispanic Students
|
Grades |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
2.880*** |
1.685*** |
2.170*** |
|
(0.008) |
(0.037) |
(0.036) |
Chinese immigrant |
0.407*** |
0.443*** |
0.439*** |
|
(0.065) |
(0.064) |
(0.066) |
Chinese native of foreign-born |
0.501*** |
0.359*** |
0.244*** |
|
(0.072) |
(0.070) |
(0.066) |
Chinese native of native-born |
0.043 |
-0.031 |
-0.119 |
|
(0.146) |
(0.142) |
(0.140) |
Filipino immigrant |
0.259*** |
0.188** |
0.221** |
|
(0.073) |
(0.069) |
(0.068) |
Filipino native of foreign-born |
0.312*** |
0.180** |
0.125 |
|
(0.070) |
(0.067) |
(0.064) |
Filipino native of native-born |
0.060 |
0.114 |
0.086 |
|
(0.192) |
(0.183) |
(0.180) |
Mexican immigrant |
-0.241*** |
0.066 |
0.085 |
|
(0.051) |
(0.052) |
(0.058) |
Mexican native of foreign-born |
-0.196*** |
0.029 |
0.026 |
|
(0.032) |
(0.031) |
(0.036) |
Mexican native of native-born |
-0.209*** |
-0.080** |
-0.060* |
|
(0.028) |
(0.027) |
(0.029) |
Other Hispanic immigrant |
-0.095 |
-0.003 |
-0.005 |
|
(0.068) |
(0.066) |
(0.069) |
Other Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-0.152** |
-0.119* |
-0.131* |
|
(0.054) |
(0.053) |
(0.053) |
Other Hispanic native of native-born |
-0.153** |
-0.125** |
-0.109* |
|
(0.049) |
(0.048) |
(0.047) |
Female |
0.139*** |
0.149*** |
0.147*** |
|
(0.011) |
(0.011) |
(0.011) |
|
Math Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
52.609*** |
31.964*** |
37.638*** |
|
(0.112) |
(0.467) |
(0.471) |
Chinese immigrant |
4.510*** |
5.590*** |
6.651*** |
|
(0.857) |
(0.798) |
(0.860) |
Chinese native of foreign-born |
9.055*** |
6.509*** |
5.809*** |
|
(0.952) |
(0.875) |
(0.854) |
Chinese native of native-born |
0.788 |
-0.334 |
0.329 |
|
(1.916) |
(1.769) |
(1.798) |
Filipino immigrant |
-1.595 |
-2.642** |
-1.471 |
|
(0.975) |
(0.883) |
(0.901) |
Filipino native of foreign-born |
3.886*** |
1.534 |
1.925* |
|
(0.918) |
(0.836) |
(0.826) |
Filipino native of native-born |
1.362 |
2.333 |
0.829 |
|
(2.441) |
(2.210) |
(2.229) |
Mexican immigrant |
-6.887*** |
-1.588* |
0.394 |
|
(0.692) |
(0.657) |
(0.758) |
Mexican native of foreign-born |
-6.621*** |
-2.601*** |
-1.510** |
|
(0.423) |
(0.399) |
(0.472) |
Mexican native of native-born |
-5.891*** |
-3.538*** |
-2.796*** |
|
(0.368) |
(0.343) |
(0.378) |
Other Hispanic immigrant |
-5.323*** |
-3.474*** |
-0.992 |
|
(0.906) |
(0.832) |
(0.899) |
Other Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-3.754*** |
-3.030*** |
-1.794** |
|
(0.707) |
(0.660) |
(0.689) |
Other Hispanic native of native-born |
-5.590*** |
-4.827*** |
-4.323*** |
|
(0.642) |
(0.601) |
(0.610) |
Female |
-0.639*** |
-0.448** |
-1.005*** |
|
(0.151) |
(0.141) |
(0.141) |
|
Grades |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
0.079*** |
0.048*** |
|
|
(0.003) |
(0.003) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.012*** |
0.005** |
|
|
(0.002) |
(0.002) |
Psychological Well-Being |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
|
|
0.254*** |
|
|
|
(0.011) |
Self-concept |
|
|
0.105*** |
|
|
|
(0.010) |
Unpopular |
|
|
-0.055*** |
|
|
|
(0.014) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
0.038 |
|
|
|
(0.036) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
0.010 |
|
|
|
(0.031) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.021 |
|
|
|
(0.023) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-0.397*** |
|
|
|
(0.015) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
0.089* |
|
|
|
(0.042) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-0.186*** |
|
|
|
(0.029) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
0.398*** |
|
|
|
(0.014) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.022 |
0.105 |
0.282 |
|
Math Test Score |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
1.318*** |
0.971*** |
|
|
(0.034) |
(0.034) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.341*** |
0.261*** |
|
|
(0.022) |
(0.021) |
Psychological Well-Being |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
|
|
2.531*** |
|
|
|
(0.139) |
Self-concept |
|
|
-0.050 |
|
|
|
(0.129) |
Unpopular |
|
|
0.500** |
|
|
|
(0.183) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-1.211** |
|
|
|
(0.470) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
-1.769*** |
|
|
|
(0.400) |
Mostly English |
|
|
-0.098 |
|
|
|
(0.297) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-4.847*** |
|
|
|
(0.199) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
1.224* |
|
|
|
(0.535) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-4.361*** |
|
|
|
(0.373) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
5,680*** |
|
|
|
(0.180) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.049 |
0.212 |
0.333 |
|
Reading Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Constant |
51.197*** |
32.356*** |
38.000*** |
|
(0.110) |
(0.473) |
(0.480) |
Chinese immigrant |
-2.596** |
-1.939* |
0.200 |
|
(0.847) |
(0.808) |
(0.876) |
Chinese native of foreign-born |
6.171 s*** |
3.988*** |
3.777*** |
|
(0.941) |
(0.886) |
(0.870) |
Chinese native of native-born |
-2.286 |
-2.985 |
-3.212 |
|
(1.895) |
(1.791) |
(1.832) |
Filipino immigrant |
-2.808** |
-3.902*** |
-2.390** |
|
(0.955) |
(0.886) |
(0.909) |
Filipino native of foreign-born |
2.764** |
0.647 |
0.933 |
|
(0.908) |
(0.846) |
(0.842) |
Filipino native of native-born |
3.273 |
4.059 |
1.722 |
|
(2.494) |
(2.311) |
(2.271) |
Mexican immigrant |
-8.689*** |
-4.084*** |
-1.906* |
(0.681) |
(0.662) |
(0.769) |
|
Mexican native of foreign-born |
-6.412*** |
-2.922*** |
-1.791*** |
|
(0.417) |
(0.403) |
(0.480) |
Mexican native of native-born |
-4.448*** |
-2.462*** |
-1.617*** |
|
(0.364) |
(0.347) |
(0.385) |
Other Hispanic immigrant |
-4.406*** |
-2.921*** |
0.035 |
|
(0.892) |
(0.839) |
(0.916) |
Other Hispanic native of foreign-born |
-3.562*** |
-2.781*** |
-1.507* |
|
(0.698) |
(0.666) |
(0.700) |
Other Hispanic native of native-born |
-4.545*** |
-4.083*** |
-3.089*** |
|
(0.634) |
(0.607) |
(0.620) |
Female |
1.772*** |
1.997*** |
1.512*** |
|
(0.150) |
(0.143) |
(0.143) |
|
Reading Test Scores |
||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
Parent's education |
|
1.234*** |
0.904*** |
|
|
(0.035) |
(0.035) |
Family income (in $10,000) |
|
0.213*** |
0.132*** |
|
|
(0.023) |
(0.022) |
Psychological Well-Being |
|
|
|
Locus of control |
|
|
3.050*** |
|
|
|
(0.142) |
Self-concept |
|
|
-0.071 |
|
|
|
(0.132) |
Unpopular |
|
|
0.293 |
|
|
|
(0.187) |
Home Language Use |
|
|
|
Non-English only |
|
|
-1.208* |
|
|
|
(0.478) |
Mostly non-English |
|
|
-1.727*** |
|
|
|
(0.407) |
Mostly English |
|
|
0.203 |
|
|
|
(0.303) |
School Experiences |
|
|
|
Ever repeated a grade |
|
|
-4.333*** |
|
|
|
(0.202) |
Ever skipped a grade |
|
|
1.023 |
|
|
|
(0.545) |
Currently enrolled in a bilingual program |
|
|
-6.324*** |
|
|
|
(0.379) |
Currently enrolled in a gifted program |
|
|
4.032*** |
|
|
|
(0.183) |
Adjusted R2 |
0.045 |
0.172 |
0.280 |
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05. SOURCE: National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988: Base Year. |
academic performance is clear for all ethnic groups. Native-born Chinese youth of native-born parents, for instance, earn lower grades and lower math and reading test scores than their immigrant counterparts in most models and than native-born Chinese of immigrant (second-generation) parents in all models. Among Filipinos, children of immigrant parents tend to earn higher grades than their counterparts with native-born parents. However, only native-born children of immigrant parents earn higher math and reading scores than their native-born counterparts with native-born parents, and this difference is rendered statistically insignificant after adding measures of socioeconomic background. Thus, the immigrant advantage is less prevalent among Filipino youth.
While the patterns for Mexicans are less consistent, Mexican youth of immigrant parents earn higher grades and higher math scores than youth with native-born parents. Native-born Mexicans of native-born parents earn the highest reading scores after inclusion of SES measures.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the difficulty of being a minority as well as an immigrant has profound detrimental effects on one's psychological well-being. Immigrant youth face rejection from both native-born whites and native-born members of their same ethnic groups, which makes them feel more alienated at school than their native-born counterparts. Moreover, immigrant minority status lowers perceptions of control over the direction of one's life. Nevertheless, immigrant minority children do extremely well in school. Indeed, minority immigrant youth exhibit signs of strong resilience. Despite the difficulty of transition to life in the United States, as evidenced in their lower sense of control over their lives and feeling ''unpopular" at school, they manage to have better school outcomes than their minority counterparts from native-born families. Indeed, through their high academic outcomes, immigrant minority students not only add to the diversity of students in American schools but are a positive influence on their peers.
It is clear that immigrant parents promote the educational success of their children (Kao and Tienda, 1995). Immigrant families are especially optimistic about their children's odds of upward mobility and are very resilient to the difficulties of their immigrant status. However, if we are to take the current course of native-born minorities of native-born parents to be the future course of the offspring of children of immigrants, the United States must reflect on what it is about assimilation that lowers the educational trajectory of minority students. As Portes (1995) has argued, we must consider that for today's children of immigrant families assimilation may imply the process of becoming members of marginalized ethnic minority groups.
REFERENCES
Alexander, K., D. Entwisle, and S. Dauber 1994 On the Success of Failure: A Reassessment of the Effects of Retention in the Primary Grades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. 1993 Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28:117-148.
1995 Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, A. Bandura, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Caplan, N., M.H. Choy, and J.K. Witmore 1991 Children of the Boat People: A Study of Educational Success. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Covington, M. 1984 The motive for self-worth. In Research on Motivation in Education, vol. 1, Student Motivation, R. Ames and C. Ames, eds. New York: Academic Press.
Dornbusch, S.M., E.L. Ritter, P.H. Leiderman, D.F Roberts, and M.J. Fraleigh
1987 The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development 58:1244-1257.
Hughes, M., and D.H. Demo 1989 Self-perceptions of black-Americans: Self-esteem and personal efficacy. American Journal of Sociology 95:132-159.
Kao, G. 1995 Asian-Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. American Journal of Education 103:121-159.
Kao, G., and M. Tienda 1995 Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly 76:1-19.
March, H.W. 1986 Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1224-1236.
Matute-Bianchi, M.E. 1986 Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among Mexican-descent and Japanese-American students in a California high school: An ethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education 95:233-255.
National Center for Education Statistics 1990 The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: User's Manual, Base Year: Student Component Data File User's Manual . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Padilla, A.M., and D. Durán 1995 The psychological dimension in understanding immigrant students. In California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for Educational Policy. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
Pallas, A.M., G. Natriello, and E.L. McDill 1989 The changing nature of the disadvantaged population: Current dimensions and future trends. Educational Researcher 18:16-22.
Population Reference Bureau 1989 America in the 21st Century: Human Resource Development. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.
Portes, A. 1995 Segmented assimilation among new immigrant youth: A conceptual framework. In California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for Educational Policy, R. Rumbaut and W. Cornelius, eds. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
Portes, A., and R. Rumbaut 1990 Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rosenberg, M. 1989 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised Edition. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press.
Rosenberg, M., C. Schooler, and C. Schoenback 1989 Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review 54:1004-1018.
Rosenberg, M., C. Schooler, C. Schoenback, and E Rosenberg 1995 Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review 60:141-156.
Rumbaut, R.G. 1990 Immigrant Students in California Public Schools: A Summary of Current Knowledge. Report No. 11. Baltimore: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University.
1994 The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review 28:748-794.
1995 The new Californians: Comparative research findings on the educational progress of immigrant children. In California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for Educational Policy, R. Rumbaut and W. Cornelius, eds. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
Sue, S., and S. Okazaki 1990 Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist 45:913-920.
Waters, M.C. 1994 Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation black immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review 28:795-820.
Zimmerman, B. 1995 Self-efficacy and educational development. In Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, A. Bandura, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.