Hao y Ling 2008. The Role of School in The Upward Mobility

American Academy of Political and Social Science
The Role of School in the Upward Mobility of Disadvantaged Immigrants' Children Author(s): Lingxin Hao and Suet-Ling Pong Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 620, Exceptional Outcomes: Achievement in Education and Employment among Children of Immigrants (Nov., 2008), pp. 62-89 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375811 . Accessed: 24/05/2013 10:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 10:41:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Role of Schoolin the Upward of Mobility Disadvantaged children; upward mobility; assimilaImmigrants' Keywords: immigrant segmented high school effects; structural and education; tion;immigrants Chinese Children andrelational Mexican; attributes;
By LINGXINHAO and PONG SUET-LING
How can we explain exceptionaladvancementby children? disadvantaged Extending segimmigrants' traces thestructhisarticle mented assimilation theory, ofhighschoolsattended attributes turaland relational in by youngadultswho reached theirlate twenties in sociolfrom theories 2000. Hypotheses are derived ogy of educationand testedwithfourwaves of data fromthe National Educational Longitudinal Study threemajorfindings. offer First, (NELS). The authors students of disadvantaged an overwhelming majority are attributes attendpublic schools;some relational stuin attended schools bydisadvantaged typical public is shapedby dents.Second,children's mobility upward of theirhigh attributes and relational the structural disadvanare thesamefor schools.Mostschooleffects and student-educator and advantaged youngsters, taged have even stronger structure bonds and curriculum for the effects mobility Finally, disadvantaged. positive and differ widelyamongChinese,Mexicans, patterns to be exposedto favorMexicans are less likely whites. able schoolattributes.
flowsto the United large immigrant from Latin States continue primarily assimilaAmerica andAsia,thesocioeconomic into mainstream tion of newcomers society face a critical issue. becomes immigrants Today, to limits ascent that labormarket a bifurcated Zhou middle-level (Portes and occupations anda substantial 1993).MostHispanic proporare unskilled tionof Asianadultimmigrants in ofimmigrant Can children laborers. parents If achieve lowsocial mobility? upward positions so, what are the conditionsunder which occurs? upward mobility chilonimmigrants' A large ofliterature body in seceducational outcomes dren concerns of children inpart becausemost schools, ondary
was supported NOTE: This research by the Spencer in 2007. FellowsProgram Foundation Resident
DOI: 10.1177/0002716208322582
62
2008 ANNALS,AAPSS,620, November
THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY
63
adulthood when those studies were hadnotreached young immigrants post-1965 school and other While academic conducted. achievement; abandonment; cogniinsecondary areimportant, schools outcomes andemotional behavioral, tive, they chilofimmigrants' Since a large tosocial donot mobility. proportion directly speak itis timely toexamine outcomes suchas arenowreaching dren adulthood, young and attachment to the labor fields of educational attainment, study, postsecondary relative social indicate not force. These outcomes only among young positions - key indicators of andoccupational future butalsopredict adults prestige earnings assimilation. The reception of than natives. tobe disadvantaged aremore likely Immigrants and the local American the population, by the U.S. government, immigrants on national ornegative, market canbe positive, labor neutral, origins. depending or thecognican facilitate hinder and schools coethnic communities, Families, and children ofdisadvantaged tiveand socialdevelopment (Portes immigrants' The school Zhouet al. 2008 [this 2008 [this volume]). volume]; Fernandez-Kelly we identify schoolattributes In thisarticle, ofthesefactors. is theleaststudied children. foster that immigrants' disadvantaged mobility among upward inthree ofintergenerational theunderstanding advances Ourresearch mobility status attainment focuses onsocioeconomic work onthesubject earlier First, ways. tradition tofocus Weextend that andHauser infull adulthood 1978). (Featherman theblack thus full life that onan earlier adulthood, unpack helping precedes stage characterized is often social boxofintergenerational Second, by mobility mobility. which is salient is horizontal often vertical differentiation, differentiation; ignored of study different fields For example, studies. in postsecondary college among Ourstudy andoccupational effects on earnings haveprofound prestige. graduates for ofsocial as a dimension ofpostsecondary fields treats mobility, particularly study life. their work for thefoundations whoarelaying adults Third, intergeneryoung inthefamily, and ofthe isshaped ational school, young bythesocialization mobility theschool hasnotaddressed onsocial theliterature However, mobility community. this fills Ourstudy as a socialization gap. agent. a quantitative takes Thisstudy descripbysummary supplemented approach, Educational cases.We use theNational tions ofindividual Study Longitudinal a nationwide (NELS: 88) thatfollowed sampleof eighth-grade representative or wereagedtwenty-six from 1988to 2000 until for twelve students they years
are Herfieldsofexpertise at Johns Hao is a professor Hopkins University. ofsociology Lingxin Shehas conand quantitative socialinequality, methodology. policy, family, public immigration, Her and native-born on thesocialmobility research innovative ducted ofimmigrant populations. countries. on the health and and on latest ofmigration sending impact focus immigration projects in Stratification andWealth Lines:Race,Immigration, 'ColorLines,Country Sheis theauthor of Foundation America 2007). (Russell Sage in and has a courtesy and demography is appointment ofeducation Suet-ling Pong a professor on sociology centers on Her research StateUniversity. at Pennsylvania ofeducation sociology and between and children's the relationship education, parentalpractices familystructure children. She is the recipient and the education involvement, of immigrants' of the Willard Association. Section Award theSociology Waller oftheAmerican ofEducation Sociological from
64
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
s socialposiraiseyoung We ask,Whatschoolattributes people twenty-seven. as muchas from schoolattributes students benefit tion?Do disadvantaged in their differ children How do students? immigrant disadvantaged advantaged our attainment? status and Together, quantitaschooling experience subsequent similarities cases illustrate of individual tiveanalysis and summary description low-and oftheschoolon socialmobility in theeffects and differences among backChinese and of students Mexican, white, (SES) high-socioeconomic-status grounds.
The Role ofthe Schoolin Assimilation and Social Mobility

status andminority classposition andZhou(1993),lower toPortes According the assimilation to downward vulnerable children makeimmigrants' through eduto discrimination who react school ofinner-city influence byrejecting peers human Parents' normative cationand other capital, mobility. pathsto upward downward from children can shield mode of and structure, reception family from children communities coethnic assimilation. mayprotect strong Similarly, on Bankston and influence 1998). Building segmented (Zhou peer negative children where ofschool, theimportance we highlight assimilation spend theory, within in attributes school Variations hours. of their amount a large pubwaking chilinfluence schools licandprivate disadvantaged among mobility upward may can of schools relational and structural the that Wepropose dren. aspects positive children. faced the obstacles bydisadvantaged helpovercome of theimportance onthenewsecond literature Previous highlights generation Kao of and modes human structure, (e.g., incorporation family capital, parental and Rumbaut and Tienda1995;Hao and Bonstead-Bruns 2001), 1998;Portes and MacLeod1996), andZhou1993;Portes school (e.g.,Portes peerinfluences andneighborhood andcommunity 1998;PongandHao (e.g.,ZhouandBankston Portesand of children, 2007). In theircomprehensive study immigrants' in the of external role stress the Rumbaut (2001) beyond family support pivotal are others" children. "Significant mobility among immigrants' upward fostering of resources to theinstitutional students disadvantaged connecting keyfactors and Portes Dornbusch and schoolsand communities 1995; (Stanton-Salazar hasbeenpaidtoschool curricula, 2008).Lessattention collegeFernandez-Kelly inpublic schools. relations andstudent-educator boundprograms, measured is typically attainment Individuals' status occupational presbytheir Rapid technological completed. tige,incomeearned,and yearsof schooling inturn, skills. on high-tech intheneweconomy advance This, placesa premium labor in the slots to intosignificant fields ofstudy turns pathsleading differing has it because matters and Eide 1995).Specialty force strong training (Grogger coninfull adulthood. attainment for Thus, occupational youngsters' implications include adults should ofyoung ofthe"socialposition" specialty ceptualizations in fields ofpostsecondary study. training
65
about whether adulthood canfully Theremay be concerns the young capture whomaytakelonger to achieve ofthedisadvantaged, thanthe socialmobility Thelife theimportance ofage-appropriate, course perspective suggests advantaged. in a bachelors transitions on-track (e.g., earning degree engineering by age in initiating a full for whereas a delayed, off-track potential growth, twenty-six) studies can onlyrealizepartofthatgrowth transition (Elder 1998). Economic and find Yaron sources oflifetime about Ventura, 2007) that, inequality (Huggett, in initial conditions account for moreofthevariation differences at age twenty, in growth overa lifetime. and wealth thando differences in lifetime earnings in variations human are most initial conditions, capital important. Among
Outcomes The Role ofthe Schoolin Student

eduschool academic outcomes andhigh Because middle postsecondary predict wedraw onthesociology ofeducation litattainment cation 1999, 2006), (Adelman ofdisadvantaged children. thesocialmobility erature to understand immigrants' structure andsocialrelations. hastwosalient The school as an institution aspects: andother curinclude sector features Structural Catholic, schools), private (public, andcontent), riculum (college-bound specific programs ability grouping, (tracking, inparticular), andother attributes students andfor all students for disadvantaged Relational attributes include colsizeanddemographic (enrollment composition). for student andadministrators lective (teachers responsibility sharing responsibility in interest and student-educator bonds(teachers' academic standards, learning), Schools'structural and relational and collegeattendance). students' learning butalsowhencomparing schools sectors notonly whencomparing differ aspects affect students' tolearn. Thesevariations thesamesector. within opportunity outcomes and produce different student schools Sectors by offering stratify ontheadvantages Muchresearch hasfocused prolearning opportunities. varying - strong inthose andpolicies schools content Practices schools. vided byCatholic - areconducive tostudent communal strict curriculum, spirit learning discipline, that allstudents can as areteachers' beliefs andColeman 1985), (Hoffer, Greeley, in differences inchallenging courses learn 1993).Sector Lee, andHolland (Bryk, ofplacement, and cross-group determinants of ability thecomposition groups, achievement ofCatholic school stuthesuperior academic explain mobility largely most students areplacedintheregularin Catholic dents. Forexample, schools, ofstudents areplacedin either while a small levelability only proportion group are or low-level theadvanced publicschoolstudents ability group. Bycontrast, andlow-level Someargue in advanced, distributed groups. regular, ability evenly of Catholic schoolstudents to achievement thatthe higher maybe attributed and rigid Catholic school suchas high-SES selection factors, family background a recent thepropensity-score matchstandards. admission However, study using finds that Catholic school enhances whohave students ingmethod unambiguously into lower toself-select suchschools 2001). propensity (Morgan
66
insecondary Before the1980s, schools wasubiquitous. were Students tracking This achievement or for instruction. created and supported by ability separated class(Oakes1985). andsocial onthebasisofrace/ethnicity educational inequality de overthepasttwodecades, ofde juretracking Concomitant with thedecline takare still in schools half of students facto has public Nearly tracking emerged. in similar courses (Lucas 1999). subjects ingdifferent success academic affects their students takegreatly What courses (Stevenson, and content academic courses because and Schneider 1994) Schiller, by vary detercurriculum of the the structure Because for expectations performance. are especially students and sequence,disadvantaged minescourseavailability acaand Narrow curricula curriculum. a differentiated harmed strong by highly and Smith students and minority low-income demicfocusthatbenefit (Lee tend attributes with similar Publicschools in Catholic schools. 1993)aretypical Holland and schools than other tobe moresuccessful 1993). Lee, (Bryk, public in many as found is highly Whenthecurriculum differentiated, publicschools, and with racebe associated to SES more in and is likely diversity race/ethnicity students school Public Berends and de facto class-based 2002). (Lucas tracking inprivate schools. than those tracked tobe de facto aremore likely and tend to offer able clientele affluent and an Institutions rigorous serving create within schools enriched of may diversity Demographic programs study. ofstudent studies For thesereasons, courses. ofaccessto advanced inequality such for school often control composition, as aggredemographic performance minorities. and of and SES ethnic, language Highschools proportion racial, gate from students and alienate witha largeenrollment learning discourage may 1991).Although 1996;Rosenholtz 1993;Lee andSmith Lee, andHolland (Bryk, School of Secondary Association schools(National somepushfordownsizing in available resources and stress the others 1996), large opportunities Principals andKeesler schools 2006-2007). (Schneider, Wyse, as important of schools havelongbeen recognized attributes The relational of institutional The achievement. student factors agents, expectations affecting to learn. motivation students' influence andprincipals, liketeachers, counselors, as more inhigh-ability that viewstudents Pallasetal. (1994)find teachers groups are low in ones. When those than expectations conveyed low-ability competent Catholic decreases. motivation andtheir their self-esteem diminishes tostudents, have children because in educating schools are successful they disadvantaged Teachers' in for students even expectalow-ability groupings. expectations high and teachers/counselors bondsbetween the emotional tionsnotwithstanding, such to engageand motivate are crucial students Conceptualizing youngsters. and Dornbusch Stanton-Salazar of socialcapital, emotional bondsas a form midwith critical to students is not as social find that within-school (1995) capital who their lower-income as it is to dle-tohigh-income counterparts backgrounds in school. resources them access do nothaveparents tohelp - that school In schools characterized is,when perby"collective responsibility" outcomes student total for sonnel share accountability youngsters' development ofcollective in schools with lowlevels than tendto be better (Lee, responsibility
67
with collective teachers andCroninger 1997).In schools Smith, responsibility, high and and students are satisfaction less tohavegreater tend morale, higher likely job collective for increases or dropout.Greater to cutclasses learning responsibility In addition, low-SESstudents. academic andmore so for for high everyone, gains for and Driscoll effects havepositive standards 1988;Biyk, Lee, everyone (Bryk andCroninger andHolland 1993,1996;Lee, Smith, 1997). 1993;Lee andSmith stresses structural andrelational onschools as institutions research Asa whole, the of students to and Such attributes attributes. govern capacity participate and school accumulate in make shape Day-to-day experiences progress learning. inhigh school andtheir accesstoandperformance outcomes academic students' institutions. inpostsecondary
as schoolattributes We conceptualize positive lesser racialor classdifferentiation, and curricula, regular academically rigorous to most advancedcurricula students, provided senseofcollective responsibility, high strong studentand robust academicemphasis, bonds. educator
Hypotheses
onindividuals' life chances influence havea long-lasting that schools Wecontend of relational attributes structural and twohypotheses. andpropose First, positive in adulthood. We conceptualize socialposition young influence students' schools racial orclassdifferentiation, as lesser attributes school academically rigorpositive to moststudents, curricula and advanced ous curricula, strong provided regular studentand robust senseof collective highacademic emphasis, responsibility, attributes of schools structural and relational bonds.Second,positive educator We alsodetermine offamily student should benefit background. regardless every benefit students from andrelational attributes structural which positive empirically their more than counterparts. advantaged backgrounds disadvantaged in children Because of the smallsamplesize of disadvantaged immigrant toteststatistically whether suchchildren beneNELS, we areunable gainmore thando other fits from schoolattributes students. Instead, mobility-promoting ofindividual we resort to summary casesofdisadvantaged students descriptions andChinese ofMexican origins.
68
Data and Measures

Our analysis Educational draws from four wavesof data from the National information The base NELS (NELS: 88). Longitudinal Study year survey provides and on country oforigin, dateofarrival, status, family background, generational The first in in the academic 1988 when students were background eighth grade. school. in 1990provides s high information about therespondent survey follow-up The secondfollow-up in of 1992 contains measures prosurvey college-bound andrelational attributes oftwelfth-grade schools as wellas students' grams posiwe inthecurriculum tion structure. thelong-term effect ofhigh To gauge schools, in 2000. Available usedatafrom thefourth of 12,144 respondents follow-up survey and information includes educational fields ofpostsecondary attainment, study, or status. most were 2000, employment By respondents agedtwenty-sixtwentyof a large seven.These datasuitourpurposes thetwelve-year follow-up given which of children. national includes a sample, subsample immigrants' We consider iftheir hadvery lowsocioecostudents as disadvantaged parents if was below the20th nomic in eighth the SES status grade: specifically, family This restrictive the and had less than twelve of percentile years schooling. parents ofthe2000 definition ofdisadvantage to only 1,045cases(8.6 percent) pertains social NELS sample. ofa young adults We focus on three dimensions position:
1. Educational attainment that differentiates adults' productivity potential vertically young - no postsecondary eduinthelabormarket. We specify four levelsofschoolattainment s degreeor certificate, and bachelors some collegewithout a degree,associate cation, attainment belowpostdifferentiate educational degreeand above.We do notfurther for economic education becausepostsecondary education is nowthestandard secondary well-being. 2. Fieldofpostsecondary thosewhogaineda postsecondary degree.Ifwe difstudy among future ferentiate workers field of individual study horizontally, postsecondary predicts and occupational We highlight two majorfields:scienceand engiearnings prestige. in a third and professional fields are grouped (se) and business neering (bp). All other category. 3. Employment status(working or not working) a postsecondary amongthose without demandfor we omitlaborforce education, degree.Because oftherising postsecondary attachment amongthosewith postsecondary degreesin thisanalysis.
varithesethree ourdependent variable is an ordinal dimensions, Combining ableoftencategories notworking from lowto high: no postsecondary education, not nopostsecondary somecollege, education, (nopse-nowk); working (nopse-wk); s or some associate certificate, (sc-nowk); (sc-wk); working college, working degree other fields associates business or professional (aa/ct-ot); degreeor certificate, fields associates or science and fields certificate, (aa/ct-bp); degree engineering bachelors or other fields bachelors (aa/ct-se); (ba-ot); degree higher, degreeor business or fields and bachelors higher, professional degreeor higher, (ba-bp); science andengineering fields (ba-se).1 Students enter with individual demoschool factors (family high background, and academic and that influence their school graphics, high learning background)
69
We measure in eighth education. thosefeatures for postsecondary preparation in social class is indicated their Students' SES, which, NELS, by parents' grade. variable basedon parental and is a standardized education, income, composite of and are For status children, country origin generation occupation. immigrants' and of We combine to construct an race,ethnicity, country origin important. an extra to indicate national orivariable (with category missing eleven-category ofwhites and blacks chilthesmaller among immigrant proportion gin).Given in in all whites a and all blacks another we include dren, category category. we identify Mexicans, Cubans,PuertoRicans,and other AmongHispanics, we identify Asians, Chinese,Filipino, Korean,and other Among Hispanics. = = and Chinese Mexicans Asians. (n 165), (n = 140) are the (n 946), Filipinos three groups. national-origin largest In ourdescriptive all groups. and In multivariate we include analysis analysis, Mexican because and Chinese we veryfew descriptions, highlight summary definition of The first no Cubans fit our and (four) disadvantage. genFilipinos withforeign-born the second children to foreign-born refers eration parents; States with at leastone parent children bornin theUnited includes generation are native-born children with bornabroad.Thirdor higher-order generations native-born parents. academic is alsoconditioned school Students' bytheir preparalearning high measured achievement. whichis commonly tionand motivation, by previous lackof academic Thus,we use graderetention up to eighth gradeto indicate in own educational Students' gradecapture expectations eighth preparation. school. before their motivation high entering in thetenth variables a set of schoolstructural We measure grade.School or other betweenpublic and Catholic sectorsdistinguish privateschools. of minorities includes Schooldemographic percentage language composition in lunch orlow-cost ofstudents andpercentage program. participatingthefree Curriculum content and rural. ofschoolcan be urban, The location suburban, math offered. Another set of courses of regular is measured by the number in in Students' is measured twelfth variables schoolstructural position grade. in becausethat information is measured twelfth structure thecurriculum grade whether is not availableforthe tenthgrade.Students theywere reported or vocational proregular program, program, placedin a collegepreparation dissemination and applicaofcollegeinformation In addition, programs gram. inschools. We alsoinclude the tionassistance systematic arrangements capture in federally funded that levelofparticipation promote collegeattenprograms BoundandtheTalent Search suchas Upward danceofdisadvantaged students, to measure thelevelofstudent involvement a composite We create programs.2 in suchendeavors. intenth variables School a full setofschool relational We alsomeasure grade. basedon 5-point scaleanswers to eleven is a composite collective responsibility to themost for suchas "I can getthrough difficult teachers, student," questions "Teachers are responsible forkeeping students from outofclassand dropping
70
ACADEMY THEANNALS OFTHEAMERICAN
and "I wouldchange ifstudents well."We use are notdoing school," approach and of theschool meanofthis to the level collective responsibility composite tap in stuofteachers' for thevariation deviation tocontrol itsstandard responsibility literature usedin theeducation a phrase "Academic dentlearning. (e.g., press," fostered climate refers to the academic Lee and Bryk 1988), bytheschooland It is a composite achievement. for student standard toemphasize a high teachers items for school to five scale answers based on several administrators, 5-point todo homeare "Students to students suchas "Teachers achieve," expected press ofcollective details of the morale is and "Teacher (For work," composites high." and see and academic 1997.) Lee, Smith, Croninger press, responsibility the for is unavailable and academic Information oncollective press responsibility are constructed bonds student-educator The variables twelfth describing grade. andthelevel inthestudent's interest onteachers' from students' learning reports twovariThese education. for educators offered ofencouragement college by inbothtenth andtwelfth ablesaremeasured grades.
Strategies Analytic
ofindividual with We use a quantitative descriptions approach supplemented The NELS. taken from students cases of disadvantaged descriptive immigrant ofwhite, students ofdisadvantaged socialmobility documents patterns analysis between the associations We then and Chinese Mexican, patterns analyze origin. in attainment and status of highschools and relational attributes of structural adulthood. young and socialmobility schoolattributes between The observed may relationship school influences the latter because withfamily be confounded background oftheschoolmay attributes and relational In addition, thestructural selection. therole To test ourhypotheses eachother. andconfound be correlated regarding to model we use an ordered in young socialmobility, adults' oftheschool logit B. let individual variable. For the ordinal i, dependent ten-category analyze demoindividual variables denotea vector ofbackground (family background, school S10. denotetenth-grade and academic variables, background); graphics, the cumulative denote and S12.denote school probtwelfth-grade variables, Cki k = 1, . . . , 9. ofthedependent foreach category ofmobility variable, ability is expressed as The ordered model logit
=p* +p2Sio< +p3Si2'+m' jg ti=y
a)
of subsets models a setofincremental We estimate (1) with byentering equation to the of to aid our variables each blockof degree understanding sequentially which these variables areconfounded.
71
modelwherewe assumethatthe schoolinstituEquation(1) is the main-effect oftheir thewholepopulation, are thesame for tioneffects regardless disadvantaged institutional theidentified status. To testwhether arrangements mobility-promoting we specify thanadvantaged an indibenefit morestrongly students, disadvantaged the interaction terms between this indicator and status catorfordisadvantaged Dt modelsenable us to testour The interaction-effect and selectedschoolvariables. statuses. differential school effects bydisadvantaged regarding hypotheses a data is all As with follow-up persistent problem surveys, missing longitudinal variables in a study likeourswheremany thatis even moreprominent (morethan levels constructed variablesand forty-eight variables)at different eighty original does a involved. NELS and school) are (individual, relatively good job in family, with for the thesamplein each waverepresentative study population appromaking followfor the 2000 wave The complete (fourth sample weights. priate longitudinal ID andgender haveno missing student values;all other only up) is 12,144.However, from 2.7 percent cases ranging have smallto moderatemissing variables original in curriculum structure). placement (e.g.,students' (e.g.,age) to 15.7 percent We adopta state-of-the-art techniqueto accountformissimputation multiple typically replaces imputation ing data (Rubin 1987; Royston2004). Traditional based on nonmissvalueswiththe mean,mode,or regression prediction missing inference as inadequate.For statistical ingvalues.Thatapproachis now regarded intothe to be valid,it is essentialto include the correctamountof randomness standard errors whencomputing thatuncertainty and to incorporate imputations for parametersof interest.In multipleimputations, and confidenceintervals at random.Multipleimputation are assumedto be missing observations missing takesan iterative procedurein whicheach variableis imputedbased on complete cases, and the imputedvalues of thisvariableare used in the nextvariable.This values are imputed.3 procedureis carriedon untilall missing data is todealwith with The basicidea ofdataanalysis missing multiple imputations inthedata. ofvariables distribution from themultivariate draws probability byrandom of simulated vercreatea number Insteadofonlyone sample, imputations multiple themissing cases and valuesfor contains each ofwhich sionsofthesample, imputed Estimated suchsamples. In thisstudy, we use five is analyzed parameters separately. errors are Standard to givea singleestimate. are averaged variable fora particular to the "Rubinrules,"devisedto allow forthe between-and computedaccording in theparameter estimates.4 ofvariation components within-imputation
Results Descriptive
adultoutcomes Young
adultsin our data reflect in socialposition Racial/ethnic amongyoung disparities immion thetwolargest nuances.Here,we focus butalso revealmany racialdivides and and them with whites. grant groups,Mexican-origin Chinese-origin, compare - educational ofone dimension ofsocialposition Figure1 depictsthedistribution
72
ACADEMY THEANNALS OF THEAMERICAN

FIGURE 1 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AMONG WHITE, MEXICAN, AND CHINESE YOUNG ADULTS
NOTE: View the slices from12 o'clock,clockwise. education; no_pse= no postsecondary = associate aa/cert s degreeor certificate; ba+ = bachelorsdegreeor above.
divide attainment. those with theracial/origin education, Among postsecondary and is sharp 37 12 of the late twenties: of Mexicans, whites, by percent percent the 63 percent or above. ofChinese had received a bachelors However, degree 14 much: of s or does not differ as associate certificates perpercentage degrees forChinese.A large centfor 15 percent forMexicans, and 18 percent whites, a of Mexicans without had some collegeeducation (40 percent) percentage The 30 of whites and 17 of Chinese. with perdegree, compared percent percent educaofourlongitudinal ofrespondents without postsecondary centage sample tionis largerforMexicans (33 percent)thaneitherwhites(21 percent)or Chinese (2 percent). Foryoung Socialposition is determined attainment. than educational bymore for attachment for the educated and workforce adults, specialty training higher 2 shows that thelower educated are keyto human accumulation. Figure capital education is low labor force detachment a postsecondary among peoplewithout
73
FIGURE 2 THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOCIAL POSITION AMONG WHITE, MEXICAN, AND CHINESE YOUNG ADULTS
12 o'clock, clockwise. are no postsecondary NOTE: Viewtheslicesfrom education, Categories some notworking no education, college, working (nopse-wk); (nopse-nowk); postsecondary other associatesdegreeor certificate, some college,working notworking (sc-nowk); (sc-wk); assofields business orprofessional fields associate s degreeorcertificate, (aa/ct-ot); (aa/ct-bp); bachelorsdegree or fields(aa/ct-se); science and engineering ciates degree or certificate, fields business orprofessional other fields (ba-ot);bachelorsdegreeor higher, (ba-bp); higher, fields scienceand engineering and bachelorsdegreeor higher, (ba-se).
(3 percentofwhites,10 percentof Mexicans,and zero amongChinese). The relwithin the some-collegegroupis very oflaborforcedetachment ativeproportion smalland similar forall threegroups.Chinese withan associates degree or certificate account fora relatively (13 highpercentagein science and engineering of study percent).Among college graduates,a similarpercentagedistribution in fieldsis foundbetweenwhitesand Mexicans,who have a smallerproportion
74
than science andengineering Chinese. Chinese take theleadinproviding 18perfor the science and centoftheir as to fields, compared 7 pergroup engineering centofwhites and2 percent ofMexicans. in howdisadvantaged We are interested students advance or failto advance their low socioeconomic status. 3 from educational parents' Figure compares thedisadvantaged and fields of study between and theadvantaged attainment and Chinese.Figure3(a) is forbachelors Mexicans, whites, among degreeor or certificate The topthree associates above(BA) and3(b) for (AA/Ct). degree theproportions ofthethree offields andthe sections ofeachbarindicate types allthose whose education is lower than BA. section combines bottom in BA and fields 3(a) shows that thedifference ofstudy between low Figure for and leastforChinese. whites SES and highSES is moststriking Although as a wholeexhibit a lower levelofcollegegraduation, Mexicans disadvantaged are morelikely thandisadvantaged white students to earna Mexican students drive inPortes It is likely that bachelors immigrant profoundly conveyed degree. thedisadvantaged. andFernandez-Kelly (2008)is operating among Interestingly, Mexican arelesslikely tostudy ofboth andChinese scilow-SESstudents groups or other that thestudy of than business ence andengineering fields, suggesting is associated morewithSES thanwithrace/ethnicity. scienceand engineering a strong math Ourresults Science andengineering require subjects background. the popularbeliefthatAsianstendto be uniformly good at math. question tobe related tofamily SES. math skills Rather, appear AA/Ct The different SES subpatterns 3(b) shows among grantees. Figure very low-SES andhigh-SES whites ofAA/Ct is similar between for grantees proportion Chinese. Forlow-SES for low-SES than butlower andMexicans high-SES among andprofessional fields aremost attracofallthree business AA/Ct groups, grantees with their as compared for Chinese, tive, counterparts. high-SES particularly characteristics Background intohigh characteristics do students school? Table 1 Whatbackground bring SES within three ofbackground variables lists thedistribution by racial-origin inthedistribution ofgenerational status. We find substantial differences groups. whites are third or for of Whiletheoverwhelming majority higher generation about60 percent ofhigh-SES Mexicans and and low-SESstatuses, bothhighare third or higher of low-SES Mexicans generation. Among only17 percent and the are first feware third Chinese, generation majority generation, regardthevastmajority oflow-SESMexican less ofhighor low-SESstatus. Overall, arefirst orsecond andChinese students generation. inthe we find little differences totheSES composite, although group Turning themeanSES in thehigh-SES is meanSES ofthelow-SEScategory, category and lowest for the low human for Chinese Mexicans, reflecting unique highest modeofincorporation Mexican and andnegative (Portes among capital parents Rumbaut distribution is uneven low-SES students: 2001). The gender among
THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY FIGURE 3 FIELDS OF STUDY AMONG WHITE, MEXICAN, AND CHINESE YOUNG ADULTS: (A) BACHELOR'S FIELDS OF STUDY BY SES BACKGROUND; (B) ASSOCIATE'S/CERTIFICATE FIELDS OF STUDY BY SES BACKGROUND
75
NOTE: ba_se= bachelors scienceand engineering fields; degreeor higher, ba_bp= bachelors = bachelors orhigher, orprofessional other business fields; fields; ba_ot degree degreeorhigher, = associate s degree s degree orcertificate, science andengineering aa_se fields; aajbp = associate = associate orcertificate, business orprofessional s degreeorcertificate, other fields. aa_ot fields; SES = socioeconomic status.
76
OFTHEAMERICAN THEANNALS ACADEMY

TABLE 1 WEIGHTED DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY AND ACADEMIC BACKGROUNDS: BY THREE GROUPS AND LOW SES White Mexican Low SES 0.014 0.034 0.952 -1.329 .478 26.9 0.425 13.7 5.23 398 High SES 0.073 0.330 0.597 -0.413 0.503 26.4 0.189 15.1 608 Low SES 0.303 0.526 0.171 -1.363 0.371 26.6 0.321 14.3 40.21 338 Chinese High SES 0.509 0.397 0.094 0.296 0.618 26.3 0.076 16.1 151 Low SES 0.764 0.236 0.000 -1.314 0.399 26.7 0.050 15.9 8.74 14
Variable First generation Secondgeneration Thirdor higher generation SES in eighth grade Male Age a grade Everrepeated in Student expectation eighth grade Observations Low SES Percentage
High SES 0.008 0.045 0.947 0.125 0.503 26.3 0.153 15.6 7,924
based on NationalEducational SOURCE: Authors' Longitudinal Study(NELS; compilation status. SES = socioeconomic 1988-2000).
A posandChinese for Mexican women than more men, groups. especially many are male that low-SES is sibleexplanation minorities, more students, particularly Whether out of school and activities todelinquent tobe drawn early. drop likely for low-SES students is a grade everrepeated a student grade greater byeighth Mexicans but not Chinese. whites and students than for among high-SES Distribution ofhighschoolvariables are exposedto different socioeconomic of different Students backgrounds inthehigh-SES white students school environments (see Table2). In tenth grade, while thevast and other to Catholic attend are more schools, private likely category of their race/ attended students of low-SES schools, regardless public majority for 100 for 98.4 and for Mexicans, whites, (99.2 percent percent ethnicity percent are also and lunch Chinese). program minority percentage Percentage language stuoflow-SESMexican andChinese classbased.We can see theconcentration all low-SESstudents attend schools. dentsin highlanguage-minority Virtually in thefree/reduced-priced lunch ofstudents with a high schools proproportion of math howthe number content measured Curriculum courses, by regular gram. students within all between low-andhigh-SES differences doesnotexhibit ever, we school relational three attributes, Regarding tenth-grade groups. racial/origin lower for is actually meanofcollective theschool see that responsibility high-SES Mexican andChinese students than for their lowhigh-SES counterparts. Similarly, SES Mexican and Chinesestudents are exposed to higher academic pressand
77
to interest and educators' teachers' Turning collegeencouragement. greater in class-based students' we observe a school pattern largely twelfth-grade variables, more the exception of Chinesestudents: structure with in curriculum position in and more are students preparation programs uniformly placed college high-SES a class-based invocational a return to areplaced students low-SES Also, programs. which was consisstudent-educator for is observed bonds, twelfth-grade pattern than for low-SES students. students for tently higher high-SES
Results Multivariate
characteristics ofbackground Effects andindividual backexamines multivariate Ourfirst race/origin, family analysis in four school variables and school variables, twelfth-grade tenth-grade ground, model" in Table3. The "race/origin shown models incremental (model1) shows Puerto and other to whites. thatCubansare similar Ricans, Mexicans, Blacks, The fare better. all Asian whereas worse than fare whites, negagroups Hispanics blackeffect than thenegative effect tiveMexican (-.735) is significantly greater Mexican thepersistent about numerous with (-.480),consistent findings previous and low human attainment in educational capital byparents' shaped disadvantage Perlmann After Rumbaut Portes and 2001; 2005). family (e.g., reception negative are and academic individual status, SES, generation background demographics, reduces Mexicans' model" in the"background included (model2), disadvantage The "tenth-grade school sizable andsignificant. remains butnonetheless bya half little addimodel" school and the model" 4) (model 3) (model yield "twelfth-grade Mexican effect is The coefficients. in tional negative persistent, change race/origin of of mode about the with consistent incorpoimpact negative findings previous whenSES is heldconstant. ofMexican ration parents fares that thefirst tothebottom generation panelofTable3,we notice Moving the third in better than fares than thesecond better turn, which, gengeneration, therelaevidence tosupport inmobility decline Thismonotonic eration. provides intheUnited Soon States. drive" andtime between passage "immigrant tionship and for their children have after arrival, push expectation parents high immigrant status reflects andFernandez-Kelly tosucceed(Portes them 2008).Generational States. The pashasbeenin theUnited theimmigrant oftime thelength family weakens which relentless about of time acculturation, progressively brings sage effects are These and Rumbaut drive 2001). fairly generational immigrant (Portes thatgenerational status does not stableacrossincremental models, suggesting attributes. The expected and relational structural school with confound parental andtwelfth-grade school declines as tenthsmall and steady exhibits SES effect school and relational attribthat the structural areincluded, variables suggesting find no difference We to social class. related utesareat most gender only weakly which echoestheincreasing evidence in young socialposition, adults' empirical with men. our thecatching of women because that shows However, up dependent
78
TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL AND RELATIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF SCHOOLS: BY THREE GROUPS AND LOW SES
White Variable in tenth Structural grade Schoolsector Public Catholic Private Languageminority 0 percent 1-10percent 11+ percent Lunchprogram 0 percent 1-10percent 11-50percent 51+ percent Location Urban Suburban Rural Number ofregular math courses in tenth Relational grade Schoolcollective responsibility Schoolmean SchoolSD Schoolacademicpress Student-educator bonds Teachers' interest Educators' collegeencouragement Low Medium High in twelfth Structural grade Student in curriculum structure position Collegeprep Regular Vocational Schoolprograms assisting High SES Low SES Mexican High SES Low SES Chinese High SES Low SES
0.893 0.062 0.045 0.375 0.534 0.091 0.123 0.436 0.397 0.044 0.538 0.462 0.330 4.164 0.090 0.535 -0.012 0.758 0.331 0.190 0.479 0.494 0.366 0.140 2.805 0.960 0.822 0.292 0.132 0.576
0.992 0.008 0.000 0.523 0.354 0.124 0.026 0.321 0.522 0.132 0.725 0.275 0.626 4.203
0.944 0.033 0.022 0.038 0.354 0.608 0.055 0.188 0.454 0.304 0.713 0.287 0.252 4.110 0.257 0.714 -0.200 0.731 0.329 0.218 0.453 0.349 0.505 0.146 2.598 1.270 0.846 0.324 0.136 0.540
0.984 0.014 0.001 0.029 0.158 0.813 0.025 0.064 0.501 0.411 0.649 0.351 0.216 3.948 0.343 0.649 -0.055 0.755 0.250 0.200 0.550 0.287 0.475 0.238 2.510 1.328 0.843 0.436 0.111 0.453
0.926 0.040 0.034 0.070 0.503 0.427
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.126 0.320 0.555
0.088 0.036 0.460 0.253 0.233 0.389 0.219 0.322 0.529 0.471 0.042 4.224 0.622 0.378 0.126 4.713
-0.028 0.577 -0.146 0.718 0.447 0.194 0.359 0.184 0.600 0.216 2.157 1.058 0.810 0.646 0.091 0.263
0.176 0.678 0.300 0.790 0.381 0.135 0.484
0.235 0.761 0.942 0.847 0.340 0.213 0.447
0.581 0.734 0.370 0.207 0.049 0.059 3.709 3.110 1.533 0.863 0.137 0.139 0.724 1.698 0.794 0.210 0.151 0.639
collegegoing Federalprograms for disadvantaged in twelfth Relational grade Student-educator bonds Teachers interest Educators' collegeencouragement Low Medium High
SOURCE: Authors' based on National Educational (NELS; 1988-2000). Longitudinal Study compilation NOTE: SES = socioeconomic status.
MOBILITY THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD TABLE 3 EFFECTS OF BACKGROUND ON THREE-DIMENSION POSITION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS
79
SOCIAL
Variable
Race/OriginBackgroundTenth-GradeTwelfth-Grade School(3) School(4) (1) (2) -0.089 (0.058) -0.327 (0.071) -0.067 (0.227) -0.482 (0.158) -0.262 (0.110) 0.609 (0.156) -0.490 (0.161) -0.208 (0.188) 0.171 (0.113) -0.213 (0.090) -0.705 (0.085) 0.859 (0.026) -0.030 (0.033) -0.101 (0.034) -0.733 (0.057) 0.256* (0.010) -0.074 (0.060) -0.279 (0.075) -0.103 (0.230) -0.390 (0.160) -0.209 (0.111) 0.696 (0.158) -0.429 (0.163) -0.098 (0.188) 0.221 (0.114) -0.223 (0.089) -0.698 (0.089) 0.783 (0.029) -0.028 (0.033) -0.100 (0.034) -0.718 (0.057) 0.235** (0.010) -0.118 (0.060) -0.312 (0.075) 0.015 (0.233) -0.299 (0.164) -0.164 (0.112) 0.579 (0.161) -0.547* (0.167) -0.114 (0.186) 0.236 (0.117) -0.188 (0.092) -0.638 (0.094) 0.680 (0.029) -0.016 (0.034) -0.044 (0.034) -0.495 (0.059) 0.163 (0.010)
Race/ethnicity/national-origin -0.480 Black (0.055) -0.735 Mexican (0.059) 0.271 Cuban (0.221) -0.641 Puerto Rican (0.144) -0.226 Other Hispanic (0.102) 1.299 Chinese (0.137) 0.311 Filipino (0.149) 0.951 Korean (0.174) 0.848 Asian Other (0.099) status Generation Secondgeneration Third orhigher generation Parental SES Male Age a grade Everrepeated ineighth Student grade expectation
Model1 enters race/ethof12,144 arebasedonthefull NOTE: Estimates only sample respondents. individual and indicators. Model2 adds family characteristics, background, origin nicity/national schoolvariables. Model 4 adds twelfth-grade Model 3 adds tenth-grade academic background. SES = socioeconomic status. areinparentheses. errors Standard variables. school at 1 at 5 percent. ***Significant Significant percent.
80
and attainment women's variable consists ofthree dimensions, edgeineducational out. other cancel each in and their behind science may engineering falling forhigh readiness We contend thatearlyacademicbackground captures indicated of academic Low levels school repetibygrade preparedness, learning. The harmyoungsters' tion and low initial mobility prospects. expectations, remains but is reduced of academic significant statistically preparedness strength inthemodel. areincluded school variables evenafter twelfth-grade schoolvariables oftenth-grade Effects in 3 and4 areshown models from variables school oftenth-grade The effects social schools and private Table4. In model3, Catholic position higher predict structural school most arecontrolled, When sectors variables, adults. among young social do notaffect oflanguage ofa high with theexception minorities, percentage feaother that and found We havealso tested outcomes. demographic mobility do ofsingle-parent andpercentage ofwhites as percentage such families, not tures, with almost sector school is that reason A possible matter. overlaps demographic 10perthan havemore schools andprivate noCatholic Forinstance, composition. The lunch infree orreduced-cost whoparticipate ofstudents cent programs. lead varischool as twelfth-grade andprivate ofCatholic however, school, disappears 4. in model introduced are attributions andrelational structural ablesmeasuring teachers senseof collective a strong As hypothesized, among responsibility Also as at youngadulthood. social position students' improves significantly social with associated academic higher pressis positively strong hypothesized, learnin a student's areinterested teachers Whether inyoung adulthood. position a coltopursue thestudent andcounselors teachers encourage ingandwhether adults. ofyoung thefortunes promote legeeducation education. roleoftenth-grade theimportant 3 show from model results Thus, in schools or private Although publicschoolsas a wholefallbehindCatholic acaand ofcollective levels future socialpositions, responsibility high promoting outcomes in mobility demicpressin publicschoolscan reducedifferences bondsplayan indepenstudent-educator In addition, schoolsectors. between and to students resources institutional rolein transmitting dent, yetimportant can school ina public attributes Goodrelational differences. sectoral neutralizing for low-SESstudents. Thisis especially futures. students' significant brighten colschool ofthetenth-grade ofmany The significant effects variables, except are overridden and teachers' lectiveresponsibility interest, by twelfth-grade curinthetwelfth-grade students' is that The reason school variables. placement In schoolfactors. determined structure is largely riculum by the tenth-grade to college related is moreclosely educators' addition, collegeencouragement intenth intwelfth than decision grade. grade schoolvariables oftwelfth-grade Effects inTable5. 4 areshown model from variables school Estimates for twelfth-grade for their a clear have in tracks should ofstudents upper Placement consequence
MOBILITY THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD TABLE 4 EFFECTS OF TENTH-GRADE SCHOOL STRUCTURAL AND RATIONAL ATTRIBUTES ON THE THREE-DIMENSION SOCIAL POSITION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS Variable in tenth Structural grade Catholic, (publicas thereference) private as thereference) (0 percent Languageminority 1-10percent 11+ percent as thereference) Lunchprogram (0 percent 1-10percent 11-50percent 51+ percent Location(urbanas thereference) Suburban Rural courses math ofregular Number in tenth Relational grade Schoolcollective responsibility Schoolmean SchoolSD Schoolacademicpress interest Teachers' Educators' collegeencouragement Medium High Tenth-Grade School(3) 0.306** (0.088) -0.051 (0.040) -0.120** (0.060) 0.115 (0.090) 0.058 (0.091) 0.032 (0.108) 0.016 (0.045) 0.059 (0.049) 0.033 (0.019) 0.099** (0.041) -0.063 (0.048) 0.092*** (0.030) 0.261*** (0.039) 0.129*** (0.049) 0.352*** (0.040)
81
Twelfth-Grade School(4) 0.127 (0.089) -0.016 (0.041) -0.119 (0.061) 0.151 (0.092) 0.112 (0.092) 0.090 (0.111) -0.001 (0.046) -0.013 (0.051) 0.017 (0.022) 0.091** (0.041) -0.066 (0.049) 0.044 (0.031) 0.114*** (0.042) -0.029 (0.051) 0.067 (0.043)
Models3 and 4 include are based on thefull NOTE: Estimates sampleof12,144respondents. and individual characteristics, academicbackground. family background, race/national-origin, in three school school variables Model3 enters steps.Model4 adds twelfth-grade tenth-grade errors are in parentheses. variables. Standard ** at 1 percent. at 5 percent. ***Significant Significant
82
The educational attainment and thefield Thatis what we found. ofstudy. high is of the strong. College-bound premium college preparation program especially for thedisadvantaged Federalprograms alsohavea promoting effect. programs The studenteffect. such as UpwardBound have an overallsmallnegative adult for intwelfth are bondvariables educator outcomes, grade important young in tenth variables of these the effects than grade. stronger that of Tables3 through In sum,model4 (thelastcolumn first, 5) shows, and other Chinese but white fall behind students Mexican andFilipino students, than better students fare better. students Asian Second, perform first-generation the third than better in who, turn, students, generaperform second-generation andacademic SES remains tion. Third, background strong, significantly parental adultoutcomes. to predict continue educational and early young expectations andteachcollective school variables, Fourth, responsibility tenth-grade among all remain instudent ers'interest Finally, twelfthpredictors. important learning socialpositions future in are variables school youth's significantshaping grade status schooleffects Differential bydisadvantaged the 3 totest We use model differ factors Do theidentified bySES background? the dif4 totest andweusemodel school effects oftenth-grade differential variables, for arefound effects No differential variables. school oftwelfth-grade ferential effects teachers' and and sector school composition twelfth-grade demographic tenth-grade because This isanimportant interest andeducators' finding college encouragement. school attributes. favorable thrive under can students disadvantaged between student results oftheinteraction Table6 reports SES, on one hand, intwelfth attributes and structural intenth relational attributes andschool's grade and for loweffects differential find the other. We on high-SES significant grade, number Becauseofthesmall ofschool variables. values students along disparate we strict our in our of students definition), (1,045) disadvantaged (given sample 1 3 and Columns effect. an interaction levelof.10for a statistical consider testing for main-effect models from the the estimates comparison. previous repeat besidesthe beneficial Column2 reveals that, highlevel of student-educator either mediumlevel of collegeencouragement (from bonds,the educators' students. for low-SES is teacher orcounselor butnot both) advantageous Any only resources institutional will oneteacher, external evenfrom helptransmit support, school and Dornbusch As Stanton-Salazar to low-SESstudents. (1995)suggest, students. for low-SES for resource transmission be the channel relations may only ofa "really is inlinewith theidentification Moregenerally, this significant finding success (Portesand educational other"as a decisivefactorin producing 2008). Fernandez-Kelly for ina college thebonus effect ofbeing Model4a shows program preparatory < in a and a uniform effect of low-SESstudents regular program. being (p .10) with associated inthecurriculum structure is often Sinceplacement ofstudents for ofcollege students' socialclass, thepositive effect programs lowpreparatory 5 4b in column intervention. Model SES students to directions for policy points
MOBILITY THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD TABLE 5 EFFECTS OF TWELFTH-GRADE SCHOOL STRUCTURAL AND RELATIONAL ATTRIBUTES ON THREE-DIMENSION SOCIAL POSITION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS Variable in twelfth Structural grade in curriculum structure Student position as thereference) (vocational Collegeprep Regular Schoolprograms collegegoing assisting fordisadvantaged Federalprograms in twelfth Relational grade interest Teachers' Educators' collegeencouragement Medium High
83
Twelfth-Grade School(4)
1.103**(0.054) 0.356***(0.049) 0.149***(0.016) -0.058**(0.026) 0.148***(0.045) 0.468***(0.060) 0.726***(0.050)
are based on the fullsample of 12,144 respondents. Model 4 includes NOTE: Estimates individual characteristics and acaindicators, background, race/ethnicity/national-origin family are in parentheses. schoolvariables. Standard errors and tenth-grade demicbackground, ** at 1 percent. at 5 percent. ***Significant Significant
benefit low-SES students forthe disadvantaged showsthatfederal programs for students is relatively effect thenegative (.146- .070= .076),while high-SES evidence for the critical roleof small.These results provide population-level were received whose for children external immigrant parents negatively support andRumbaut inthehost 2001). (see Portes country
Who Achieved Children Immigrants' Disadvantaged Some Examples UpwardMobility:

children on upward we havefocused Thusfar, mobility among disadvantaged ofsmall sizeof we facetheproblem level.Nonetheless, at theaggregate sample Customized studies such as cases from successful disadvantaged backgrounds. have the same ofImmigrants theChildren (CILS) Study problem Longitudinal we use summary to andFernandez-Kelly 2008).Therefore, (Portes descriptions We narrow the from our illustrate quantitative analysis. scopeof findings major andlucrative fields ofstudy. s degrees tobachelor success for andChinese andcomMexicans we outline thebasicmobility First, patterns whites. our the with those of them definition, pare third-generation By percentage with ofMexicans wasmore than four times (40percent) background disadvantaged for than the Chinese and about times (9 percentage higher percent) eight higher for whites ofgaining than thepercentage The rate a bachelors (5 percent). degree
84
ACADEMY OF THE AMERICAN THE ANNALS TABLE 6 SELECTED INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL STRUCTURAL AND RELATIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND LOW-SES INDICATOR
Variable Tenth grade Teachers' interest x Low SES Interest Teachers' Educators' encouragement college (medium) Educators' CollegeEncouragement x Low SES (Medium) Educators' (high) encouragement college Educators' CollegeEncouragement (High)x Low SES Twelfth grade Collegeprepprogram x Low SES CollegePrepProgram Regular program x Low SES Program Regular Schoolprogram assisting college-going x SchoolProgram Assisting College-Going Low SES for Federalprograms disadvantaged x FederalPrograms for Disadvantaged Low SES
Tenth-Grade School(3) (3a) 0.261000 (0.039) 0.130 (0.049)
Twelfth-Grade School(4) (4a)
(4b)
0.268 (0.041) -0.082 (0.105) 0.088 (0.050) 0.416 (0.147) 0.333 (0.041) 0.175 (0.140) 1.103 (0.054) 0.356 (0.049) 0.149** (0.016) -0.058** (0.026) 1.078 (0.056) 0.277 (0.164) 0.344 (0.051) 0.071 (0.114)
0.352 (0.040)
0.151** (0.016) -0.047 (0.040) -0.070** (0.028) 0.146* (0.087)
tablearethe Models3 and 4 in this NOTE: Estimates arebased on thefull sampleof 12,144respondents. to model3. Models4a terms a set ofinteraction models.Model 3a introduces same as thosein previous are in parentheses. errors termsto model 4 one set at a time.Standard and 4b introduce interaction status. SES = socioeconomic * ** * at 1 percent. at 5 percent. at 10 percent. "Significant Significant Significant
for 60 percent forMexicans, is about7 percent students among disadvantaged bachelors In whites. 3 for and Chinese, comparison, percent third-generation for 63.3percent for theadvantaged are14.3percent rates Mexicans, degree among are These whites. for and 36.3 Chinese, patterns generalpercent third-generation sizeof becausethesubsample andwhites butnotfor Chinese izablefor Mexicans use. statistical is too small for is which Chinese fourteen, disadvantaged whohada we selected a fewstudents andChinese FromtheMexican groups two We achieved social low-SES but mobility. present (outof background upward
85
one(outofsixteen) successful successful secondMexicans, eleven) first-generation Mexican and one of Chinese student, (out eight)first-generation generation Chinese students aresecond orthird No disadvantaged student. generation. Mexicans. cametotheUnited Rosa,a Mexican immigrant girl, First-generation ofherparents school. Her parental Neither States at age four. completed high within 3 was very the bottom of status socioeconomic low, percent the NELS in eighth for education Rosa had highexpectations college grade. sample. was she did not her proficiency low, repeat anygradeor take Although English or remedial math courses. Rosas tenth-grade school reading high anyremedial More than 50 of the student encomand rural. waspublic, small, percent body all students in the free almost minorities, participated passedracialor ethnic than 10 did not have and more lunchprogram, English percent proficiency. desirable structural and theschoolexhibited conditions, Despitetheseadverse in the of all NELS collective attributes: relational responsibility top quartile Rosas teachers werevery interand academic schools pressin thetopquintile. and teachers the school counselor and estedinherlearning, strongly encouraged In twelfth Rosawasplacedin a college herto go to college. preparatory grade, toa public She shewasadmitted four-year university. Upongraduation, program. and earned herbachelors in business degreein business management majored She feels that she in 1996.In 1999,Rosabecamea manager. andadministration inherjob. anddecision-making hasconsiderable autonomy capacity States whenhe was five old in Mexicoto theUnited camefrom years Juan oftheNELS parental SES wasinthe10th 1978.His Mexican percentile parents' he wouldgraduate In eighth SES distribution. Juans parents hopedthat grade, hisEnglish thesamehope.Although andJuan harbored from proficiency college, he didnothaveto score wasinthebottom test waslowandhisreading quartile, heldback.Atthesametime, classesand was never takeanyremedial English inmath, inthe95th In tenth achievement exhibited percentile. ranking high Juan in a suburban area.The school waslarge a public school he entered high grade, Collective minorities. in terms ofrace,SES, andlanguage anddiverse responsiNELS schools. levelamong wereat aboutthemedian andacademic press bility andtwoAdvanced Placement math courses four The school offered (AP) regular in hislearning; educators at werevery interested teachers math courses. Juans himtopursue admission. whoknew theschool college encouraged Juan strongly In twelfth when he wasintenth His expectations Juan grade, grade. grew higher bonds He continued tobenefit from wasina college strong preparation program. he wasadmitted to school andcounselors. with teachers Uponhigh graduation, inart-speech/drama. He received where he majored a four-year university public in 1996.In 2000Juan wasan office a bachelors manager. degree intheUnited inthe1970s. States Mexicans. wasborn Jose Second-generation NELS SES wasbelowthe4thpercentile His Mexican immigrant parents' among However he wouldobtain a graduate parents. Joseand hisparents hopedthat intheUnited Born he wasfluent inEnglish. Hiseighth-grade test States, degree.
86
ACADEMY THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN
scorein reading wasaboveaverage, buthismath scorewasbelowthe40thperwas In 1989,Joseattended a largeurban centile. publicschool.Its curriculum The courses. five and math courses five college-level rigorous, offering regular onhowtofinance advice fairs andprovided information school college organized funded in the The school alsoactively education. a higher federally participated eduin a technical was senior In his Bound Jose placed year, Program. Upward his which nurtured in but he also cation Bound, participated Upward program, teachers held Teachers Jose's responsibility. collectively high college aspirations. In thetwelfth inhislearning. interest hadstrong inhistenth andtwelfth grades ofa coland teachers school counselors pursuit Jose's supported strongly grade, He in 1992. to a admitted He was education. publicuniversity four-year lege a bachelors was awarded and in and electrical engineering computer majored in 2000. wasa computer in engineering. analyst system Jose degree States intheUnited arrived a five-year-old Chinese. girl, Ying, First-generation school in thelate 1970s.Without Chinawith herparents from education, high In eighth oftheSES distribution. wereinthebottom herparents grade, quintile 80th the were above test scores standardized and math percentile. Yingsreading BothYingand herparents degree.In Yingto earna graduate-level expected of where 20 a suburban she entered school, 1989, percent students publichigh stuhad a The school in free lunch the largeanddiverse program. participated Academic was about The schoolscollective dentbody. average. responsibility NELS schools. was in thetop20 percent however, Yingreported among press, andteachcounselor inher, andtheschool interested were herteachers that very In twelfth education. a to her ersstrongly Ying grade, pursue college encouraged with her bonds wasplacedinone ofseveral Yings programs. college preparation in twelfth remained andother educators teachers Upongraduation, grade. strong She inbiology. where shemajored wasadmitted toa four-year college public Ying workshe is in science. with a bachelors Currently, degree biological graduated a higher topursue while degree. continuing ingas a medical practice professional is their in thesestudents cases.A first Similarities public commonality among attended in NELS students 11 out school attendance. 1,045disadvantaged Only who students 338 low-SESMexican-origin Catholic or private schools. Among a 1 attended and Catholic schools 3 attended achieved primobility, only upward for be a determinant cannot schoolsector vateschool. Thus,byourdefinition, is A second the commonalityimmigrant upward mobility among disadvantaged. children's andconstant drive, pushfor expectations exemplified byhigh parental and structural the entails An outstanding academic success. however, similarity, children those relational oftheschools attended features they disadvantaged by levels ofcollective a rigorous allexperienced curriculum, strong responsibility, high andother with teachers andclosebonds academic press, college-bound programs, forces as important educators. Twoormore ofthese conditions served promoting canfind Readers overcome barriers. andhelping students strong upward mobility those described ofourselected caseswith byZhouet al. (2008). parallels
87
Conclusion
in thisvolumesearching This study forcauses of exceptional joins others advancement children. the social immigrants' amongdisadvantaged Analyzing in in adults their late we of twenties traced mobil2000, positions young upward and relational attributes of the schools those to the structural students ity high from on theories ofeducation, we tested attended. Drawing sociology hypothewaves ofdatafrom NELS. We focused ontwoimmigrant sesusing four groups - andcompared them with andChinese whites. Mexican third-generation canbe drawn from ouranalysis. an overwhelming Threemajor First, findings of students attend schools. thedistribpublic Fortunately, majority disadvantaged whether orrelational, is notentirely school structural ution offavorable attributes, School relational attributes aremuch lesslikely sector. tovary basedon school by Some relational attributes are even class more accesstudents' social backgrounds. children than totheir Thesepatsibletodisadvantaged advantaged counterparts. should aim at structural and that intervention terns strengthening suggest policy is affected children's structural relational attributes. Second, by upward mobility intheir schools. Most school effects arethesamefor attributes andrelational high Student-educator bondsandcurriculum students. andadvantaged disadvantaged effects on students. structure haveevenstronger disadvantaged Finally, positive inthemobility of and differences substantial we find Mexicans, patterns Chinese, in norMexicans show toward whites Chinese whites. Neither convergence youngwiththe observations a result consistent adultsocialpositions, by Zhou et al. Mexicans and whites is particularly worrisome, (2008).The largegap between of children whohaveimmigrant makeup thelargest becauseMexicans group schools' structural andrelational attributes we haveidentified Although parents. most Mexican children attend schools children can helpMexican that succeed, disadvanfavorable characteristics. Combined with that do nothavethose family thatdownward mobility amongsecond-generation suggests tage,thisfactor without efforts. notbe reversed Mexicans major policy may in and relational attributes the structural of that Ourstudy suggests investing solution for of is of the schools children, disadvantaged part regardless public of firstfor Mexicans. The and and national upward mobility origin, especially to be muchmoredependent on students appears immigrant second-generation in than that of their school their higher-generation counterparts. experiences high
Notes
We use a model-base ofscience/technology 1. The order (se) orbusiness/professional (bp) is debatable. from the data. the which order is to determine By comparing BayesianInformation optimal approach theten-category variable that switch the thetwoordered modelsfor Criterion (BIC) from dependent logit we find thatthecurrent s degreeand bachelors orderleads to within associate se and bp position degree, ofthemodel. a better fit 2. The Department of Educationprovides to institutions of higher education to discretionary grants work withhighschoolsto generate students' skills and motivation forsuccessin disadvantaged necessary education. Provided services included in reading, instruction mathematics, science, postsecondary writing,
88
found oftheseprograms and other evaluations skills, However, positive only sporadic subjects. prior study ofEducation outcomes effects on a setofstudent 2004). (U.S. Department themultiple areimputed used in themultivariate valuesofallvariables 3. Missing impuusing analysis thefull so that tation Bytwelfth sampleof12,144inthe2000waveis usedin modelestimations. technique grade.Since highschool amongwhomonly284 droppedout by tenth grade,therewere 931 dropouts, valiftheir ourmultiple havehighschoolexperience, appliesto highschooldropouts imputation dropouts are missing. ues on highschoolvariables to "ice" to createfivemultiple 4. We use the Statacommand samplesand "micombine" imputation errors. standard and their producetheestimates
References
and bachelors attendance in thetoolbox:Academic 1999.Answers Clifford. Adelman, patterns, intensity, and on Postsecondary DC: NationalInstitute Libraries, Education, Washington, degreeattainment. of Education. U.S. Department Learning, Lifelong Paths to degreecompletion . 2006. The toolboxrevisited: college. from high school through ofEducation. U.S. and Adult Vocational of DC: Office Education, Department Washington, contexTheoretical S., and MaryE. Driscoll.1988.Theschoolas community: foundations, Anthony Bryk, Effective on Center National Madison: and teachers. students and consequences tual influences, for ofWisconsin. Schools, University Secondary schooland thecommon Holland.1993.Catholic ValerieE. Lee, and PeterBlakeley Antonia, good. Bryk, Press. Boston:Harvard University 69 (1): 1-12. ChildDevelopment 1998.The lifecourseas developmental Elder,Glen H., Jr. theory. Press. Academic and change.New York: D. L., and R. Hauser.1978.Opportunity Featherman, in rise the and the skills in Eide. 1995. and Eric collegewage premium. Changes college Jeff, Grogger, 30:280-310. ofHumanResources Journal and in educational difference 1998.Parent-child and MelissaBonstead-Bruns. Hao, Lingxin, expectations 71:175-98. and native students. ofimmigrant academicachievement ofEducation Sociology in public and and JamesS. Coleman. 1985. Achievent Hoffer, Thomas,AndrewM. Greeley, growth 58:74-97. Catholic schools.Sociology ofEducation NBER Working Yaron.2007. Sourcesof lifetime and Amir Ventura, Mark,Gustavo inequality. Huggett, MA. Bureauof EconomicResearch, Cambridge, Paperno. W13224,National ofimmigrant theeducational andachievement: Tienda.1995.Optimism andMarta Kao,Grace, performance 76 (1): 1-19. Social ScienceQuarterly youth. of highschool the socialdistribution as mediating 1988.Curriculum Lee, V E., and A. S. Bryk. tracking 61:78-94. achievement. ofEducation Sociology andengagement on theachievement 1993.Effects ofschool B. Smith. E., andJulia Lee, Valerie restructuring ofmiddle-grade students. ofEducation66:164-87. Sociology tor inachievement ongains anditseffects for . 1996.Collective secondary early learning responsibility American schoolstudents. ofEducation104:103-47. Journal theequitable influences 1997. How highschoolorganization and R. G. Croninger. Lee, V. E., J.B. Smith, and science.Sociology in mathematics oflearning distribution ofEducation70:128-50. schools. inAmerican and mobility 1999.Tracking Lucas,SamuelRoundfield. high stratification inequality: Teachers New York: CollegePress. and de correlated 2002. Sociodemographic achievement, Lucas, SamuelR., and MarkBerends. diversity, facto ofEducation75:328-48. tracking. Sociology on schooleffect and theCatholic causaleffect heterogeneity* StephenL. 2001. Counterfactuals, Morgan, ofEducation74:341-74. Sociology learning. of SecondarySchool Principals.1996. Breakingranks:Changingan American NationalAssociation ofSecondary SchoolPrincipals. VA:National Association institution. Reston, Press. New Haven,CT: Yale University How schools structure track: Oakes,J.1985.Keeping inequality. effects: 1994.Ability-group Stluka. and M. Francis KarlL. Alexander, Pallas,AaronM., Doris R. Entwisle, Instructional, social,or institutional? ofEducation67:27-46. Sociology
89
now: Immigrant and second-generation Perlmann, origins progress, Joel.2005. Italiansthen,Mexicans RussellSage Foundation. 1890 to 2000. New York: in the schoolperformance Hao. 2007. Neighborhood and schoolfactors of and Lingxin Pong,Suet-ling, International Review41 (1): 206-41. children. immigrants' Migration for error: Educational and occupational 2008. No margin and Patricia Portes, Fernandez-Kelly. Alejandro, of immigrants. TheAnnalsoftheAmerican children achievement of Academy amongdisadvantaged Political and Social Science620:12-36. ofchildren ofimmigrants: The rolesof and Dag MacLeod. 1996.Educational Portes, progress Alejandro, 69:255-75. Education and schoolcontext. class,ethnicity, of Sociology 2001. The legacies.Berkeley: of California and RubenG. Rumbaut. Press; Portes, University Alejandro, RussellSage Foundation. and New York: and itsvariassimilation and MinZhou. 1993.The newsecondgeneration: Portes, segmented Alejandro, and Social Science530:74-96. ants.TheAnnals oftheAmerican Academy ofPolitical Thesocialorganization SusanJ.1991.Teachers' Rosenholtz, workplace: ofschools.New York: Longman. 4 (3): 227-41. ofmissing values.The StataJournal P. 2004. Multiple Royston, imputation in surveys. New York: D. B. 1987.Multiple Rubin, imputation fornon-response John Wiley. better? BarbaraL., Adam E. Wyse,and VenessaKeesler.2006-2007.Is smallreally Schneider, Testing abouthigh schoolsize.Brookings someassumptions Paperson Education Policy, pp. 15-47. Washington, Institution. DC: Brookings of inequality: M. Dornbusch. 1995. Social capitaland the reproduction Stanton-Salazar, R., and Sanford 68 (2): 116-35. school students. networks Information ofEducation high Sociology among Mexican-origin for 1994. Sequences of opportunities S. Schiller, and BarbaraSchneider. David L., Kathryn Stevenson, 67:184-98. learning. Sociology ofEducation of Education.2004. The impactsof regularupwardbound: Results U.S. Department fromthe third Office. DC: Government data collection. Printing Washington, follow-up How Vietnamese children III. 1998.Growing Zhou,Min,and Carl L. Bankston adaptto life up American: RussellSage Foundation. States.New York: in the United and Yan Sao Xiong.2008. Success Lee, Jody Zhou,Min,Jennifer AgiusVallejo,RosauraTafoya-Estrada, in Los Angeles s new second to social mobility and denied: Divergent deterred, attained, pathways and Social Science620:37-61. TheAnnals ofPolitical oftheAmerican Academy generation.

Hao y Ling 2008. The Role of School in The Upward Mobility

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

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

Hao y Ling 2008. The Role of School in The Upward Mobility

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

American Academy of Political and Social Science

2008 ANNALS,AAPSS,620, November

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

The Role ofthe Schoolin Assimilation and Social Mobility

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

Outcomes The Role ofthe Schoolin Student

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Data and Measures

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

ACADEMY THEANNALS OFTHEAMERICAN

=p* +p2Sio< +p3Si2'+m' jg ti=y

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

ACADEMY THEANNALS OF THEAMERICAN

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

OFTHEAMERICAN THEANNALS ACADEMY

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

0.926 0.040 0.034 0.070 0.503 0.427

1.000 0.000 0.000 0.126 0.320 0.555

0.176 0.678 0.300 0.790 0.381 0.135 0.484

0.235 0.761 0.942 0.847 0.340 0.213 0.447

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

1.103**(0.054) 0.356***(0.049) 0.149***(0.016) -0.058**(0.026) 0.148***(0.045) 0.468***(0.060) 0.726***(0.050)

Who Achieved Children Immigrants' Disadvantaged Some Examples UpwardMobility:

Tenth-Grade School(3) (3a) 0.261000 (0.039) 0.130 (0.049)

Twelfth-Grade School(4) (4a)

0.151** (0.016) -0.047 (0.040) -0.070** (0.028) 0.146* (0.087)

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

ACADEMY THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

1.103(0.054) 0.356(0.049) 0.149(0.016) -0.058(0.026) 0.148(0.045) 0.468(0.060) 0.726***(0.050)

0.151 (0.016) -0.047 (0.040) -0.070 (0.028) 0.146* (0.087)