Kao EducAttARS

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:41742 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019 Copyright c 2003 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on June 4, 2003
RACIAL AND ETHNIC STRATIFICATION IN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTAINMENT

Grace Kao1 and Jennifer S. Thompson2
1
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003.29:417-442. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 07/27/07. For personal use only.
Department of Sociology and Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104-6299; email: grace2@pop.upenn.edu 2 Education Statistics Service Institute, American Institutes for Research, Washington, District of Columbia 20006; email: jthompson@air.org
Key Words immigrants, adolescents, aspirations s Abstract Understanding racial, ethnic, and immigrant variation in educational achievement and attainment is more important than ever as the U.S. population becomes increasingly diverse. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, 34% of all youth aged 1519 were from minority groups; it estimates that by 2025, this will increase to 46% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In addition, approximately one in ve school-age children reside in an immigrant family (Zhou 1997, Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 2001). We provide an overview of recent empirical research on racial, ethnic, and immigrant differences in educational achievement and attainment, and we examine some current theories that attempt to explain these differences. We explore group differences in grades, test scores, course taking, and tracking, especially throughout secondary schooling, and then discuss variation in high school completion, transitions to college, and college completion. We also summarize key theoretical explanations used to explain persistent differences net of variation in socioeconomic status, which focus on family and cultural beliefs that stem from minority group and class experiences. Overall, there are many signs of optimism. Racial and ethnic gaps in educational achievement and attainment have narrowed over the past three decades by every measure available to social scientists. Educational aspirations are universally high for all racial and ethnic groups as most adolescents expect to go to college. However, substantial gaps remain, especially between less advantaged groups such as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans and more advantaged groups such as whites and Asian Americans. The racial and ethnic hierarchy in educational achievement is apparent across varying measures of the academic experience.
INTRODUCTION
In this review, we provide an overview of recent empirical research on racial, ethnic, and immigrant differences in educational achievement and attainment, and we examine some current theories that attempt to explain these differences. The link between academic performance, educational attainment, and eventual labor market outcomes is well known and extensively documented (Coleman 1961,
0360-0572/03/0811-0417$14.00
417
418
KAO
THOMPSON
Jencks 1972). Moreover, we know that some of the relative disadvantages and advantages faced by racial and ethnic minorities can be traced to their differential educational achievement and attainment (Jencks 1972). Understanding race, ethnic, and immigrant variation in educational achievement and attainment is more important than ever as the U.S. population becomes increasingly diverse. Because minority populations are younger than their white counterparts, the increasing diversity in the general population is even more apparent among youth. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, 34% of all youth aged 1519 were from minority groups; it estimates that by 2025, this will increase to 46% (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Similarly, approximately one in ve school-age children currently comes from an immigrant family (Zhou 1997, Suarez-Orozco & SuarezOrozco 2001). For both Asian and Hispanic youth, understanding patterns of education among immigrants is especially vital. Approximately 50% of todays Hispanic youth are immigrants or children of immigrants; for Asian Americans, this proportion is closer to 90% (Zhou 1997). This proportion is especially high in urban school districts; for instance, in New York City, approximately 48% of children in school are children of immigrant parents (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 2001). Our review proceeds as follows: First, we provide a short overview of key theoretical frameworks used to explain racial and ethnic differences in achievement. Second, we examine group differences in grades, test scores, educational aspirations, course taking, and tracking, especially throughout secondary schooling. Then we examine differences in high school completion, transitions to college, and college completion. Because parental socioeconomic background has a profound inuence on educational achievement and attainment, we focus on race, ethnic, and immigrant group differences before and after taking into account differences in socioeconomic background. Finally, we review common themes and prominent theories that are used to account for these differences; although we do not offer an evaluation of these theories, we state some explanations that are more or less consistent with the ndings that have persisted throughout myriad empirical analyses. We do not focus on the beginning school transition, as Entwisle & Alexander (1993) completed an excellent review of that literature, nor do we focus on the effects of the organization of schools on achievement outcomes (see Hallinan 1988, Arum 2000 for excellent reviews), although we do examine tracking. Moreover, we do not examine how race, ethnicity, and immigrant status affect youth in other areas of life (see Lichter 1997 for a review on poverty among children; see Zhou 1997 for a review on immigrant children). Also, we do not examine the general literature on childhood and adolescent development, as superb reviews of these literatures were completed by Corsaro & Eder (1990) and Dornbusch (1989), respectively. We also do not fully explore the notion of social capital, which was thoughtfully reviewed by Portes (1998). There is relatively little research on how social capital differentially affects the educational achievement and attainment of race, ethnic, and immigrant groups.
RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION
419
THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
The achievement gap between blacks and whites is longstanding and has received considerable empirical attention and theoretical discussion (Jencks 1972, Miller 1995, Jencks & Phillips 1998). Much of the discussion of subsequent ethnic groups academic achievement (for instance, Jews, Southern Italians, Greeks, and more recently, Hispanics and Asian Americans) follow similar types of arguments. Although the debates are complex, most contemporary theories about why ethnic groups differ in their educational achievement fall into two general categories. The rst is about how cultural orientations of certain ethnic groups promote/discourage academic achievement, and the second is about how the structural position of ethnic groups affects the childrens (parent, peer, and school) environments. The rst argument credits ethnic group differences in cultural orientation, most specically differences in orientation toward schooling (McClelland et al. 1953, Rosen 1959, Lewis 1966, Ogbu 1974, Caplan et al. 1991). Some of these arguments can be traced to Webers The Protestant Ethic (1976), where an ethnic-religious group was credited for having a cultural orientation conducive to the development of capitalism. Ethnic groups have cultural orientations, which can benet or hurt their odds of economic (and in our case, educational) success relative to other groups. Following McClellands (McClelland et al. 1953) laboratory studies of the achievement motive, where he and his colleagues theorized that individuals have varying degrees of the achievement motive and that those with higher achievement motives perform better in achievement tests, Rosen (1959) argued for ethnic group differences in their orientation toward achievement. Rosen (1959) argued that Jews, Greeks, and Protestants shared greater motivation toward achievement; hence this explained their higher socioeconomic mobility. In contrast, Rosen found that blacks, Southern Italians, and French Canadians scored lower on items that measured their achievement motivation and vocational aspirations. It is important to note that minority status does not imply poor outcomes. The second argument traces the structural position of ethnic groups, crediting either their time of arrival, the skills migrants brought with them at their time of arrival, the needs of the local economy, or the t between their skills and their ability to ll certain economic niches (or some combination thereof) (see Steinberg 1989, Lieberson 1980, Wilson 1980 for examples). Again, because parental social class has a considerable inuence on a childs educational outcome, structural arguments fault or credit differences in achievement and attainment on parental socioeconomic status (SES), which is associated with parental participation, quality of instruction, school peers, teachers, and other inuences (see Sewell & Shah 1968, Sewell et al. 1969, Murnane et al. 1980, Baker & Stevenson 1986, Astone & McLanahan 1991, Bankston & Caldas 1998). In other words, class differences are manifested through varying parental practices and schooling opportunities, which in turn favor more advantaged students. We come back to these arguments in our overview of empirical ndings.
420
KAO
THOMPSON
Of course, some theoretical discussions fall in between, often crediting and faulting cultural orientations to ethnic groups economic positions or experiences in society (Lewis 1966, Ogbu 1974, Willis 1977, MacLeod 1995, Sue & Okazaki 1990, Steele & Aronson 1995, Steele 1997). We expand on these explanations later, as most contemporary arguments about ethnic group differences in achievement fall along the intersection of cultural orientation and structural position. A third, but much less frequent, line of reasoning credits genetic differences between racial groups in their innate intelligence (Jensen 1969, Herrnstein & Murray 1994), but most sociologists today dismiss these arguments both for their inherently racist overtones and for the lack of empirical data to support such claims. Very simply, no gene has been identied as affecting test scores. What is more striking is that great improvements in IQ and achievement scores within racial groups and the shrinking gaps between groups have occurred in just a few decades; hence genetic differences cannot account for these considerable changes in a brief time span (Jencks & Phillips 1998).
TEST SCORES
The test scores of blacks have lagged behind those of whites in vocabulary, reading, and math for the past 30 years, although this gap is shrinking. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been testing 17 year olds since 1971; from 1971 to 1996, the black-white reading gap shrank by almost one half and the math gap by almost one third (Jencks & Phillips 1998). Specically, Miller (1995) documents that among 17 year olds, blacks scored an average of 239 points as opposed to 291 points among whites on the NAEP reading tests in 1971; by 1990, blacks scored an average of 267 as opposed to 297 for whites (out of a possible 500 points total). On NAEP math tests in 1973, blacks scored an average of 270, whereas whites scored 310; by 1990, blacks average score was 289 compared with 310 for whites (Miller 1995, table 3.5, p. 53). Although parental SES accounts for some of the black-white test gap, it does not account for all of it (see, e.g., Kao et al. 1996). Similarly, for Hispanics, the average NAEP math score for 17 year olds in 1973 was 277 (as opposed to 310 for whites); in 1990, the average score among Hispanics was 284 compared with 310 for whites (Miller 1995, table 3.5, p. 53). Due to their small population size in the 1970s, similar trend data are not available for Asian Americans, but their recent scores suggest that they perform at levels comparable or above that of whites. Data from the 1990 NAEP Mathematics Assessment Tests show that among twelfth graders, Asians scored an average of 315 points compared with 301 points for whites, 270 for blacks, 278 for Hispanics, and 290 for Native Americans (Miller 1995, table 3.8, p. 58). Racial and ethnic differentiation is most apparent at the highest achievement levels; 13% of Asians performed at level of 350 points or higher, whereas only 6% of whites, less than 1% of blacks, 1% of Hispanics, and less than 1% of Native Americans did so. Using standardized reading and math tests administered to a national sample of
421
eighth graders, Kao et al. (1996) found that parental background characteristics accounted for differences between Asians and whites, but not between Hispanics and whites, nor between blacks and whites. Racial and ethnic variation in SAT scores are even more striking, although they follow a similar pattern. The average SAT math score in 1990 was 491 for whites, 528 for Asians, 385 for blacks, 429 for Mexican Americans, and 437 for Native Americans (Miller 1995, table 3.9, p. 61). Again, racial and ethnic differentiation is most noticeable at the higher range of scores. For instance, 34% of Asians compared with 20% of whites, 3% of blacks, 7% of Mexican Americans, and 9% of Native Americans scored above a 600 on the SAT math section. On the SAT verbal section in 1990, whites scored an average of 442, compared with 410 for Asians, 352 for blacks, 380 for Mexican Americans, and 388 for Native Americans. Eight percent of whites, 10% of Asians, 2% of blacks, 3% of Mexican Americans, and 3% of Native Americans scored above 600 on the SAT verbal section in 1990 (Miller 1995, table 3.9, p. 61). Overall, researchers have treated achievement test scores as an indicator, to varying degrees, of a combination of innate ability (intelligence) and learned information. The underlying assumption is that achievement test scores, however imperfect, measure some degree of ability or intelligence. Hence, when racial and ethnic differences persist after taking parental socioeconomic background into account, sociologists often fault unmeasured differences in quality of schooling or other unmeasured differences. Because recent studies suggest that the achievement gap (at least for whites and blacks) begins at an early age (Dreeben & Gamoran 1986), increasingly researchers look at the growth in achievement test scores among a cohort of students as a way to examine how parents, schools, and peers affect changes in test scores (see, for example, Keith & Page 1985, Guo 1998, Stevenson et al. 1994). Although change in test scores is, conceptually, a more precise measure, it is the absolute scores that affect attainment and eventual labor market outcomes.
GRADES
Another indicator of academic performance is grades. Although some researchers fault grades (especially self-reported grades) as being an imprecise measure that is affected by variation in biases of teachers and students as well as the quality of schools and the relative difculty of particular classes, grades are an important outcome because students and parents regularly monitor student performances via grades (DiMaggio 1982, Fehrman et al. 1987, Farkas et al. 1990, Valenzuela & Dornbusch 1994, Fuligni 1997, Kao 1995, Kao et al. 1996). Grades are positively correlated with achievement tests, but they are more sensitive to student input, such as hours spent on homework and time watching television (see Fehrman et al. 1987, Rumbaut 1990, Kao et al. 1996, Fuligni 1997, Rumbaut, unpublished manuscript). Moreover, they are a more concrete measure of student orientation toward schooling than abstract attitudes or educational aspirations because most
422
KAO
THOMPSON
students embrace proschooling attitudes and report extremely high educational aspirations in survey questionnaires (Alexander & Cook 1979). Moreover, grades signal to students, rightly or wrongly, their odds of success in school, which may affect their odds of attaining higher education (Fehrman et al. 1987). Racial and ethnic variation in grades parallel that of test scores; however, variations in grades are more likely to be accounted for by parental background and student characteristics and behavior. Like achievement test scores, grades are highly correlated with parental SES. In some studies, parental SES accounts for much, if not all, of the variation. For example, in an earlier paper using a nationally representative sample of eighth graders from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), Kao et al. (1996) found that Asians had the highest GPA (3.24) versus 2.96 for whites, 2.74 for Hispanics, and 2.73 for blacks. After taking parental education, income, household status, immigrant status, and prior experiences at school into account, the mean GPA of Hispanics was no longer signicantly different, whereas the mean GPA of Asians was still moderately signicantly different from that of whites. The mean GPA of blacks, on the other hand, remained statistically signicantly lower than that of whites. It is likely that more precise measures of parental education would have better captured the extent to which Hispanic youth are disadvantaged because the lowest parental educational category was less than high school. Hence, more-detailed parental SES measures may have completely accounted for group differences between Hispanics and whites.
EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS
Although educational aspirations were an important predictor of eventual education and occupational status, their position in recent social science literature is more problematic. Starting with the early studies of status attainment, researchers argued that educational aspirations were a good indicator of students plans for the future (Sewell et al. 1969, 1970; Campbell 1983). Hence, they provided an important clue to a students eventual educational and occupational attainment. More recently, the concept of educational aspirations has been more controversial. Although few researchers would cast doubt on the claim that high aspirations are an important precursor to high attainment, it is unclear that modern survey instruments actually capture the difference between students who are seriously and actively thinking about college and those who simply report lofty goals (Alexander & Cook 1979, Jencks et al. 1983, Kao & Tienda 1998). Moreover, some argue that aspirations are simply a report of students likelihood of attending college and not a motivating factor per se (Alexander & Cook 1979, Jencks et al. 1983). However, most youth report extremely high educational aspirations, with most surveys reporting that the vast majority of youth expect to complete college. Moreover, Asian, black, and Hispanic youth all report much higher aspirations than would be expected given their SES (Kao & Tienda 1998). The problem of almost uniformly high educational aspirations among youth (but much lower subsequent attainment) has been well documented by others, such as Hansons Lost Talent (1994, 1996), and Schneider
423
& Stevensons The Ambitious Generation: Americas Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless (1999). Although aspirations are correlated with grades, test scores, and eventual attainment, it is unclear what having high educational aspirations actually implies for todays youth.
TRACKING AND COURSE TAKING IN HIGH SCHOOL

Students are stratied within schools according to ability groups or tracks. Numerous studies have shown that poor children and racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately placed in low-ability groups early in their educational careers and in non-college-bound groupings in junior high and high school (Joseph 1998, Slavin & Braddock 1993, Oakes 1985). Likewise, research shows that lowincome and minority students participate at higher rates in vocational curricula and at lower rates in academic curricula than do afuent and white students (Oakes & Guiton 1995, Ekstrom et al. 1988, Oakes 1985). Recent statistics from the Digest of Education Statistics (National Center for Education Statistics 1997) report the following patterns: the percentage of high school seniors who reported being in the college preparatory or academic track were 46% of whites, 36% of blacks, 31% of Hispanics, 51% of Asians, and 23% of Native Americans. Those reporting in the general track were 43% of whites, 49% of blacks, 56% of Hispanics, 40% of Asians, and 61% of Native Americans. Finally, the percentages of each race/ethnic group reporting to be in the vocational track were 11% of whites, 15% of blacks, 13% of Hispanics, 9% of Asians, and 17% of Native Americans (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). These statistics show that half of Asians and almost half of whites report being in the highest track. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are more likely to be in the general track, and they also have the highest numbers in the lowest track (vocational). Similarly, another study found that nonblacks were almost three times more likely than blacks to be in the honors or advanced track in English and math (Kubitschek & Hallinan 1996). Thus, patterns of racial and ethnic disadvantage in tracking continue. There is mixed evidence on whether these racial and ethnic effects on track placement remain once controls, such as ability, are added to analytic models (Oakes et al. 1992). An older study found race effects disappear (blacks versus nonblacks) once test scores, academic orientation, course selection, and grades were controlled for (Alexander & Cook 1982). However, a more recent study found that once academic achievement was controlled, racial and ethnic differences decreased but did not disappear (Hallinan 1994). School track placements may also be inuenced by students measured English-language ability, so that, for instance, otherwise talented and capable Mexican-origin students are placed in remedial or vocational tracks (Donato et al. 1991). The effects of track placement have also been extensively studied. Because racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately in lower tracks, the effects of tracks will lead to differential outcomes. The general conclusion on the effects of tracks is that tracking and ability groups have a negative effect on the achievement
424
KAO
THOMPSON
of lower track students, a negligible effect on students in the middle groups, and a weak-to-modest positive effect on students in the high tracks (Hallinan 1988, Oakes 1985, Eder & Felmee 1984, Sorensen & Hallinan 1986, Alexander & McDill 1976, Hauser & Featherman 1976, Heyns 1974). Further disadvantages for the lower tracks include the development of negative attitudes and behaviors related to learning (Hallinan 1988). On the other hand, placement in the college preparatory track in high school produces positive effects such as high academic achievement (grades, test scores), measures of motivation, and educational aspirations and attainment, even after controlling for family background and ability differences (Rosenbaum 1976, Alexander et al. 1978, Hauser & Featherman 1976, Alexander & Cook 1982). Similarly, research has shown that upper-track students obtain higher grades, are more likely to complete college, have more positive selfconcepts, and have lower rates of misconduct and truancy, even after controlling for home background variables (Ansalone 2001). Just as there are racial and ethnic differences in student track and ability group placement, there are also differences in the courses students take in high school. Of course, patterns of course taking are related to placement in specic tracks. The Digest of Education Statistics (National Center for Education Statistics 1997) examined the average number of Carnegie units earned in various subjects and found that Asian students had the highest number in math, science, and foreign language. The Carnegie unit represents one credit for the completion of a 1-year course (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). Native Americans had the lowest total units in math and foreign language, whereas blacks had the lowest in science. Blacks and Native Americans had the highest vocational education units, whereas Asians had the lowest. The Digest (National Center for Education Statistics 1997) also reported the percentages of high school graduates earning various combinations of credits in different subjects. The highest level (4-English, 3-science, 3-math, 0.5-computer science, 2-foreign language) was earned by 27% of whites, 20% of blacks, 28% of Hispanics, 36% of Asians, and 13% of Native Americans. Other statistics nd similar patterns. Miller (1995) found that blacks and Hispanics lagged substantially behind whites in enrollment of all math and science courses except Algebra I and Biology in 1982 and 1987. However, from the 1980s to the 1990s, both black and white high school graduates were following a more rigorous curriculum. Yet, black high school graduates were still less likely than white graduates to take advanced science and math courses or study a foreign language (U.S. Department of Education 1995, Epps 1995). Mare (1995) also found an increase over time in the total number of courses and basic academic courses taken, especially among blacks and Hispanics. Even within tracks, racial and ethnic differences in course taking persist. Within the vocational area, low-income and minority students disproportionately take classes related to low-skill jobs, whereas white and afuent students more often take courses that teach general skills or include considerable academic content (Oakes 1983). On the academic side of the curriculum, low-income and non-Asian minority students disproportionately take low-level and remedial
425
courses, whereas whites and Asians tend to dominate enrollments in advanced and honors courses (Braddock 1990, Oakes 1990). One reason for the differential course taking in high school is that different schools offer different courses. Low-income, urban schools do not offer the same range and level of courses as their more afuent suburban counterparts. Urban schools are less likely to offer advanced courses or gifted and talented programs (Garibaldi 1998). Predominantly white and wealthy schools offer more high-ability classestwo to three times as many advanced placement courses per student as low-income, predominantly minority schoolsand a larger share of their students take these advanced classes (Oreld et al. 1996). In addition, differences in course participation are due to educators perceptions about race and class differences in academic motivations and abilities. Students and parents also make choices about course taking (Oakes & Guiton 1995). Both tracking and course taking have effects on educational outcomes. Gamoran (1987) found that tracking and course taking together accounted for substantively signicant differences in student achievement. Thus, racial and ethnic differences in the tracks students are placed in, and the courses they take in high school, can lead to further differentiation in educational achievement and attainment.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Whereas educational performance is crucial for eventual success in higher education, educational attainment is key in affecting eventual labor market outcomes. In general, Asians have the highest probability of school progression at each level of schooling, followed by whites, blacks and Hispanics, and Native Americans (Mare 1995). For all groups except Asians, family background explains a large proportion of the differences in educational attainment between white and nonwhite ethnicracial groups. In many cases, family background explains one half to two thirds of the difference (Mare & Winship 1988). However, remaining group differences suggest that other factors affect the collective performance of each group. Immigration policy also plays a role, as requirements of family reunication and occupational qualications have resulted in the need for formal credentials, and account for the high educational levels among some Asian immigrant groups (Portes & Rumbaut 1996). The sections below review racial and ethnic differences in educational attainment at the high school and college levels.
HIGH SCHOOL: DROPOUTS AND COMPLETION Dropping Out

Dropping out of school is not evenly distributed racially, economically, or geographically (McLaren 1988). Researchers have noted that blacks, and especially Hispanics and Native Americans, are signicantly more likely than white or other minority students to drop out of school (Velez 1989, Warren 1996, Teachman
426
KAO
THOMPSON
et al. 1996, White & Kaufman 1997). For instance, researchers analyzing High School and Beyond (HS&B) data, which is a nationally representative sample of high school sophomores and seniors in 1980, found that Asians had the lowest percentage of drop outs (14%), followed by non-Hispanic whites (17%). Native Americans had the highest level (29%) followed by Mexican Americans (28%) and Puerto Ricans (26%). Slightly less than one quarter (24%) of blacks dropped out of high school (White & Kaufman 1997). More recent statistics (National Center for Education Statistics 1997) found that among persons 1624 years old in 1996, 7% of non-Hispanic whites, 13% of non-Hispanic blacks, and 29% of Hispanics were high school drop outs. However, these gures include youth who were not educated in the United States, thus underestimating the educational outcomes of Hispanics in the U.S. educational system. For Mexican Americans, who make up more than 75% of all Hispanics in the United States, this categorization is especially problematic because the average educational attainment of Mexicans who migrate is very low. Combining those who are educated in the United States with those who are educated in Mexico, many who have left school in Mexico and then migrated to the United States to work underestimate the educational attainment of Mexicans who receive their education in the United States. Again, after controlling for differences in parental background, some researchers have found Hispanics to have higher odds of graduating from high school (Hauser & Anderson 1991). Once factors such as generation, language, and social capital are controlled for, ethnicity does not appear to have much impact on dropping out (White & Kaufman 1997). However, when students performance and expectations as sophomores are taken out of the analytic model, ethnicity increases in importance. This indicates that there are substantial ethnic differences in school performance and expectations that lead to differences in dropping out of high school (White & Kaufman 1997). Others nd that the greater likelihood of blacks to drop out can be explained by the relative lack of nancial, human, and social capital (Teachman et al. 1996). Researchers have also examined the factors that predict dropping out of school for various racial and ethnic groups. Using HS&B data, White & Kaufman (1997) found that immigrants are more likely to drop out than are native-born persons of native parentage, and that this is especially true of recent immigrants. The authors found that social capital is also very important in reducing the likelihood of dropping out, and that it can buffer negative effects associated with foreign birth and low socioeconomic origins. This runs somewhat counter to research using more recent data and larger samples of Asian Americans (see Kao & Tienda 1995), which suggest that the effects of immigrant status may vary substantially by ethnic group and by period effects. Moreover, recent research by Louie (2001) suggest that there are signicant socioeconomic differences within immigrant ethnics, and this affects their ability to transform uniformly high parental aspirations. Rumberger (1995) notes some differences between groups. He found that SES predicted drop-out rates for Hispanics and whites, but not blacks. Misbehavior, changing schools, and low grades all increased the odds of dropping out for blacks
427
and whites, but not Hispanics. High school absenteeism predicted dropping out for all groups. Students who attend low-SES schools as well as schools that are predominantly black or Hispanic also experience higher drop-out rates, although for minority students, the effect of attending a predominantly black school is largely accounted for by the low mean SES of these schools (Mayer 1991). Velez (1989) examined the differences in drop-out predictors among Hispanics. Cutting classes, suspensions, dating, being older, and being female increased the odds of Chicano students dropping out. Others nd that large families, Spanish-language dominance, foreign birth, urban environment, and lower-quality schools lessen the likelihood that the Mexican-American student will stay in school (Fligstein & Fernandez 1985). However, bilingualism has positive or neutral effects on educational achievement (Fernandez & Nielsen 1986, Mouw & Xie 1999). Among Cuban students, suspensions increased the odds of dropping out, but having disciplinary problems at school, high SES, and having two parents at home substantially decreased them. For Puerto Rican students, cutting classes, suspension, being older, and being female increased the odds, but having two parents at home decreased them. For non-Hispanic whites, dating, being older, and being female increased the odds of dropping out (Velez 1989). Immigration also had different effects. Cuban students who were relatively new arrivals in the United States were less likely to drop out, whereas their Puerto Rican and Chicano counterparts were more likely to drop out. Family background (high SES) reduced the odds that all students would drop out, although the effects of SES were particularly strong in the case of Cubans (Velez 1989).
High School Completion

The ip side of dropping out of high school is, of course, graduating from high school. All racial and ethnic groups have increased their average rates of school continuation and levels of educational attainment over time (Mare 1995). In 1990, among adults 25 years and older, approximately 78% of whites, 63% of blacks, 50% of Hispanics, 78% of Asians, and 66% of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives had a high school diploma (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). This gure obscures those who were educated in the United States versus those who were not. Among most groups, a majority of members graduate from high school. When groups are further broken down into subgroups and by immigrant status, more variation is evident (Mare & Winship 1988, Mare 1995). For example, in 1980 (persons aged 2635), among foreign-born Mexican Americans, only 29% of men and 27% of women had graduated high school. Native-born Mexican Americans also had relatively low rates of graduation (68% for men, 64% for women). Puerto Rican rates were even lower (54% for men, 53% for women). Groups with the highest high school graduation rates were native-born Japanese Americans (98% of men and women), native-born Chinese Americans (97% of men and 96% of women), foreign-born Japanese Americans (96% of men and 92% of women), and native and foreign-born Asian Indians (men have slightly higher
428
KAO
THOMPSON
rates at 90%94% versus women, 78%87%). However, even among Asian Americans, much variation exists as Japanese, Chinese, and Asian Indians have much higher graduation rates than Laotians, Hmong, and Vietnamese (Miller 1995). In general, Asian Americans have higher educational attainment levels than Pacic Islanders. Among Hispanics, Cubans have the highest high school graduation rates, followed by Central/South Americans, Puerto Ricans, and, lastly, Mexican Americans (Miller 1995). As in the research on dropping out of high school, researchers have similarly examined the predictors of completing high school. One area of interest has been the effects of family structure and other family background characteristics. Wojtkiewicz (1993) found that years spent in mother-only or stepparent families had a negative effect on high school graduation; however, a race difference was found, where mother-stepfather families were not negative for black students. This effect of family structure on high school completion would have differential effects because blacks have the highest degree of experience with nonintact families, followed by Hispanics and whites (Wojtkiewicz 1993, Krein & Beller 1988). Duncan (1994), however, found that female family headship had a positive association with school completion for black females. Warren (1996) found that a great deal of the observed gap between whites and Mexican immigrant adolescents in the odds of completing high school and nearly all of the gap between whites and Chicano adolescents can be attributed to group differences in family background (parents education and occupation, family structure, siblings). However, even after numerous controls, Mexican-origin students are still less likely to complete twelfth grade, suggesting that issues such as discrimination, school segregation, or differences in aspirations play signicant roles in creating and maintaining inequalities in educational attainment (Warren 1996). Wojtkiewicz (1993) also found that although family structure mattered (parental structure, number of siblings), family SES had a stronger effect on educational attainment. The effects do vary by group, however. For example, background variables may be more powerful predictors of high school completion among whites than Mexican Americans (Fligstein & Fernandez 1985). Generation also differentially affects high school completion. For Hispanics, high school completion rates increase with each generation, whereas for whites and Asians, they increase from the immigrant to second generation only, with little difference between the second generation and the native born of native parentage (Rong & Grant 1992). However, White & Glick (2000), using HS&B, found that immigrant youth who arrived as adolescents were more likely to persevere through high school, compared with both native-born and immigrant youth who arrived at an earlier age, despite having lower levels of parental SES and social capital.
COLLEGE TRANSITION
Although in recent years most high school seniors plan to go to college right after high school (in 1992, 77% of whites, 75% of blacks and Hispanics, 83% of Asians, and 66% of Native Americans), much fewer actually make the transition
429
to college (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). College enrollment of blacks and Hispanics has increased over time, although these improvements slowed in the 1980s (Baker & Velez 1996). The enrollment rates of 1824 year olds in institutions of higher education in 1996 show racial and ethnic variation. Forty-ve percent of non-Hispanic whites, 36% of non-Hispanic blacks, and 35% of Hispanics were enrolled (enrollment as a percent of high school graduates) in postsecondary institutions in 1996 (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). Rates of college attendance for Asian groups are extremely high; except for Vietnamese, the rates of persons aged 2635 in 1980 with some college are close to or above 50% and in many cases as high as 7080% (Mare & Winship 1988). Some of the highest rates are among foreign-born Asians. Non-Hispanic blacks had rates of 33%34% (depending on gender), non-Hispanic whites were 44%54%, and Native Americans had lower rates of 30%36%. Among Hispanics, Cubans had higher rates than Mexican Americans and the foreign born were worse off than the native born. Lowest overall rates were among foreign-born Mexican women; only 11% completed some college. Persistence in college also varied by group. Peng (1988) found that 86% of Asian Americans versus 64% of whites were found in some kind of higher education program 2 years after high school graduation. For those who entered a 4-year university, 86% of Asians stayed the following year compared with 75% of whites, 71% of blacks, and 66% of Hispanics. Hauser & Anderson (1991) found that the chances of college entry declined among blacks from the 1970s to the 1980s, and that this change could not be attributed to changing aspirations. In 1984, the odds that a black high school graduate would enter the rst year of college within a year were less than half of the corresponding odds for a white high school graduate. Blacks are still less likely than whites to make an immediate transition from high school to college (U.S. Department of Education 1995). The decline in black college enrollments has been attributed in part to decreases in the amount and form of nancial aid (Hauser 1992). During the 1970s, black high school graduates were more likely to enter college than were white high school graduates with the same family income. However, after 1980, differences in family income could no longer account for blacks lower odds of enrollment in college (Hauser & Anderson 1991). Older studies have also found that once background and aptitude are taken into account, traditionally disadvantaged minorities had equal or greater chances of attending college (Mare & Winship 1988, Rumberger 1982, Thomas et al. 1979). Furthermore, for students with similar levels of academic aptitude, lower-class minority students had higher rates of college attendance than did lower-class white students (Alexander et al. 1987). Hallinan & Williams (1990) found that blacks had higher aspirations than whites but were less likely to be attending college 2 years after high school graduation. However, once SES and other variables were taken into account, blacks had higher aspirations and higher outcomes (although the latter was not statistically signicant). Interestingly, both black and white students who had cross-race friendships had higher educational aspirations and outcomes than did those with same-race friendships. This indicates a peer effect, although cross-race
430
KAO
THOMPSON
friendships are rare (Hallinan & Williams 1990). The low college attendance rates of Hispanics, especially Mexican Americans, are due to low high school graduation rates. When only the population of high school graduates is considered, some nd that Mexican Americans attend college at a higher rate than whites (Fligstein & Fernandez 1985). Racial and ethnic groups vary in the kind of postsecondary institutions they attend. However, SES matters more than race and ethnicity for entry into selective institutions (Hearn 1991). Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in community colleges, which have poorer outcomes than other postsecondary schools (Brint & Karabel 1989, Dougherty 1994). The concentration is especially true of Hispanics (Lee & Frank 1990). In 1992, approximately 57% of Hispanics in higher education were enrolled in 2-year colleges, compared with 39% of all students (U.S. Department of Education 1994). There is some evidence that students of color have become more concentrated over time in the 2-year sector than whites (Karen 2002). In addition, minorities were somewhat more likely than whites to attend school part-time (Rumberger 1982). Blacks were less likely to attend selective institutions, net of social background factors, such as parents education and income, and number of siblings (Karen 2002, Hearn 1991). The effect was reduced but still remained when academic controls, such as test scores, grades, expectations, and activities were added to the analytic model. Hispanics (controlling for various factors) attended schools that were as selective as the schools whites attended (Karen 2002). There appears to be some leveling off in the past couple of decades in the movement of minorities into top-tier institutions (Karen 1991).
COLLEGE COMPLETION
Persistence through college and earning a bachelors degree are important markers that inuence future labor market outcomes. Between the transition from some college to the attainment of the bachelors degree, some racial and ethnic differences grew between 1980 and 1990 (Mare 1995). Progression probabilities grew for Asians and whites, whereas other groups remained unchanged. Mare (1995) explained this process where inequality in education attainment moves from earlier to later stages of schooling as average levels of attainment increase for all groups. In other words, inequalities persist or even increase at the postsecondary level as groups become more equal at lower levels of education. Recent statistics show that of persons aged 25 and older in 1990, 22% of whites, 11% of blacks, 9% of Hispanics, 37% of Asians and Pacic Islanders, and 9% of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives had earned a bachelors degree or higher (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). Asians are the most likely to complete college (exceeding the national average), followed by whites, blacks and Hispanics, and Native Americans. Variation exists within racial and ethnic groups. For instance, 26% of Japanese, 37% of Chinese, and 52% of Asian Indians had completed 4 or more years of college in 1980 (persons aged 2529), whereas only 6% of Laotians, 3%
431
of Hmong, 13% of Vietnamese, 10% of Native Hawaiians, 11% of Melanesians, and 7% of Samoans did the same. Among Hispanics (aged 25 and over) in 1990, 20% of Cubans, 16% of Central/South Americans, 10% of Puerto Ricans, and 5% of Mexican Americans had completed 4 or more years of college. Greater proportions of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans than whites drop out of college (Kalsner 1991). Camburn (1990) found that whites are considerably more likely than blacks and Hispanics to obtain bachelors degrees even when SES and college plans are controlled for. He found that on average, whites are about twice as likely as minorities to nish college (his sample included high school graduates in large metropolitan areas). High-SES students and those from high schools with higher percentages of white students were more likely to nish college (Camburn 1990). Controlling for high school grades and test scores negated the effect of race, indicating that racial differences in college completion may be due to differences in academic preparation (Camburn 1990). Others have similarly seen race effects disappear in multivariate analyses (Velez 1985, Donovan 1984). In addition, blacks take longer than whites to complete college (U.S. Department of Education 1995). Just as some minority students attended less-selective schools, black and Hispanic students obtain their degrees at somewhat less prestigious institutions than do whites, whereas Asian Americans are found in somewhat more prestigious universities (Jacobs 1996).
EXPLANATIONS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DIFFERENCES Importance of Parental Socioeconomic Status
Parental education and family income is probably the best predictor of eventual academic outcomes among youth. These differences are substantial across race, ethnic, and immigrant groups, and help to explain a substantial proportion (although not all) of the variation in educational outcomes of youth. Hispanics (especially Mexican Americans, who make up the majority of the Hispanic population) are most disadvantaged in terms of parental education levels. After taking parental SES into account, most Hispanics perform at levels comparable to whites in statistical analyses (Kao et al. 1996, Warren 1996). Warren (1996) found that background differences accounted for most of the differences between native-born Mexican Americans and whites. Thus, although the lower academic achievement of Hispanics is problematic, their levels of achievement are comparable to that of whites from similar SES backgrounds. Asian American youth are extremely advantaged in terms of parental education levels. This advantage explains some of the relatively high performance and attainment of Asian American youth, but not all. In fact, several researchers have found that parental education usually does not explain any of the variation in grades within the Asian American population (Caplan et al. 1991, Kao 1995). In addition, there is considerable heterogeneity among Asian American ethnic groups
432
KAO
THOMPSON
(Kao 1995, Blair & Qian 1998). For instance, Kao (1995), using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), found that 81% of all South Asian youth had at least one parent with a college degree. In contrast, only 20% of Southeast Asian youth had at least one parent with a college degree. (The percentage of white youth with one college-educated parent was 35%.) What gets missed when we use the large panethnic labels such as Asian and Hispanic is the great diversity of social class differences by immigrant groups. This difference is crucial as the vast majority of Asian American as well as a substantial portion of Hispanic parents are foreign born. So, whereas many Asian immigrants arrive in the United States with high levels of educational attainment and job skills, some Asian ethnic groups are extremely disadvantaged. For instance, only 25.5% of Mexican immigrants aged 25 and over in 1990 had a high school diploma, and only 3.5% had a college degree. These gures stand in stark contrast to those of Asian ethnic groups64.9% of Indian immigrants aged 25 and over graduated from college, and 87.2% graduated from high school; 62.2% of Taiwanese immigrants graduated from college, and 91.6% graduated from high school; 43% of Filipinos graduated from college, and 82.% graduated from high school; 34.4% of Koreans graduated from college, and 80.1% graduated from high school, and so forth (gures from table 4 in Portes & Rumbaut 1996). Although there is some rationale for the broad characterization of Asian Americans as a model minority group, it is misleading and damaging to ethnic groups that are extremely disadvantaged but happen to be classied under the rubric of Asian Americans. The term itself implies that minorities cannot have any positive characteristics but that the model minority should be used as an example to all other minorities. Moreover, it suggests that the United States provides equal opportunities for all, because some minority groups have made it. For example, only 35% of Cambodian foreign-born adults (aged 25 or over) have a high school diploma, and only 5% have a 4-year college degree; similarly, 37% of foreign-born Laotians have a high school diploma, and only 4.6% have a 4-year college degree (gures from Table 4 in Portes & Rumbaut 1996).
Beyond Parental Socioeconomic Status

More recently, researchers have taken parental SES effects on academic achievement as a given, and have added more complex measures of changing SES over time (Roscigno 1998, 2000). What motivates current debates is how to describe the remaining racial and ethnic variation in academic outcomes net of these effects. Some researchers rely on other structural characteristics such as the quality of schools, peers, and neighbors; these characteristics, although correlated with parental SES, vary by ethnic group membership. In fact, some of the later status attainment researchers examined these differences. Alwin & Otto (1977) examined school SES and school ability levels and found that they did not affect college plans and occupational aspirations but that they may affect other intervening characteristics, such as curriculum placement of students and the college plans of their peers.
433
While a discussion of these studies is beyond the scope of this review, the average effects of school quality of individual performance is rather modest (Thornton & Eckland 1980, Hoffer et al. 1985, Keith & Page 1985, Bryk et al. 1993, Arum 2000). Other studies look toward social capital of particular ethnic groups. For instance, Caplan and his colleagues (1991) argued that the high academic performance of Southeast Asian children from refugee families has to do with children tutoring each other on their homework. This was an effective way for older siblings to review school materials and for younger children to learn. Others have argued that perhaps the advantage of some Asian American groups comes from group-specic social capital, such as policing by other same-ethnic parents, which may prevent delinquent behavior (see Zhou & Bankston 1998). Similarly, one could argue that some Asian American groups (Chinese and Koreans, in particular) are advantaged from the many cram schools that offer advanced after-school training, or that South Asian youth are advantaged from their parental networks of mostly uppermiddle-class friends. This is an important area that warrants further research. Finally, most of the understanding of the academic success of Asian Americans points to their positive cultural beliefs about the benets of education. Although cultural deprivation models are out of favor among social scientists in explaining the lower performance of blacks, cultural models are popular for explaining the relatively higher performance of Asians (see Spencer 1990, Spencer et al. 1991, Caplan et al. 1991). Caplan and associates (1991) argue that Southeast Asians have a cultural understanding that prioritizes self-reliance and achievement. Fuligni (1997, 1998) found that immigrant youth (including Asians) were more likely to believe in education. Schneider & Lee (1990) argued that Asian youth felt a greater obligation to their immigrant parents and believed that it was their responsibility to the family to do well in school. Sue & Okazaki (1990) cite a number of studies that found Asian Americans to be more likely than whites to believe in the value of education for future socioeconomic mobility. Sue & Okazaki (1990) argued that anticipated discrimination leads Asian Americans to overperform in school. Interestingly, Ogbu (1991) argued that anticipated discrimination causes blacks to withdraw from academic activities. Despite the lower academic performance of Hispanics and their disadvantaged parental SES characteristics, they share some commonalities with Asian Americans. Valenzuela & Dornbusch (1994) argued that familism, or the valuation of close ties to family members, is an important form of social capital and was associated with higher academic achievement. Although it is outside the scope of this paper, there is a growing literature that argues that newer immigrant groups perform better in school because they are more likely to respect authority (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 1995), see their lives in the United States as an opportunity for advancement, and come from families that are optimistic about their eventual attainment (Kao & Tienda 1995; see Zhou 1997 for an excellent review). SuarezOrozco & Suarez-Orozco (1995) take their clue from McClellands studies of the achievement motivation and nd that Mexican American youth born in Mexico
434
KAO
THOMPSON
have higher achievement motivations than their native-born Mexican American or white counterparts. Perhaps the most inuential theorist of minority school performance is anthropologist Ogbu (1974, 1991). He has argued that African American youth develop an oppositional identity relative to whites. In other words, because the group identity of blacks focuses on their collective experiences of discrimination, they dene themselves in opposition to the dominant group (whites). Thus, they develop distinct cultural and language norms to maintain their group identity (Gibson & Ogbu 1991). Their parents past experiences with discrimination makes them distrust the dominant society, and makes them less likely to believe that schooling leads to socioeconomic mobility. Elsewhere, Fordham & Ogbu (1986) argued that notions of acting black and acting white become identied in opposition to one another. Hence, because acting white includes doing well in school, acting black necessarily implies not doing well in school (Fordham & Ogbu 1986). Another line of rationale, most notably posed by psychologist Steele (1997, Steele & Aronson 1995), is that stereotypes can shape how minorities perform in testing situations. For instance, he argues that in areas where groups are negatively stereotyped, the threat of that stereotype can dampen their test performance. Under experimental conditions where the stereotype is removed, these groups perform better than under the threat of negative stereotypes (Steele & Aronson 1995, Steele 1997). Most of the empirical work has been conducted on blacks versus whites or women versus men in various experimental conditions. Recent attention to other minority groups has complicated these theoretical explanations. Gibson & Ogbu (1991) published a volume that examined ethnic differences in academic performance in comparative contexts, which led Ogbu to revise his theoretical model. Although blacks and some Hispanic groups t his notion of involuntary minorities whose past experiences with discrimination makes them dubious of the fact that education leads to socioeconomic mobility for them, most Asian groups t his notion of voluntary minorities who migrated to the United States (or other locales) by choice and are more likely to compare their current positions to their peers in their home country. Voluntary minorities are more likely to believe that they will be rewarded for their investments in education. Although this typology is seductive, it leads to considerable confusion given the growing diversity of immigrants to the United States The confusion was even apparent in Ogbus own book (Gibson & Ogbu 1991), which at times treated refugees as voluntary migrants and at other times as involuntary migrants. Similarly, in direct opposition to Ogbus argument, many others have found that black youth have extremely high educational aspirations (Hauser & Anderson 1991, Kao & Tienda 1998, Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey 1998). Mickelson (1990) argued that black youth may have abstract attitudes that are congruent with achievement but that their concrete attitudes regarding whether educational success will bring them socioeconomic mobility match more closely with Ogbus notion of an oppositional identity. She argues that although blacks are just as likely as whites to have positive abstract attitudes toward schooling, they are less likely to have
435
positive concrete attitudes, which explains their lower achievement scores. Her study, however, does not resolve the issue of causalityit may be that lowerachieving youth are more likely to hold negative concrete attitudes about schooling and not vice versa. More recently, Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey (1998) used NELS to examine the key elements of Ogbus oppositional culture explanation and found that empirical analyses did not support Ogbus theory. Whereas Ogbu focuses on the mode of entry for immigrant groups, others have focused on the communities to which immigrants move. More recently, Portes, Zhou, and Rumbaut (Portes & Zhou 1993, Portes & Rumbaut 1996, Zhou 1997, Zhou & Bankston 1998) have argued for the concept of segmented assimilation in understanding differential outcomes of immigrant groups. They argue that because immigrants attempt to assimilate into their local communities, what assimilation means for immigrants varies a great deal. If the local majority population are inner-city African Americans, as was the case for Zhou & Bankstons (1998) study of Vietnamese American youth, then assimilation had a very negative implication to the educational and delinquent outcomes of youth. In contrast, if immigrants hope to assimilate to a high-SES suburban community, then that desire should lead to positive educational outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Overall, there are many signs of optimism. Racial and ethnic gaps in educational achievement and attainment have narrowed over the past 3 decades by every measure available to social scientists. Educational aspirations are universally high for all racial and ethnic groups (Hauser & Anderson 1991, Kao & Tienda 1998, Goyette & Xie 1999) as most adolescents expect to go to college. However, substantial gaps remain, especially between less-advantaged groups such as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans and more advantaged groups such as whites and Asian Americans. The racial and ethnic hierarchy in educational achievement is apparent across varying measures of the academic experience. However, there is less consistency in what factors account for racial, ethnic, and immigrant differences in achievement and attainment (Gottfredson 1981). There is some evidence that whereas racial and ethnic gaps at the lowest levels have improved, some racial and ethnic patterns are more apparent at the highest levels of achievement. For instance, although black and Hispanic students are more likely to attend college than ever before, they are more likely than whites or Asians to attend a community college than a 4-year institution. Even among those who attend a 4-year college, they are more likely to attend less-prestigious institutions than whites or Asians (although this difference disappears for Hispanics once background characteristics are taken into account) (Karen 2002). The broad racial comparisons obscure considerable heterogeneity within the panethnic groups. High-achieving Asian American groups, such as South Asians, Chinese, and Koreans outperform whites on a number of measures, but low-achieving Asian American groups, such as Cambodians and Laotians, have
436
KAO
THOMPSON
outcomes comparable to African Americans. Similarly, Hispanics, Cubans, and to a slightly less extent South and Central Americans have much higher educational outcomes than Mexicans. Immigrants add to the complexity of the minority population of the United States, contributing youth from both high- and low-SES backgrounds. Some evidence suggests that immigrant children outperform their same-ethnic counterparts with comparable parental backgrounds (Rumbaut 1990; Gibson & Ogbu 1991; Kao & Tienda 1995; Suarez-Orozco 1989; Zhou 1997; R.G. Rumbaut, unpublished manuscript; Goyette & Xie 1999). However, others nd that immigrant children have poorer school outcomes than their native-born counterparts (of native-born parents) (White & Kaufman 1997). In terms of absolute levels of achievement, recent immigrants often lag behind native-born minorities in their educational attainment. Given the greater cultural heterogeneity of students in the United States, researchers need to consider that a single model of achievement may not sufce (see Cooper 1990). Immigrant and minority families may work differently in translating aspirations into achievement and attainment. Although parental SES accounts for a substantial portion of the racial and ethnic gaps in achievement and attainment, there is clearly a place for explanations that do not rely solely on social class. Finally, researchers might consider how immigrants and minority families and youth contribute to our knowledge of how individuals succeed in light of great obstacles. Most of our studies consider minority and immigrant status as liabilities to overcome, but it is likely that there are benets to minority and immigrant group membership. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge support from the Spencer Foundation through a Spencer Small Grant awarded to the principal author. We thank Kim Goyette and Emily Hannum for their helpful comments.
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Ainsworth-Darnell JM, Downey DB. 1998. Assessing the oppositional culture explanation for racial/ethnic differences in school performance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:53653 Alexander KL, Cook MA. 1979. The motivational relevance of educational plans: questioning the conventional wisdom. Soc. Psychol. Q. 42:20213 Alexander KL, Cook MA. 1982. Curricula and coursework: a surprise ending to a familiar story. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:62640 Alexander KL, Cook MA, McDill EL. 1978. Curriculum tracking and educational stratication: some further evidence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43:4766 Alexander KL, McDill EL. 1976. Selection and allocation within schools: some causes and consequence of curriculum placement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 41:4766 Alexander KL, Pallas AM, Holupka S. 1987. Consistency and change in educational stratication: recent trends regarding social
RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION background and college access. In Research in Social Stratication and Mobility, ed. RV Robinson, pp. 16185. Greenwich, CT: JAI Alwin DF, Otto LB. 1977. High school context effects on aspirations. Sociol. Educ. 50:259 73 Ansalone G. 2001. Schooling, tracking, and inequality. J. Child. Poverty 7:3347 Arum R. 2000. Schools and communities: ecological and institutional dimensions. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:395418 Astone NM, McLanahan SS. 1991. Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:30920 Baker DP, Stevenson DL. 1986. Mothers strategies for childrens school achievement: managing the transition to high school. Sociol. Educ. 59:15666 Baker TL, Velez W. 1996. Access to and opportunity in postsecondary education in the United States: a review. Sociol. Educ. 69:82 101 Bankston CL III, Caldas SJ. 1998. Family structure, schoolmates, and racial inequalities in school achievement. J. Marriage Fam. 60:71523 Blair SL, Qian Z. 1998. Family and Asian students educational performance: a consideration of diversity. J. Family Issues 19:35574 Braddock JH. 1990. Tracking: Implications for Student Race-Ethnic Subgroups. Tech. Rep. No. 1, Cent. Res. Eff. Sch. Disadv. Stud., Baltimore, MD Brint S, Karabel J. 1989. The Diverted Dream: Community College and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Bryk AS, Lee VE, Holland PB. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Camburn EM. 1990. College completion among students from high schools located in large metropolitan areas. Am. J. Educ. 98:55169 Campbell RT. 1983. Status attainment research: end of the beginning or beginning of the end? Sociol. Educ. 56:4762 Caplan N, Choy MH, Whitmore JK. 1991. Chil-
437
dren of the Boat People: A Study of Educational Success. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Coleman JS. 1961. The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education. New York: Free Press Cooper AM. 1990. Fallacy of a single model for school achievement: considerations for ethnicity. Sociol. Perspect. 33:15984 Corsaro WA, Eder D. 1990. Childrens peer cultures. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16:197220 DiMaggio P. 1982. Cultural capital and school success: the impact of status culture participation on the grades of U.S. high school students. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:189201 Donato R, Menchaca M, Valencia RR. 1991. Segregation, desegregation, and integration of Chicano students: problems and prospects. In Chicano School Failure and Success: Research and Policy Agendas for the 1990s, ed. RR Valencia, pp. 2763. London: Falmer Press Donovan R. 1984. Path analysis of a theoretical model of persistence in higher education among low-income black youth. Res. High. Educ. 21:24352 Dornbusch SM. 1989. The sociology of adolescence. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 15:23359 Dougherty KJ. 1994. The Contradictory College: The Conicting Origins, Impacts and Futures of the Community College. Albany: State Univ. NY Press Dreeben R, Gamoran A. 1986. Race, instruction, and learning. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:660 69 Duncan GJ. 1994. Families and neighbors as sources of disadvantage in the schooling decisions of white and black adolescents. Am. J. Educ. 103:2053 Eder D, Felmiee D. 1984. The development of attention norms in ability groups. In The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes, ed. L Peterson, LC Wilkinson, MT Hallinan, pp. 189208. New York: Academic Press Ekstrom RB, Goertz ME, Rock DA. 1988. Education and American Youth. Philadelphia: Falmer Press Entwisle DR, Alexander KL. 1993. Entry into
438
KAO
THOMPSON in the educational attainment process: what have we learned? Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:54257 Goyette K, Xie Y. 1999. Educational expectations of Asian American youths: determinants and ethnic differences. Sociol. Educ. 72:2236 Guo G. 1998. The timing of the inuences of cumulative poverty on childrens cognitive ability and achievement. Soc. Forces 77:257 88 Hallinan MT. 1988. Equality of educational opportunity. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:24968 Hallinan MT. 1994. Tracking: from theory to practice. Sociol. Educ. 67(2):7984 Hallinan MT, Williams RA. 1990. Students characteristics and the peer-inuence process. Sociol. Educ. 63:12232 Hanson SL. 1994. Lost talent: unrealized educational aspirations and expectations among U.S. youths. Sociol. Educ. 67(3):15983 Hanson SL. 1996. Lost Talent: Women in the Sciences. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press Hauser RM. 1992. The decline in college entry among African-Americans: ndings in search of an explanation. In Prejudice, Politics, and Race in America Today, eds. P Sniderman, P Tetlock, E Carmines, pp. 271306. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Hauser RM, Anderson DK. 1991. Post-high school plans and aspirations of black and white high school seniors: 197686. Sociol. Educ. 64:26377 Hauser RM, Featherman DL. 1976. Equality of schooling: trends and prospects. Sociol. Educ. 49:99120 Hearn JC. 1991. Academic and nonacademic inuences on the college destinations of 1980 high school graduates. Sociol. Educ. 64:158 71 Herrnstein RJ, Murray C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press Heyns B. 1974. Social selection and stratication within schools. Am. J. Sociol. 79(6):143451 Hoffer T, Greeley AM, Coleman JS. 1985. Achievement growth in public and Catholic schools. Sociol. Educ. 58:7497
school: the beginning school transition and educational stratication in the United States. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 19:40123 Epps EG. 1995. Race, class, and educational opportunity: trends in the sociology of education. Sociol. Forum. 10(4):593608 Farkas G, Grobe RP, Sheehan D, Shuan Y. 1990. Cultural resources and school success: gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district. Am. Sociol. Rev. 55:12742 Fehrman P, Keith TZ, Reimers TM. 1987. Home inuence on school learning: direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades. J. Educ. Res. 80(6):33037 Fernandez RM, Nielsen F. 1986. Bilingualism and Hispanic scholastic achievement: some baseline results. Soc. Sci. Res. 15:4370 Fligstein N, Fernandez RM. 1985. Educational transitions of whites and MexicanAmericans. In Hispanics in the U.S. Economy, ed. GJ Borjas, M Tienda, pp. 161192. Orlando: Academic Fordham S, Ogbu JU. 1986. Black students school success: coping with the burden of acting white. Urban Rev. 18:176206 Fuligni AJ. 1997. The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: the roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Dev. 68:35163 Fuligni AJ. 1998. Adolescents from immigrant families. In Studying Minority Adolescents: Conceptual, Methodological, and Theoretical Issues, ed. VC McLoyd, L Steinberg, pp. 12743. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum Gamoran A. 1987. The stratication of high school learning opportunities. Sociol. Educ. 60:13555 Garibaldi AM. 1998. Four decades of process . . . and decline: an assessment of African American educational attainment. J. Negro Educ. 66(2):10520 Gibson MA, Ogbu JU. 1991. Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities. New York: Garland Gottfredson DC. 1981. Black-white differences
RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION Jacobs JA. 1996. Gender inequality and higher education. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 22:15385 Jencks C. 1972. Inequality, a Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books Jencks C, Crouse J, Mueser P. 1983. The Wisconsin model of status attainment: a national replication with improved measures of ability and aspiration. Sociol. Educ. 56:319 Jencks C, Phillips M. 1998. The black-white test score gap: an introduction. In The BlackWhite Test Score Gap: an Introduction, ed. C Jencks, M Phillips. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Jensen AR. 1969. How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educ. Rev. 39:1123 Joseph A. 1998. The impact of tracking: an examination of outcomes. J. Poverty 2:121 Kalsner L. 1991. Issues in college student retention. High. Educ. Ext. Rev. 3:310 Kao G. 1995. Asian-Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. Am. J. Educ. 103:12159 Kao G, Tienda M. 1995. Optimism and achievement: the educational performance of immigrant youth. Soc. Science Q. 76:119 Kao G, Tienda M. 1998. Educational aspirations of minority youth. Am. J. Educ. 106: 34984 Kao G, Tienda M, Schneider B. 1996. Racial and ethnic variation in educational achievement. Res. Sociol. Educ. Social. 11:263 97 Karen D. 1991. The politics of class, race, and gender access to higher education in the United States, 19601986. Am. J. Educ. 99:20837 Karen D. 2002. Changes in access to higher education in the United States: 19801992. Sociol. Educ. 75(3):191210 Keith TZ, Page EB. 1985. Do Catholic high schools improve minority student achievement? Am. Educ. Res. J. 22:33749 Krein SF, Beller AH. 1988. Educational attainment of children from single parent families: differences by exposure, gender and race. Demography 25:22134
439
Kubitschek WN, Hallinan MT. 1996. Race, gender, and inequity in track assignments. Res. Sociol. Educ. Social. 63:17893 Lee VE, Frank KA. 1990. Students characteristics that facilitate the transfer from two-year to four-year colleges. Sociol. Educ. 63:178 93 Lewis O. 1966. The culture of poverty. Sci. Am. 215:1925 Lichter DT. 1997. Poverty and inequality among children. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:121 45 Lieberson S. 1980. A Piece of Pie: Black and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Louie V. 2001. Parents aspirations and investment: the role of social class in the educational experiences of 1.5 and secondgeneration Chinese Americans. Harvard Educ. Rev. 71:43874 MacLeod J. 1995. Aint No Makin It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Mare RD. 1995. Changes in educational attainment and social enrollment. In State of the Union: America in the 1990s, ed. R Farley, pp. 155213. New York: Russell Sage Found. Mare RD, Winship C. 1988. Ethnic and racial patterns of educational attainment and school enrollment. In Divided Opportunities: Minorities, Poverty, and Social Policy, ed. G Sandefur, M Tienda, pp. 173203. New York: Plenum Mayer SE. 1991. How much does a high schools racial and socioeconomic mix affect graduation and teenage fertility rates? In The Urban Underclass, ed. C Jencks, PE Peterson, pp. 32141. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. McClelland DC, Atkinson JW, Clark RA, Lowell EL. 1953. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts McLaren P. 1988. Broken dreams, false promises, and the decline of public schooling. J. Educ. 170:4165 Mickelson RA. 1990. The attitude-achievement paradox among black adolescents. Sociol. Educ. 63:4461
440
KAO
THOMPSON Portes A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and application in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24(1)124 Portes A, Rumbaut R. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Portes A, Zhou M. 1993. The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its variants. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 530:74 96 Rong XL, Grant L. 1992. Ethnicity, generation, and school attainment of Asians, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic whites. Sociol. Q. 33:625 36 Roscigno VJ. 1998. Race and reproduction of educational disadvantage. Soc. Forces. 76:103360 Roscigno VJ. 2000. Family/school inequality and African-American/Hispanic achievement. Soc. Problems 47(2):26690 Rosen BC. 1959. Race, ethnicity, and the achievement syndrome. Am. Sociol. Rev. 24:4760 Rosenbaum JE. 1976. Making Inequality: The Hidden Curriculum of High School Tracking. New York: Wiley Rumbaut RG. 1990. Immigrant students in California public schools: a summary of current knowledge. Center Res. Effective Sch. Disadv. Stud. Rep. Assoc. Pap. Am. Sociol. Assoc. 11:130 Rumberger RW. 1982. Recent high school and college experiences of youth: variations by race, sex, and social class. Youth Soc. 13(4):44970 Rumberger RW. 1995. Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of students and schools. Am. Educ. Res. J. 32:583625 Schneider B, Stevenson D. 1999. The Ambitious Generation: Americas Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press Schneider B, Lee Y. 1990. A model for academic success: the school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 21:35877 Sewell WH, Haller AO, Ohlendrof GW. 1970. The educational and early occupational
Miller LS. 1995. An American Imperative: Accelerating Minority Educational Advancement. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press Mouw T, Xie Y. 1999. Bilingualism and the academic achievement of rst- and secondgeneration Asian Americans: accommodation with or without assimilation? Am. Sociol. Rev. 64:23252 Murnane RJ, Maynard RA, Ohls JC. 1980. Home resources and childrens achievement. Rev. Econ. Stat. 63(3):36976 Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat. 1997. Digest of Educaion Statistics. U.S. Dep. Educ.: Off. Educ. Res. Improv. Oakes J. 1983. Limiting opportunity: student race and curricular differences in secondary vocational education. Am. J. Educ. 91:801 20 Oakes J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press Oakes J. 1990. Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Ability Grouping on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica: RAND Oakes J, Gamoran A, Page RN. 1992. Curriculum differentiation: opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In Handbook on Research in Curriculum, ed. P Jackson, pp. 570608. New York: Macillan. Oakes J, Guiton G. 1995. Matchmaking: the dynamics of high school tracking decisions. Am. Educ. Research J. 32:333 Ogbu JU. 1974. The Next Generation; an Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighborhood. New York: Academic Ogbu JU. 1991. Immigrant and involuntary minorities in comparative perspective. In Minority Status and Schooling, ed. MA Gibson, JU Ogbu, pp. 333. New York: Garland Oreld G, Eaton SE, Jones ER. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press Peng S. 1988. Attainment status of Asian Americans in higher education. Paper presented at Natl. Assoc. Asian Pacic Am. Educ. Confer., Denver, Colo.
RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION attainment process: replication and revision. Am. Sociol. Rev. 35:101427 Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. 1969. The educational and early occupational attainment process. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34:8292 Sewell WH, Shah VP. 1968. Social class, parental encouragement, and educational aspirations. Am. J. Sociol. 73:55972 Slavin RE, Braddock JH III. 1993. Ability grouping: on the wrong track. Coll. Board Rev. 168:1117 Sorenson AB, Hallinan MT. 1986. Effects of ability grouping on growth in academic achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 23:519 42 Spencer MB. 1990. Development of minority children: an introduction. Child Dev. 61:267 69 Spencer MB, Swanson DP, Cunningham MC. 1991. Ethnicity, ethnic identity, and competence formation: adolescent transition and cultural transformation. J. Negro Educ. 60: 36787 Steele CM. 1997. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 52:61329 Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Psychol. Soc. Psychol. 69:797811 Steinberg S. 1989. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America. Boston: Beacon Stevenson DL, Schiller KS, Schneider B. 1994. Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociol. Educ. 67:18498 Suarez-Orozco MM. 1989. Central American Refugees and U.S. High Schools: A Psychosocial Study of Motivation and Achievement. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Suarez-Orozco C, Suarez-Orozco MM. 1995. Transformations: Immigration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation Among Latino Adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Suarez-Orozco C, Suarez-Orozco MM. 2001. Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
441
Sue S, Okazaki S. 1990. Asian-American educational achievements: a phenomenon in search of an explanation. Am. Psychol. 45:91320 Teachman JD, Paasch K, Carver K. 1996. Social capital and dropping out of school early. J. Marriage Fam. 58:77383 Thomas GE, Alexander KL, Eckland BK. 1979. Access to higher education: the importance of race, sex, social class, and academic credentials. School Rev. 87:13356 Thornton CH, Eckland B. 1980. High school contextual effects for black and white students: a research note. Sociol. Educ. 53:247 52 US Census Bureau. 2000. http://www.census. gov/population/www/projections/popproj. html US Dep. Educ. 1994. The Condition of Education. Washington, DC: Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat. US Dep. Educ. 1995. Findings from the Condition of Education 1994: The Educational Progress of Black Students. No. 2. Washington, DC: Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat., Off. Educ. Res. Improv. Valenzuela A, Dornbusch S. 1994. Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Soc. Science Q. 75:1836 Velez W. 1985. Finishing college: the effects of college type. Sociol. Educ. 58:191 200 Velez W. 1989. High school attrition among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white youths. Sociol. Educ. 62:11933 Warren JR. 1996. Educational inequality among white and Mexican-origin adolescents in the American Southwest: 1990. Sociol. Educ. 69:14258 Weber M. 1976. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Transl. T Parsons. New York: Scribners White MJ, Glick J. 2000. Generation, social captial and the routes out of high school. Sociol. Forum. 15(4):67191 White MJ, Kaufmann G. 1997. Language usage, social capital, and school completion
442
KAO
THOMPSON structures and high school graduation. Sociol. Perspect. 36:393414 Zhou M. 1997. Growing up American: the challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:6395 Zhou M, Bankston CL III. 1998. Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Found.
among immigrants and native born ethnic groups. Soc. Science Q. 78:38598 Willis P. 1977. Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Wilson WJ. 1980. The Declining Signicance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Wojtkiewicz RA. 1993. Duration in parental
Annual Review of Sociology Volume 29, 2003
CONTENTS
FrontispieceRaymond Boudon
xii 1 23
PREFATORY CHAPTERS Beyond Rational Choice Theory, Raymond Boudon Teenage Childbearing as a Public Issue and Private Concern, Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. THEORY AND METHODS The Science of Asking Questions, Nora Cate Schaeffer and Stanley Presser The Changing Picture of Max Webers Sociology, Richard Swedberg SOCIAL PROCESSES The Sociology of the Self, Peter L. Callero INSTITUTIONS AND CULTURE Relationships in Adolescence, Peggy C. Giordano Still Not Quite as Good as Having Your Own? Toward a Sociology of Adoption, Allen P. Fisher The Economic Sociology of Conventions: Habit, Custom, Practice, and Routine in Market Order, Nicole Woolsey Biggart and Thomas D. Beamish FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS Covert Political Conict in Organizations: Challenges from Below, Calvin Morrill, Mayer N. Zald, and Hayagreeva Rao POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY Skills Mismatch in the Labor Market, Michael J. Handel Day Labor Work, Abel Valenzuela, Jr. The Lopsided Continent: Inequality in Latin America, Kelly Hoffman and Miguel Angel Centeno Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities, Archon Fung 135 307 363 515 v 391 257 335 115 65 283
443
vi
CONTENTS
DIFFERENTIATION AND STRATIFICATION The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation, Camille Zubrinsky Charles Racial and Ethnic Stratication in Educational Achievement and Attainment, Grace Kao and Jennifer S. Thompson The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor Market, Irene Browne and Joya Misra Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratication Processes, George Farkas
167 417 487 541 209 233 563
INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY The African American Great Migration and Beyond, Stewart E. Tolnay The Potential Relevances of Biology to Social Inquiry, Jeremy Freese, Jui-Chung Allen Li, and Lisa D. Wade Racial Measurement in the American Census: Past Practices and Implications for the Future, C. Matthew Snipp DEMOGRAPHY Population and African Society, Tukufu Zuberi, Amson Sibanda, Ayaga Bawah, and Amadou Noumbissi URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITY SOCIOLOGY The Urban Street Gang After 1970, Brenda C. Coughlin and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways, Christy A. Visher and Jeremy Travis POLICY Welfare-State Regress in Western Europe: Politics, Institutions, Globalization, and Europeanization, Walter Korpi INDEXES Subject Index Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2029 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2029 ERRATA An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology chapters (if any, 1997 to the present) may be found at http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml 589 41 89 465
611 635 638

Kao EducAttARS

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kao EducAttARS

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:41742 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019 Copyright c 2003 by Annual Reviews.

RACIAL AND ETHNIC STRATIFICATION IN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTAINMENT

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

TRACKING AND COURSE TAKING IN HIGH SCHOOL

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

HIGH SCHOOL: DROPOUTS AND COMPLETION Dropping Out

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

High School Completion

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

Beyond Parental Socioeconomic Status

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION

Annual Review of Sociology Volume 29, 2003

167 417 487 541 209 233 563

611 635 638

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen