Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 DOI 10.

1007/s11256-012-0197-2

Acculturation and School Success: Understanding the Variability of Mexican American Youth Adaptation Across Urban and Suburban Contexts
Gilberto Q. Conchas Leticia Oseguera James Diego Vigil

Published online: 10 March 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This article concentrates on the educational experiences of urban and suburban Mexican American youth, from recent immigrants to those that have been in the United States for generations. The article seeks to unravel the relationship between acculturation and school success by offering a holistic and longitudinal approach of three time periods: 1974, 1988, and 2004. The dynamics of Mexican American acculturation and adaptation differ across populations (People), environmental settings (Place), and across the three time periods studied (Time). The diversity of physical space, social locations, and ethnic identities within the Mexican American population needs to be recognized within such an analysis. This article highlights policy and practice designed to impact the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, a population constantly facing changes. Keywords Immigration Acculturation Mexican American youth Urban Suburban High schools Engagement

The children of immigrants have a signicant impact on American society. As constituents, students, future parents and participants in the economy, these young people, their families and their environments together present unique proles

G. Q. Conchas (&) Department of Education, University of California, Education Building, Irvine, CA 92617, USA e-mail: gconchas@uci.edu L. Oseguera Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA J. D. Vigil Department of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

123

402

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

worthy of exploration. One of the greatest areas of concern is their educational plight especially as there is evidence of an educational decline the longer rezimmigrants remain in this country (Feliciano 2006; Keller et al. 2008; Sua rez-Orozco 2001). This article concentrates on the educational Orozco and Sua experiences of Mexican American1 youth, from recent immigrants to those that have been in the United States for generations. The article seeks to unravel the relationship between acculturation or the degree to which one adapts to host country standards and values and school success by offering a holistic and longitudinal approach of three time periods in two neighborhood contexts. By doing so, we are able to devise policy and practice designed to impact the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, a population constantly facing changes (Sanchez 2002). As new waves of Latino immigrant labor enter the U.S. to meet the enormous demands of a global economy (Oboler 1995; Morales and Bonilla 1993), we suggest that an examination of the Latino educational experience carries profound implications as this group trails other immigrant groups in educational attainment and we know educational attainment is important for labor market participation (Feliciano 2006; Kao and Tienda 1995). We expand earlier work (see Vigil 2002) and suggest what continues to be omitted from analyses of educational achievement is attention to a framework of time, place, and people. That is, this research illustrates why the dynamics of Latino acculturation and adaptation differ across the three time periods studied, across environmental settings, and among different Mexican American cohorts. The diversity of cultural styles, languages, and ethnic identities within the Latino population needs to be recognized within such an analysis to provide a more nuanced understanding of why this group experiences different educational outcomes.

Mexican Americans and U.S. Schooling Educational practices in the United States directed toward Mexican American students have often been paternalistic and racist, reecting the secondary status accorded Mexican Americans in the country (Carter 2005; Chavez 2008). This treatment persisted throughout the twentieth century, as immigration from Mexico brought millions of settlers to the Southwest in search of better living standards. Many Americans believed that the only way for Mexican Americans to achieve social mobility was via acculturation to Anglo American standards of speaking and behaving. This theory dominated educational practices through the late 1930s (Gonzalez 1999). Educators argued that minority students needed to learn English and assimilate as rapidly as possible (Garcia 1999; Gonzalez 1999). This policy was carried to an extreme, however, as teachers often demeaned the native culture of minority students (Garcia 1999; Gonzalez 1999; Valenzuela 1999).
1

We use Mexican American and Chicano to refer to the students in this sample or when the research we are citing uses these terms. The term Latino is used relatively interchangeably and is used when the research we are citing uses this pan-ethnic term instead of the ethnic specic terms Mexican American or Chicano.

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

403

This approach was often the only alternative to the more egregious practice of outright segregation, which offered separate, inferior, or even nonexistent school facilities for minorities (Valencia 2010). The policies of Americanization and segregation combined to ensure problems in school for Mexican American students as they were subjected to learning program based on a premise of cultural deciency ndara and Contreras 2009). (Conchas 2001; Ga Mexican Americans (and other communities of color) in the United States resisted blatant forms of racism and discrimination from the onset and regularly struggled for equality on numerous fronts (Delgado Bernal 1999; MacDonald and Garcia 2003). In the aftermath of World War II, the Mendez v. Westminster case in 1947 struck down separate and unequal schools in California (Donato et al. 1991).The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s included various protests and rallies, which represented a challenge to the orthodoxy of the established, Anglo-dominated system. The Chicano Movement of the 1960s grew from this earlier movement. During the East Los Angeles Walkouts of 1968, more than seven thousand students in three East Side Los Angeles high schools left their campuses to stage public protests against inferior schooling options in Mexican American populated schools (Garcia 2010). This student activism achieved various educational reforms, including the introduction of bilingual education and an increase in college enrollment and activism of Latino youth (Delgado Bernal 1999; MacDonald and Garcia 2003). While outright segregation was against the law, the cultural deciency perspective endured. In 1968, Latino children (and blacks) that tested low on IQ tests in the San Diego School District were labeled Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) and placed in special classes. Many of these students spoke little English or were not exposed to the dominant Anglo culture on which the test was based (Valencia and Aburto 1991). Only after this practice was challenged by a coalition of leaders from the NAACP and the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) was the EMR policy changed. Today, Latino (and black) children continue to be overrepresented in special education classes and are most likely to be served with negative sanctions at school (Cammarota 2004; Hehir 2005; Noguera 2003). Thus, the cultural decit philosophy still exists, but is hidden under the cloak of ndara and Contreras 2009; Valencia 1999). objective, standardized tests (Ga By 1974, student and community activism began to break down the monolithic cultural barriers that impeded adjustments to Latino students needs; a cultural accommodation promised in Article 21 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 (Vigil 2011). This period marked the beginning of a shift from the Anglo promotion of Americanization to one advocating ethnic pluralism (Spindler and Spindler 1990) or cultural democracy (Ramirez 1985). The Chicano Movements legacy encouraged barrio youth to retain cultural distinctiveness and not to assimilate, regardless of ones generation or cultural orientation. This was a dramatic reversal as up to the mid-1960s, it was still common for Chicano students to seek a trajectory to Anglo customs. Up to this time, Anglos often degraded Spanish-speaking students by referring to them as T.J.s (Tijuanerosa derogatory slang term for new immigrants from Mexico, or more specically, Tijuana), even if they were born in the United States (Vigil 2007). Many students, particularly from the more Anglo-oriented third and fourth generations, found themselves in a quandary. As they pushed to t in

123

404

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

with Anglos, the rules in their neighborhoods reversed back toward a Latino, specically Mexican orientation or a move toward Mexicanization. The 1970s to the present saw a signicant increase in immigration from Mexico, which has broadened the Mexicanization process (Sanchez 1993). The increase in the number of Mexicans, and Latinos in general, in the United States creates a critical mass, which afrms and further invigorates political and cultural awareness ndara and Contreras 2009). This presence has made it more palatable and efforts (Ga acceptable to be Mexican (Gonzalez 1990). Moreover, Mexicanization often guides the ethnic self-identication process among adolescents and youth (Chavez 2008). While this Mexicanization process gained ground in the early 1980s, a political backlash also began to form. The conservative Reagan administration proved particularly difcult for many minority groups in the United States (Kozol 1992; Chavez 2008). Poverty increased in response to funding cutbacks and the government cast a blind eye to persistent socioeconomic problems (Wilson 1996). Government funding for low-income and ethnic minority communities dropped signicantly from the late 1960s levels of the Great Society Era including such programs as special education and Head Start (Quadagno 1994). Paradoxically, bilingual education expanded during this time, due to lobbying efforts initiated by a coalition of ethnic organizations (Garcia 1999). As cultural assertiveness grew among Latino opinion makers, government leaders reintroduced Americanization policies. For example, the English-Only language movement, led by nativist Americans, became popular during this time (Hakuta 2011). Consequently, signicant tension began to develop among educators who disagreed on the direction of future U.S. educational policy initiatives (Colvin ndara 2002). 1996; Ga Political pressures to counter the effects of massive immigration continued and resembled turn of the century restriction policies and agendas such as the English-Only movement, anti-immigration initiatives, and antipathy toward Latinos (Chavez 2008). Elected political leaders, at both the federal and state level, use the demographic and multiculturalist changes to appeal to the fears of the public (Hayes-Bautista 2004). The passage of Proposition 187 in 1994, the bill to exclude public benets to all undocumented persons in California, stands as an example (Ono and Sloop 2002). Additionally, legislation such as AB 540 in California, which allows certain undocumented students to attend Californias public higher education institutions at in-state resident tuition rates has been challenged in the courts (Flores and Oseguera 2009). More recently, the signing of Arizonas SB 1070, which orders all immigrants to carry their legal identication papers at all times, generated a furor across the country as did a recent court ruling upholding much of Alabamas immigration law that is described by some as the strictest immigration law in the country (Robertson 2011). In some quarters, there exists a push to generate laws that would prevent anchor babies, children born in the U.S. of undocumented parents, from being granted citizenship (Chavez 2008). These governmental and political forces shape the communities, school climates and lives of those in their path. This article offers an examination of how these broader forces impact the lived experiences and educational outlook of adolescents growing up in these contexts across three different time periods.

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

405

Methodology To illustrate the examination of time, people, and place, two schoolsone urban and one suburbanwere selected to provide detailed analyses of how the broader social, economic, and political context shapes students ethnic identity and subsequent school success. The current study is based on earlier work examining two time periods: 1974 and 1988 but extends the analyses to include the examination of the community and school context in 2004. In 1974, the schools were initially selected because they represented diverse school settings in terms of their enrollment of students from different immigration generation statuses and ethnic make-ups of the school population; yet, the two schools were about equal in size and both had similar average grade point averages of their student bodies, which would inform a study on ethnic identity and school achievement. Neighborhood Context and School Sites There are differences between the two communities sampled in this study, location differences (urban barrio vs. suburban working and middle class), educational attainment and income levels, household size, as well as differences over time (see Table 1). In 1974, the urban location was a largely low-income Latino community in East Los Angeles. The homes and infrastructure here date from as early as the rst decades of the twentieth century. The suburban neighborhood was located approximately fourteen miles southeast of East Los Angeles. In this area, the wellmaintained school and neat rows of tract-home developments exemplify the suburban explosion that characterized greater Los Angeles in the 1950s. During the initial study in 1974, the urban barrio in East Los Angeles, composed of Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans, had a population of more than 102,000, of whom 85 percent were of Latino descent. Residents were generally poor. The average annual household income was only $7,526, and 18 percent of the households were receiving some sort of public assistance. Adults in the urban barrio had an average of 8.8 years of education, and 7.4 percent had no formal education whatsoever. In contrast, the suburban area, in 1974, had a population of approximately 15,500, 48 percent of whom were of Latino descent. The suburban residents were generally middle and working class with household heads in blue-collar occupations. The average annual income was $11,478, and only 4 percent of the households received public assistance. Adults in the suburban area had an average of 12 years of education, and only 1.5 percent had no formal education whatsoever. In 1988, roughly one-third of the population in the urban area had completed at least a high school education while this gure was 60% in the suburban area. By 2004, the urban areas population had declined slightly while the suburban areas population increased. During this time, the Mexican population had mushroomed in both locales representing 97% of the population in the urban area and 81% in the suburban area. Urban income increased to about $31,022 (household size was 4.04) and suburban income increased to $43,223 (household size 3.35). The gaps between residents on public assistance in the urban and suburban areas remained about the same over time.

123

406

123
Percent on public assistance/low income Urban (%) Suburban (%) Urban Suburban Population Percent Mexican origin Urban (%) Suburban (%) 50 60 74 124,283 School size Urban Suburban 50a 48a 24 20 126,379 18 4 102,000 15,500 15,520 17,060 85 91 97 48 67 81 Percent of school Mexican origin Urban (%) Suburban (%) 14 28 N/A 4,830 3,402 1,172 2,782 2,210 2,420 92 99 99 35 71 84

Table 1 Selected community and school characteristics, 1974, 1988, and 2004

Year

Income level

Education attainment

Urban

Suburban

Urban (%)

Suburban (%)

Community characteristics

1974

$7,526

$11,478

20

1988

$22,937

$33,313

34

2004

$35,645

$43,223

43

Year

School dropout

Urban (%)

Suburban (%)

High school characteristics

1974

24

1988

N/A

2004

17

Source: U. S. Census and High School Websites

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

Percent on public assistance is not available so we use percent eligible for free or reduced lunch

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

407

By 1988, an erosion of the economic infrastructure occurred, which was caused by a statewide recession that affected jobs and social habits in both areas (Moore and Pinderhughes-Rivera 1993). Specically, factory closures in the Los Angeles area and changes in labor market demands caused populations to follow the service sector jobs now located in suburban areas (Vigil 2007; Wilson 1996). Socioeconomic experiences play a particularly important role in determining an individuals access, exposure, and identication with the dominant culture (Darder and Torres 2004). Demographic shifts showed a general increase in poverty, with an alarming emphasis on the feminization of this poverty (Bauman 2008). A steady rise in crime and related gang behavior materialized (Vigil 2007). The urban barrio had grown in population, as had the proportion of residents of Mexican descent. The total population in the suburban area had not changed signicantly, but the populace was much more Mexicanized. Neighborhoods in both places have not been radically transformed since the early 1970s. In 2004, lled by residential units, the urban area is mostly older clapboard homes of modest sizes with well kept gardens and streets overcrowded with vehicles, older cars and many pickup trucks. Parking is a problem here and reects the overcrowded circumstances found in many low-income neighborhoods. Two blocks away is a major thoroughfare which is considered one of the main roads in East Los Angeles with used-car lots, liquor stores, restaurants, bars, and smaller business ofces. The suburban area in 2004 includes mid-twentieth-century tract homes, newer but not as solidly built as the older urban ones, but less densely positioned. Parents who work are working class or lower middle class, with many more skilled and professional wage earners. There has always existed a mini-mall three long blocks away from the high school but over the decades has undergone a series of renovations and remakes. It is still the place for students to go when school is over, as a couple of fast food establishments offer tacos and hamburgers. Both neighborhoods are very close to a freeway, one of the desirable elements for a working class population that requires ready access to work places. Signicantly, in 2004, while gang activity had been common in the urban area, gang and street youth activities became more prominent in the suburban neighborhood, as school ofcials and law enforcement emphasized suppression tactics to stem the tide. Suburban areas by then had become sufciently urbanized that marginalization had taken its toll (Vigil 2007). In large part, older classic gangs characterized the urban area and, as the Mexican population moved to other places in search of service jobs, the gang problem and school disengagement followed them (Vigil 2007). The high schools sampled in the three time periods of the study reected their respective environments. The urban high school, built in the 1920s, sits on relatively little acreage. The suburban school, built in 1955, sits on a sprawling, green campus. In 1974, the urban high schools population primarily included students of Latino descent: 32 percent of the students were born in Mexico and 92 percent of the students were of Mexican heritage. In the suburban high school, 35 percent of the students were Mexican American, and only 5 percent had been born in Mexico. Despite having a similar total number of students and average school-wide grade point average (GPA), the urban high school had a signicantly higher percentage of

123

408

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

dropouts than the suburban schoolofcial rates of 24 percent versus 14 percent, respectively. By 2004, the urban and suburban high schools were 99 and 84% Mexican origin students, respectively. Student Sample In 1974, a sample of students was chosen from each of the two schools by randomly drawing equal numbers of students of Latino2 descent at each grade level (tenth, eleventh, and twelfth). The nal 1974 sample consisted of 39 urban and 41 suburban students, evenly divided by gender. These students were administered questionnaire guided interviews covering their language skills, cultural backgrounds, and school behavior, performance, and attitudes. In addition, using an acculturation scale developed by Vigil (2002), constructed from students responses about language and culture practices, six students from each school were selected for more in-depth, intensive interviews and home and school observations. Two students were chosen with low-scale scores (more Mexican-oriented), two with intermediate scores (Chicano-oriented), and two with high-scale scores (more Anglo-oriented).3 Data from interviews with these students, their families and teachers as well as report cards and school records were used to provide context for the analyses. Based on their school records, academic performance was evaluated by calculating the grade point average of the students and divided into low performance if students maintained lower than a 2.0 grade point average and satisfactory performance if their grade point average was above 2.0. In 1988, a similar design was employed. However, the 1988 sample included fewer suburban students than before (only 31) and more students (12 from each school) for the in-depth interviews. The 2004 sample is generated from a larger dropout study that has been underway since 2002 and in 2004, surveys were administered (including the acculturation items to produce the acculturation scale) to 460 students (representative of the school-wide population) and formal intensive interviews with 12 students at each school (more than in year 1974 but the same as in year 1988) were conducted. Initially, we expected to include selected data from students at each acculturation scale (e.g., Mexican-oriented, Chicano-oriented, or Anglo-oriented) yet few students identied as Anglo oriented while the majority scored closer to a Mexican-oriented identity (see Fig. 1). Analytic Approach Ethnographic eld notes (Emerson et al. 1995) that focused on observed actions and scenes were recorded. After the observations, these eldnotes guided the development of lengthier descriptive accounts of the observation session. These observations allowed us to document specic elements of acculturation, school
2

While the original studies included students of various Latino descents, we restrict this sample and analysis to those students who identied as Mexican origin for the three time periods included in this analysis. For a detailed explanation of the acculturation scale scores and meanings, see Vigil (2002).

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

409

Fig. 1 Acculturation spectrum placement of selected students, 1974, 1988, and 2004. F denotes female interviewee and M denotes male interviewee

engagement and changes in student behaviors over time. Interview data were analyzed in two phases. During the rst phase, transcripts were reviewed line-byline with the goal of identifying recurrent words, phrases, expressions and signicant events or aspects of informants experiences paying special attention to how students related their ethnic identity to their academic performance in school. The second phase consisted of focused coding for any attributions of school success (or failure) that students ascribed to other factors such as sibling inuences, teacher support, or paid employment pressures. We also relied on interviews with school leadership and personnel over the three time periods studied as well as literature around the changing social, political, and economic contexts of the communities in which the two selected school sites were situated. The analysis and subsequent ndings section is designed to accomplish two goals: (1) elaborate how school achievement can be understood in the context of time, people, and place which is informed by the interviews of school and community leaders as well as other sources describing the two contexts such as the Los Angeles Unied School District website and U.S. Census data; and (2) provide a longitudinal explanation for the variations in student achievement across the two contexts and across the three time periods studied.

Findings Various structural and cultural factors inuenced school engagement among the sample of students during the three time periods. In addition to larger demographic changes, factors such as immigrant aspirations, lower economic status, family stability, gender, and ethnic identity, were found to affect academic success. Those

123

410

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

students with an adequate socioeconomic status as self-reported by the student that their families are consistently able to pay expenses on time, active parental involvement and support as dened by student reports that parents encourage their aspirations and know how they are performing in school, secure family environment as dened by having both parents present and family members not negatively involved with the law, successful role models such as peers and teachers, and a stable ethnic identity as identied in this study as moving toward a Mexicanoriented spectrum seemed to do very well at school.4 We rst present the demographic changes that took place during the three time periods and the common factors found to inuence school engagement from 1974 to 2004 then provide an analysis of how differences in time, people, and place explain students outlook on their educational achievement. Immigration and the Mexicanization of Los Angeles High Schools The data from the 2004 samples show how the communities in both the urban and suburban areas produced a new generation of youth and families, who were proud of their cultural background. For example, the urban eld site experienced a large inux of recent Mexican immigrants including undocumented populations (as well as other Latinos, especially Central Americans, primarily Salvadorans). In the suburban eld site, there were high numbers of immigrants that had been in America for 3060 yearsmany coming as young children. Asserting a cultural allegiance to their home country, the immigrants of this 1.5 generation were unlike either rst- or second-generation immigrants of the past who strived to be more American (Feliciano 2006; Rumbaut and Komaie 2010). South Central and Southeast Los Angeles and Pico Union (west of downtown) replaced East Los Angeles as the primary port of entry for immigrants. New arrivals gravitated to older, cheaper housing and neighborhoods that were closer to the downtown garment and sweatshop factories (Vigil 2007; Wilson 1996). Some newcomers displaced the Chicano residents of older, traditional barrios (Vigil 2007). Consequently, third- and fourth-generation Chicano families, some gangoriented, moved to suburbia, lling the void left by white ight. In the suburban area, the remaining Anglo residents often met the Mexicanization phenomenon with resentment. Clinging to their notion of privilege, many Anglos, including teachers and other public employees, struggled to maintain an aura of control and dominance (Vigil 2007). In the new millennium, as noted, a tremendous wave of immigration increased the Mexican percentage to close to 100% in the inner-city area and near 90% in suburbia. Urbanization had overwhelmed the suburban locality of Los Angeles

Although many students were familiar with street-wise rules and regulations, they often preferred school-smart routines and rhythms. For example, there were always a few role shifters in the urban school, balancing their daytime learning activities with nighttime entertainments and adventures on the street. The effect and degree that these roles play in determining educational success is still unclear. Research does suggest that these factors are interconnected and that no single factor, present on its own, ensures academic success (i.e., Carter 2005; Conchas 2001).

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

411

County in the last 40 years. Today, the new suburbia is located in the outskirts of Orange County, just south of Los Angeles County. In 1974 the two high schools and their respective communities reected contrasting populations in terms of culture, class, and social issues. Place plays an important role in this study, but the dynamic of time is also signicant. By 1988, the high schools had experienced dramatic changes. The urban high school student body was now composed almost entirely of students of Mexican and other Latino descent, and it had grown in total student population by more than 50 percent. In the suburban high school, the proportion of Latino students in the total student population had nearly doubled. The local population was mirrored by the school population, which by 2004 was 97% Latino in the urban area and 81% Latino in the suburban area. The few Anglos that remained were the elderly whose children had matured and moved out to the new Orange County suburbs. In addition, there was a Mexicanization of the political and academic landscape. In 1974, there were few Latinos on either high schools school board. By 1988, there were several Latinos on the school boards of both schools, and the number of Latino faculty and administrators had also increased from the time of the rst study in 1974, as more Latinos gained access to higher education. Parent-teacher meetings were sometimes conducted in Spanish at both school sites. From 1974 to 1988, schools developed strategies to discourage gang members and other incorrigibles from attending. As a result, more gang members were in the streets than in classrooms. Both the suburban and urban high school, in 1988, appeared to be gang free. The only students allowed in school were those with clean records and the proper appearance i.e., ones who did not wear typical gang attire. To some degree, the proliferation of street gangs in years between the studies can be traced to the failure of schools to reach out and address the special circumstances and learning difculties of choloized youth (Conchas and Vigil 2010; Trueba 1991). By 2004, across both the urban and suburban school sites, we saw increases in gang violence on both school grounds. The re-emergence of gangs in the urban, but more signicantly, in the suburban area stems from some third- and fourth-generation families with gang ties moving in but may also stem from the attendant increase in poverty in both of these neighborhoods. By 1988, the introduction of new learning strategies like AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination) made a strong impact in the urban school. AVID was tailor-made for the neglected inner-city students who were identied as bright and capable of rigorous study despite spotty, mostly poor, past academic records. Suburban students also beneted from AVID but had an additional program of Advanced Placement (AP) courses to accelerate their educational trajectories. There was a special, rigorous accelerated history class for each grade level. It included many speakers and outside enrichment outings, during which students heard lectures by experts and visited institutions and historical sites. By 1988, Latino origin teachers were recruited for both schools as many more Latinos acquired teaching credentials (MacDonald and Garcia 2003). The urban school employed about sixty Latino teachers, some even graduates of that school. This trend of hiring Latino

123

412

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

teachers has continued into 2004, especially as more Latinas are enrolling and succeeding in higher education than ever before.5 Based on data collected during the 1988 study, we see that with an increased Mexican and Latino presence, school ofcials in the urban locale made progressive changes to meet the demands of their student population. For example, the school strengthened its bilingual education approach in order to soften the culture shock for immigrant or Spanish-speaking children. Moreover, as noted, the recruitment of more sensitive and culturally aware teachers, adding to the core of those from the 1970s, and an increase in a signicant number of Latino and Latina instructors, contributed to a more accommodative learning climate in the urban locale. Other developments countered these changes. A back to the basics education curriculum led to the appointment of school principals who took no-nonsense, ndara and Contreras quasi-military approaches to campus life and operations (Ga 2009). The urban school, in particular, had a short period during which a former military ofcer became principal and operated the school in what informants described as a tight ship. However, to pull this off, he had to cater primarily to wellbehaved and academically motivated students. He generally ignored the other students and, in fact, eliminated any street socialized students, including gang members, by sending them to a nearby alternative high school. Overall, on the surface, this window dressing provided an attractive fac ade, but a large percentage of the local school-age population was underserved and shunted aside. After a few years of this, some of the parents persuaded the board of education ofces that this type of arrangement was elitist, especially for a low-income, ethnic minority school. By 2004, the urban school was lled with Latinos who were familiar with and experienced in addressing the learning problems of Latino high-schoolers. This despite the still high dropout rate of close to 50%, remembering that the school was mostly of immigrant stock, rst or second generation, and reected the Mexicanization current spoken of in other sections of this article. Suburban educational programs were also notable in 2004. Interestingly, most of the special programs, like Expanded Horizons and AVID, were headed by Latinos and supported by Mexican American teachers and other volunteer parental staff in guiding and directing the educational trajectories of the students. Overall, what began over 30 years as a culturally sensitive learning environment has matured into one that prides itself on things Mexican American. Socioeconomic Status and Immigrant Aspirations Socioeconomic status and immigrant aspirations can be strong factors affecting educational success (Feliciano 2006). Those students with high aspirations were motivated to succeed in school, and this motivation, in turn, helped drive their academic success. Across both the urban and rural contexts in 1974 up to 2004,
5

From the 1974 to 1988 study, institutional changes related to gender tensions evolved as a result of the growing awareness of differences in how males and females receive their education (Noguera et al. 2011). Many teachers and school ofcials coordinated their efforts to meet the needs of female students. By the 2004 study, the educational paths of females had opened to the point that they were a sizeable majority of graduates going on to higher education from both the urban and suburban high schools.

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

413

recent immigrants tended to have the highest aspirations. Comparatively, many third and fourth generation Latinos lowered their level of expectations (Conchas 2006; ndara and Contreras 2009; Sua rez-Orozco and Sua rez-Orozco 1995). This was Ga due to a diminishing newcomer effectthe excitement and energy applied to a fresh arena. In 1974 and 1988, some immigrants to the urban locale had experienced setbacks in the United States, and had, over time, lost momentum and motivation; similar to what other scholars have identied as downward assimilation (Oboler 1995; Portes and Zhou 1993; Telles and Ortiz 2009). In contrast, in 1974 and 1988, some immigrants in suburbia felt a sense of relative afuence compared to their urban relatives. As a result, some did not strive for a higher socioeconomic status than their parents and were satised living a de facto blue-collar lifestyle. This complacency, however, was not identied in 2004. In fact, we identied both urban and suburban students (mostly the second or third generation students) who were aware of the lower social classes they occupied. We suggest it is because in both the urban and rural contexts, depressed economic conditions have led students to identify as low-income. Additionally, the socioeconomic gap witnessed in 1974 and 1988 has been practically eliminated across these communities in 2004. That is, a higher proportion of both urban and suburban students live in poverty. The socioeconomic status of immigrant families both before and after entering the United States also affected educational performance and acculturation (Feliciano 2006). Some immigrants who came from educated and fairly afuent backgrounds were able to do well in America within the rst few years of migration. Others had faced poverty both in Mexico and in the U.S., which dampened their aspirations and hopes. This phenomenon was apparent in both the 1974 and 1988 studies. However, by 2004, an added layer of complexity was identied, specically, the rise in undocumented immigrants in both locales. A recent study reported that because of an increase in undocumented children, mostly in the urban area but also in suburbia, there were additional hardships that dampened their educational trajectories (Perez 2011). Because parents feared apprehension and deportation, they were unable to fully participate in school affairs, parent-teacher conferences, and other school events. Along with the many obstacles outlined in this paper, legal status problems add to the difculties in the modern period and can likely be traced back to early 1990s immigration reform (Hagan et al. 2002). Family Stability, Support, and Latino Engagement Poverty and the immigration processes tremendously impact family stability. Family stability and parental support are recurrent themes in the students life histories. Functional families, headed by parents with high expectations, clearly helped the students in this sample start and sustain a positive school career. The active participation and involvement of parents, adults and older siblings in school rez-Orozco and Sua rez-Orozco 1995; related activities was also benecial (Sua Delgado-Gaitan 1991) across all three time periods but interestingly, we see a decrease in the family stability in the 2004 study of the suburban students. Compared to the suburban students of 1974 or 1988, suburban students in 2004 describe their families as having to work multiple jobs in the service industries.

123

414

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

However, family stability alone was not a predictor of academic success across either locale. Several students from relatively stable families had parents that had no strategy or interest in helping their children perform well in school, we saw this especially in the suburban students of 1988 and some of the urban and suburban students of 2004. They were preoccupied with work and other concerns, thus depriving their children of time and attention. This, of course, is no fault of their own but of the need to work long hours, often two jobs each to provide for their families. Unfortunately, for many students across the entire acculturation spectrum, tension and instability were characteristics of their family life in poor and marginalized circumstances; again this was primarily witnessed in the 1988 urban students and both the 2004 urban and suburban students. This had a negative consequence on their performance at school as positive home dynamics provide a crucial foundation for success in school. Young people need encouragement and support, a secure family environment, and a climate conducive to learning. The relative optimism witnessed in the 1974 and 1988 studies seemed to have dissipated in both locals by the 2004 study. To reiterate, in the new millennium, the tremendous rise in undocumented workers and their school age children has affected family integration and survival strategies. Large, extended families that provide social capital are much less common in the United States as compared to networks back in their home country. The lack of social capital adds another burden to the equation for hundreds of thousands of children educated in the nation. School, Classrooms, Teacher Culture, Leadership, and School Success The environment or culture that a school fosters is a signicant factor to consider when analyzing academic success. Classroom dynamics and teacher-student guez 2008). Despite interactions are especially signicant (Conchas and Rodr many obstacles, several students in the 2004 study were performing satisfactorily at school (i.e., maintaining a grade point average above 2.0); they often attributed much of their success to the efforts of their teachers. Teachers can be very inuential role models for students. They can motivate students to realize their full potential and provide nurturing learning environments. Just as teachers can bring about positive changes in their students, their actions can also be detrimental. The teachers in the 1974 study were found, in general, to have lower academic expectations for their students; negative attitudes and racist comments were also more common among them. Discrimination, however, still existed in the 1988 and 2004 studies. In 1988, some students expressed resentment at such treatment, but their responses were subtle. In 2004, conversely, students were more vocal about the racism they experienced in and out of schools. The 1970s saw an increase in hostility and friction in the urban high school employees, mainly between the Chicano principal and the teachers, who were mostly middle class whites.6 The Chicano Movement had played a role in getting the principal appointed, against the wishes of most of the white teachers in the
6

See the work of Urrieta (2009), Working from Within, for a thorough discussion of this phenomenon.

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

415

school, who resented this imposition. The subsequent tensions led to a negative climate for students in the school. Frequent gang ghts also contributed to creating this negative atmosphere. As a result, two youth lost their lives during the study year. After a heated political struggle that involved teachers and many community and school ofcials, the school district replaced the Chicano principal of the urban high school in the mid-1970s. A series of administrators, at the behest of Los Angeles School District ofcials, reintroduced a traditional educational curriculum, avoiding some of the more culturally experimental learning programs. Meanwhile, new teachers, many of them Chicanas and Chicanos, joined the faculty. Together with more established Latino teachers, they collectively made a difference despite the opposition of some top administrators. The ESL program is one example. This program proved pivotal to the participating students academic success. It created a learning environment of cultural accommodation for Mexican-oriented students, which eased their acculturation stress. In recent decades, such programs have become more established and have made their mark in the urban setting, even though controversy continues to swirl around them (Hakuta 2011). In the suburban high school in 1974, the Expanded Horizons program helped students mediate the acculturation process. When the program was launched in the mid-1960s, it was considered innovative but somewhat safe as Latinos were a minority at the time. In the late 1970s and 1980s, when the district, school, teachers, and ofcials began to become increasingly Latino, some people began to consider such programs a threat. Eventually school district leaders made adequate adjustments to the program in lieu of its elimination. The program became institutionalized district-wide and renamed as New Horizons. It expanded to include working-class whites, similar to the previously mentioned AVID initiative that was not ethnic-specic. By the 1988 study, administrators introduced additional learning approaches. For example, and as noted, the AVID program is a daring, innovative strategy for lowincome students, who are identied as bright on the basis of several criteria such as a teachers belief in their potential to succeed and not solely on standardized test results. These students are placed in academically-oriented classes that address their potential and special learning needs. Research shows that the AVID program has been successful and makes a difference among its students (Mehan et al. 1996). However, the suburban school did not escape the onset of tensions between principal and staff. In her attempts to adjust to the tide of Mexicanization, the suburban principal resisted strengthening the multicultural learning environment. Nevertheless, with the persistence and help of certain district ofcials and a group of committed and dedicated teachers and parents, most of the students were still able to gain a good education and, at the same time, develop pride in their Latino heritage. By the turn of the twenty-rst century, both schools had Latino principals and key school counselors and teachers that openly embraced some of the learning strategies developed earlier and were now being carried out in a more systematic way. For example, the suburban director of New Horizons was a Chicana activist, who went beyond clerical ofce duties and took risks on a daily basis, including

123

416

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

instructing students to boycott the school during a regional and statewide, Day without Mexicans protest. Unlike many other teachers and mid-level administrators that toe the party line, she proudly and calmly declared for the principles of the Chicano Movement and provided an example for students. Generally, as the suburban school student population of Anglos declined and Latinos rose, there was a concomitant increase in Latino teachers and an increase in adult Latino volunteers. The urban high school in 2004 had undergone a number of administrative changes in the early 2000s and the current principal was a Latino with wide experience working with alternative student bodies. The vice-principal was also a Latina and had risen from the ranks in the same school. Many of the other administrative staff and counselors were also Latino, mostly Mexican Americans, and at least 75 teachers were graduates of the same high school. Racism, Ethnic Cultural Identity, and Engagement Another salient theme inuencing students perceptions of their academic achievement is their ethnic and cultural identity; although the spectrum has swung between the 1974 and 2004 studies. Strong educational pursuits are associated with a stable rezand relatively stress-free ethnic identity (Conchas 2001; Hakuta 2011; Sua rez-Orozco 1995). In 1974, those students in the study who Orozco and Sua exhibited the greatest condence in their ethnic identication were the Mexicanoriented students at both the urban and suburban schools. Their stable ethnic identity, coupled with a supportive family environment, was also associated with a better academic record at school. Students attributed much of this success to the ESL program. In addition to easing the students acquisition of English, the program prevented serious identity anxiety when difculties did occur; students problems largely stemmed from socioeconomic forces. Ethnic identity formation varies signicantly across time, people, and place (Valenzuela 1999). Unlike their suburban counterparts, the 1974 urban Anglooriented students did not have much access or exposure to Anglo-American culture, as they lived in a predominantly hyper-segregated Latino barrio. Suburbia, on the other hand, brought with it a greater exposure to Anglo culture. Anglo-oriented Latino students felt little discomfort in denying their ethnic identity, but this group also experienced limited academic success. And while a unidirectional Anglo acculturation was enhanced in the suburban locale, there were feelings of anxiety and ambivalence associated with the process, especially for some of the Mexicanoriented students. The elements necessary for retention of Latino culture and practice of the Spanish language were limited. Nevertheless, despite the absence of a large Latino ethnic population base such as East Los Angeles, several students were still strongly Mexican-oriented. For these students, the Expanded Horizons program helped to mediate the acculturation process. The program helped instill a sense of ethnic pride in several students, even if they could not speak Spanish and knew little about their heritage. Thus, the Expanded Horizons program helped students regain a sense of identity and stability. A parents inuence affects a childs sense of ethnic and cultural identity. Several students in the 1974 suburban sample were explicitly told by their parents to change

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

417

their ethnicity. Some parents did this to spare their children the racism the parents had experienced when they were young. Other parents motives were based on their own prejudices and, perhaps, even shame of their ethnicity. Parents thus socialized their children toward the dominant culture. These parental strategies of denial were, to a large degree, successful in forcing acculturation because their children were in an Anglo suburban environment. Some of the 1974 suburban parents, on the other hand, based on their own experiences of racism, told their children to be wary of Anglos and often passed on their resentment. Racial appearance, in fact, is a signicant mediating factor in acculturation and is found to greatly affect ethnic identity formation (Lopez 2011). The fact that many of these parents and their children had dark skin, with a mestizo racial appearance, adds weight to these beliefs. These students strategy of acculturation was thus often stressful and produced, at best, mixed results. The range of the acculturation spectrum in 1988 had, in fact, narrowed. Students were clustered in the middle. A resilient bilingual-bicultural experience seemed to be the trend now and, perhaps, in the future (Hurtado and Gurin 1995). By 1988, different forces were in place to affect the process of the students ethnic identity formation in dynamic ways. The inux of newcomers strengthened existing programs, such as bilingual education, and resulted in a trend of Mexicanization. Latino youth were now reclaiming their heritage; students were no longer ashamed of publicly labeling themselves as Latino or Chicano. A sound, solid ethnic (and personal) identity in this context enabled students to succeed academically and achieve (Hakuta 2011). Even some of the third- and fourth-generation students and the mixed-race students in the sample were now claiming their Latino heritage; some of the lighter-skinned students refrained from calling themselves white. Unable to speak Spanish, they still sought to afrm their ethnic identity by following traditions and customs such as eating Latino foods, maintaining an interest in their native history, and associating with other Latinos. Being ethnic became fashionable, but it also brought challenges. Some of the mixed-race students hinted at difculties with the white aspect of their identities. While we saw a narrowing of the acculturation spectrum by 1988, we see movement towards Mexicanization by 2004. Most of the 2004 samplefrom both urban and suburban areaswas adamantly and clearly embarked on a path of no assimilation at any cost, espoused by the Chicano Movement. The 2004 sample, whose acculturation scores were closer to Mexicanization, which would suggest stronger Mexican identities were actually equally procient in dominant culture ideologies of English language acquisition and celebration of U.S. cultures and traditions. Thus for these students, Spanish language retention and pride in their Mexican heritage remained constant as they became equally procient in the language and traditions of their new adopted country effectively becoming bilingual and bicultural. Contributing to this ethnic pride, as noted, the urban area and school became proportionally more rst generation Mexican. Suburbia, to reiterate, was swallowed by urban sprawl and marginalization and also turned in a strong Mexican direction generationally and culturally. The spatial separation between the areas remained the same but the social and cultural worlds were much closer and blended. One sign of

123

418

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

this change is the spate of new Mexican restaurants in the suburban area, some challenging the exquisite cuisine and dishes once dominated by the Eastside Los Angeles of the Mexican American world. Of course, in this context of conict and change produced over time, it was fairly clear that being Mexican was something to either be proud of, or more commonly, something to tacitly accept and take for granted. There were still a few students that struggled with self-identity, but now their struggle was based on whether they were Mexican enough. A Final Contemporary Perspective on Change and Continuity The 2004 follow-up to these two settings claries that places and peoples have changed over the decades. We visited and kept a steady eye on broader social and cultural developments in these schools and communities. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, we spoke regularly at the two schools and observed and interviewed students along the dimensions of acculturation levels and ecological contrasts of urban and suburban transformations. As a way of summary, what briey follows are some of the dominant developments. Mexicanization has deepened and expanded, but there is an important difference to note about this expansion. The students are now mostly second generation as East Los Angeles and suburban Southeast Los Angeles are no longer the main entry points for Latino immigrants. As a result, many students are comfortably bilingual and embrace a bicultural life, evincing a linguistic and cultural uidity that was nonexistent in previous times. After the Civil Rights Movement and the uphill struggle for bilingual-bicultural education, all things Latino are au courant. Academic achievement has not necessarily blossomed in this context, as class and structural barriers still dominate the process as students too early must join the workforce to contribute to their own or families keep. Even when they reach high school, students nd work to supplement household incomes and when they reach near adult age prematurely must step more fully into the workforce. Signicantly, both schools have a high percentage of Latino students, as even the suburban school has seen its Latino percentage rise such that it is approaching 90% of the student body (a marked increase from 35% in 1974 and 71% in 1988). As noted earlier, there is no longer a stigma or embarrassment associated with their ethnic background. Racial appearance, however, as a carryover from Mexico, has persisted. Indigenous, darker-appearing students are more likely to experience disparagement from both fellow Latinos and from members of the dominant race (Lopez 2011; Telles and Ortiz 2009).

Discussion and Conclusion This article illustrates how the individual within the family is nested in the structural and the cultural milieu of her time and place. All sectors need to come together when analyzing educational success: social (family stability and support), cultural (clear strategy, embracing a multicultural orientation), economic (stable SES, even in working poor) and psychological (self-esteem, stable ethnic identity, role

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

419

models). Thus, both cultural and structural conditions must be part of the equation as is an understanding of how changing contexts affect students attitudes and approach to their educational attainment. Instead of counter posing these perspectives in a this-or-that rivalry, we must begin to conceptualize them in a this-and-that-and-that combinative manner. This approach will synthesize and build rather than segment and isolate. This longitudinal study has shown how structure and culture can, in fact, be used in complementary ways within the same analysis. A multilingual and multicultural strategy is the best acculturation route and one on which to build other signicant elements (Banks and Banks 2001). It is a path of adding and combining, giving recognition and respect to various cultural inuences that enrich individuals multilingual and multicultural heritage. Students who are bilingual and bicultural can also be good and successful students. A unidirectional assimilation path is no longer the only route to academic success. Especially important in this regard is how unidirectional acculturation can be reexamined and rethought to include an almost denitive multicultural strategyone that teaches respect and interest in cultures other than ones own (Banks and Banks 2001). Cultural and linguistic accommodation and integration is thus the one area where public institutions and political leaders can readily make a difference, because control is in their hands to make schools effective and productive experiences for the culturally different, politically underrepresented, and economically powerless. In light of the backlash to multiculturalism and, in particular, to the waves of immigrants and Latino culture, we must emphasize that multiculturalism does not signify anti-Americanism. Indeed, a multicultural strategy can benet Americans of all backgrounds (Banks 2008; Urrieta 2009). Milton Gordon (1964) long ago pointed out that we could learn and maintain primary (American) ethnic customs, practices, attitudes, and relationships and simultaneously cultivate the dexterity to hold secondary (other culture) ones; this is known as ethnic pluralism or cultural democracy. Switching back and forth as the occasion warrants, showing a cosmopolitanism that places us in the world culture, is benecial because it encourages resiliency and openness instead of rigidity and myopia. Latinos are poised for major contributions to the United States in the twenty-rst century. In particular, the example of a bilingual-bicultural American identity will help steer the U.S. away from a monolithic-centered language and cultural orientation to one that connects Americans to a global society and economy. It can also make a major difference in steering Latino youth toward college and career success.

References
Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2001). Handbook of research in multicultural education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bauman, R. (2008). Race and the war on poverty: From Watts to East L.A. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

123

420

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

Cammarota, J. (2004). The gendered and racialized pathways of Latina and Latino youth: Different struggles, different resistances in the urban context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(1), 5374. Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford University Press. Chavez, L. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Colvin, R. E. (1996). Bilingual education rift divides state teachers union. Los Angeles Times. Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 70, 475504. Conchas, G. Q. (2006). The color of success: Race and high-achieving urban youth. New York NY: Teachers College Press of Columbia University. guez, L. F. (2008). Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school Conchas, G. Q., & Rodr culture to engage students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Conchas, G. Q., & Vigil, J. D. (2010). Multiple marginality and urban education: Community and school socialization among low-income Mexican-descent youth. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(12), 5165. doi:10.1080/10824661003634963. Darder, A., & Torres, R. D. (2004). After race: Racism after multiculturalism. New York, NY: New York University Press. Delgado Bernal, D. (1999). Chicana/o education from the Civil Rights Era to the present. In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicanao/Chicana education (pp. 77108). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Education for immigrant families in America. New York: Falmer Press. Donato, R., Menchaca, M., & Valencia, R. R. (1991). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of Chicano students: Problems and prospects. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano School Failure and Success. London: The Falmer Press. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic eldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Feliciano, C. (2006). Unequal origins: Immigrant selection and the education of the second generation. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishers LLC. Flores, S. M. & Oseguera, L. (2009). The community college and undocumented immigrant students across state contexts: Localism and public policy. In R. L. Crowson & E. B. Goldring (Eds.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 267298), Vol. 108(1). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia. ndara, P. (2002). Learning English in California: Guideposts for the nation. In M. M. Sua rez-Orozco & Ga M. M. Perez (Eds.), Latinos remaking America (pp. 339358). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. ndara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social Ga policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garcia, E. (1999). Chicanos/as in the United States: Language, bilingual education, and achievement. In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education (pp. 141168). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Garcia, E. (2010). Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy. New York: TC Press. Gonzalez, G. (1990). Chicano education in the era of segregation. Philadelphia: The Balch Institute Press. Gonzalez, G. (1999). Segregation and the eductaion of Mexican children, 19001940. In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education (pp. 5376). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press. Hagan, J., Rodriguez, N., & Rodriguez, N. (2002). Resurrecting exclusion: The effects of 1996 U.S. immigration reform on communities and families in Texas, El Salvador, and Mexico. In M. rez-Orozco & M. M. Perez (Eds.), Latinos remaking America (pp. 190201). Berkeley and M. Sua Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and afrming equal rights: Research and practice perspectives. Educational Researchers, 40(4), 163174.

123

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

421

Hayes-Bautista, D. (2004). La nueva California: Latinos in the golden state. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hurtado, A., & Gurin, P. (1995). Ethnic identity and bilingualism. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and Achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 119. Keller, U., Harker, & Tillman, K. (2008). Post-secondary educational attainment of immigrant and native youth. Social Forces, 87(1), 121152. Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities. Children in Americas schools. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Lopez, N. (2011). Racially stigmatized masculinities: Conceptualizing Latino male schooling in the United States. In P. Noguera, A. Hurtado, & E. Fergus (Eds.), Disenfranchisement of Latino males: Contemporary perspectives on cultural and structural factors. New York: Rouledge. MacDonald, V. M., & Garcia, T. (2003). Historical perspectives on Latino access to higher education: 18481990. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding the representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators, and students in higher education (pp. 1546). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press. Moore, J. W., & Pinderhughes-Rivera, R. (Eds.). (1993). In the barrios: Latinos and the underclass debate. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Morales, R., & Bonilla, F. (1993). Latinos in a changing U.S. economy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 341350. Noguera, P. A., Hurtado, A., & Fergus, E. (2011). Understanding the disenfranchisement of Latino men and boys: Invisible no more. New York: Routledge. Oboler, S. (1995). Ethnic labels, Latino lives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ono, K., & Sloop, J. (2002). Shifting borders: Rhetoric, immigration, and Californias proposition 187. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Perez, W. (2011). Americans by heart. New York: Teachers College Press. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530, 7496. Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. Ramirez, M. (1985). Psychology of the Americas: Mestizo perspective on personality and mental health. New York: Pergamon Press. Robertson, C. (2011) Alabama wins in ruling on its immigration law. Retrieved on December 15, 2011. From http://nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/alabama-immigration-law-upheld/html. Rumbaut, R. G., & Komaie, G. (2010). Immigration and adult transitions. The Future of Children, 20(1), 4366. Sanchez, G. J. (1993). Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, culture, and identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 19001945. New York: Oxford University Press. rezSanchez, G. J. (2002). Y tu, que? (Y2K): Latino history in the new millennium. In M. M. Sua Orozco & M. M. Perez (Eds.), Latinos remaking America (pp. 4558). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1990). The American cultural dialogue and its transmission. London: Falmer. rez-Orozco, C. E., & Sua rez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Migration, family life, and Sua achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. rez-Orozco, C. E., & Sua rez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge: Harvard Sua University Press. Telles, E. E., & Ortiz, V. (2009). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race. New York: Russell Sage. Trueba, H. T. (1991). From failure to success: The roles of culture and cultural conict in the academic achievement of Chicano students. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agenda for the 1990 s. London: The Falmer Press.

123

422

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

Urrieta, L., Jr. (2009). Working from within: Chicana and Chicano activist educators in whitestream schools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Valencia, R. R. (1999). Educational testing and Mexican American students: Problems and prospects. In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education (pp. 123139). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2010). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990 s. London: The Falmer Press. Valencia, R. R., & Aburto, S. (1991). The uses and abuses of educational testing: Chicanos as a case in point. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s. London: The Falmer Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York: State University of New York Press. Vigil, J. D. (2002). Personas Mexicanas: Chicano high schoolers in a changing Los Angeles. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning. Vigil, J. D. (2007). The projects: Gang and non-gang families in East Los Angeles. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Vigil, J. D. (2011). From Indians to Chicanos. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears. The world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage Books.

123