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

7/27/2019 Hao y Ling 2008. the Role of School in the Upward Mobility

1/29

American Academy of Political and Social Science

The Role of School in the Upward Mobility of Disadvantaged Immigrants' ChildrenAuthor(s): Lingxin Hao and Suet-Ling PongSource: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 620, ExceptionalOutcomes: Achievement in Education and Employment among Children of Immigrants (Nov.,2008), pp. 62-89Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.in association with the American Academy of Political and SocialScience

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 [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.andAmerican Academy of Political and Social Scienceare collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnals 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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40375811?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40375811?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/29

TheRoleofSchool ntheUpwardMobilityfDisadvantagedImmigrants'Children

ByLINGXINHAOandSUET-LING ONG

How can we explain exceptional dvancementbydisadvantagedmmigrants'hildren? xtending eg-mented ssimilationheory,his rticle races he truc-tural ndrelationalttributesfhigh chools ttendedby young dultswho reachedtheir ate twentiesn2000.Hypothesesrederived rom heoriesnsociol-ogyofeducation nd testedwithfourwavesof datafromthe NationalEducationalLongitudinal tudy(NELS). The authors fferhreemajor indings.irst,an overwhelming ajorityf disadvantagedtudentsattendpublicschools; ome relationalttributesretypicalnpublic chools ttended ydisadvantagedtu-dents. econd, hildren'spwardmobilitys shapedbythe structuralnd relational ttributesf theirhighschools.Most chool ffectsre the amefor isadvan-taged ndadvantaged oungsters,nd student-educatorbonds and curriculumtructure ave even strongerpositiveffectsor hedisadvantaged.inally,mobilitypatterns iffer idely mongChinese,Mexicans,ndwhites.Mexicans re ess ikelyo be exposed ofavor-able school ttributes.Keywords: immigrant hildren;upward mobility;highschooleffects;egmented ssimila-tion;mmigrantsndeducation;tructuralandrelationalttributes;exican; hinese

largeimmigrantlows o the UnitedStates continueprimarily romLatinAmerica ndAsia, he ocioeconomicssimila-tionof newcomersnto mainstreamocietybecomes criticalssue. oday,mmigrantsacea bifurcatedabormarkethatimits scent omiddle-levelccupationsPortesand Zhou1993).MostHispanicnd substantialropor-tion ofAsianadult mmigrantsre unskilledlaborers.anchildrenf mmigrantarentsnlow ocial ositionschieve pwardmobility?fso, what are the conditions nderwhichupwardmobilityccurs?A arge ody f iteraturen mmigrants'hil-dren concerns ducational utcomesn sec-ondarychools,npart ecausemosthildrenfNOTE: This researchwas supported ytheSpencerFoundation esident ellowsProgramn 2007.DOI: 10.1177/000271620832258262 ANNALS,AAPSS,620,November008

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARDMOBILITY 63

post-1965mmigrantsadnot eached oungdulthood hen hose tudies ereconducted. hile cademicchievement;chool bandonment;ndotherogni-tive, ehavioral,nd motionalutcomesnsecondarychoolsre mportant,heydo not irectlypeak o ocialmobility.ince large roportionfmmigrants'hil-dren renow eachingoungdulthood,t stimelyo examine utcomesuch seducationalttainment,ields fpostsecondarytudy,nd ttachmento the aborforce. heseoutcomes otonlyndicateelativeocialpositionsmong oungadultsut lsopredictuturearningsnd ccupationalrestigekeyndicatorsfassimilation.Immigrantsremoreikelyobedisadvantagedhan atives.hereceptionfimmigrantsythe U.S. government,heAmericanopulation,nd the ocallabormarketanbepositive,eutral,rnegative,ependingn nationalrigins.Families,oethnicommunities,ndschools an facilitater hinder hecogni-tive ndsocialdevelopmentfdisadvantagedmmigrants'hildrenPortesndFernandez-Kelly008 this olume];hou tal. 2008 this olume]). heschoolis the east tudiedfthese actors.n this rticle, e identifychool ttributesthat osterpwardmobilitymong isadvantagedmmigrants'hildren.Ourresearchdvancesheunderstandingf ntergenerationalobilitynthreeways. irst,arlier ork nthe ubjectocusesnsocioeconomictatusttainmentinfull dulthoodFeathermanndHauser 978).We extendhatraditionofocuson an earlierife tagehat recedesulldulthood,hus elpingnpackheblackbox f ntergenerationalobility.econd,ocialmobilitysoften haracterizedyverticalifferentiation;ftengnoreds horizontalifferentiation,hichs salientinpostsecondarytudies. orexample,ifferentields fstudy mong ollegegraduatesave rofoundffectsnearningsndoccupationalrestige.ur tudytreatsieldsf ostsecondarytudys adimensionf ocialmobility,articularlyoryoungdults ho re ayinghefoundationsorheir orkife. hird,ntergener-ationalmobilitysshaped y he ocializationf heyoungn he amily,chool,ndcommunity.owever,he iteraturensocialmobilityasnot ddressedhe choolas a socializationgent. ur tudyillshisgap.This tudyakes quantitativepproach,upplementedy ummaryescrip-tions f ndividualases.We usethe National ducationalongitudinaltudy(NELS: 88) that ollowed nationwideepresentativeample feighth-gradestudentsor welve ears rom 988to2000 until heywere gedtwenty-sixrLingxin ao isa professorf ociologytJohns opkinsUniversity.er ields f xpertisereimmigration,ocial nequality,amily, ublic olicy,ndquantitative ethodology.hehas con-ductednnovativeesearchn the ocialmobilityf mmigrantndnative-bornopulations.erlatest rojectsocus n mmigrationndhealth ndthe mpactfmigrationnsendingountries.She s the uthorfColorLines,Countryines:Race, mmigration,ndWealth tratificationnAmericaRussell ageFoundation007).Suet-ling ong s a professorf ducationnddemographynd has a courtesyppointmentnsociologyt PennsylvaniatateUniversity.er researchnsociologyfeducation enters ntherelationshipetween amily tructurend children'sducation, arental ractices ndinvolvement,nd the education f mmigrants'hildren. he is therecipientfthe WillardWaller wardromhe ociologyfEducation ectionf heAmericanociological ssociation.



4/29

64 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMY

twenty-seven.e ask,What chool ttributesaiseyoung eople socialposi-tion?Do disadvantagedtudents enefit rom chool ttributess much sadvantagedtudents?ow dodisadvantagedmmigranthildrenifferntheirschoolingxperiencendsubsequenttatusttainment?ogether,urquantita-tive nalysisndsummaryescriptionf ndividualases llustrateimilaritiesand differencesntheeffectsf the school n socialmobilitymongow- ndhigh-socioeconomic-statusSES) studentsfwhite,Mexican,ndChinese ack-grounds.The Role oftheSchool n Assimilationand SocialMobility

AccordingoPortes ndZhou 1993), ower lasspositionndminoritytatusmake mmigrants'hildrenulnerableo downwardssimilationhroughheinfluencef nner-citychool eerswhoreact o discriminationyrejectingdu-cation ndother ormativeaths oupwardmobility.arents' uman apital,familytructure,ndmode ofreceptionan shield hildren rom ownwardassimilation.imilarly,trongoethnicommunitiesay rotecthildrenromnegative eer influenceZhouand Bankston998).Buildingn segmentedassimilationheory,ehighlighthe mportancef chool, herehildrenpenda large mountf heir akingours. ariationsnschool ttributesithinub-lic ndprivatechoolsmaynfluencepwardmobilitymong isadvantagedhil-dren.Weproposehathe ositivetructuralndrelationalspectsf choolsanhelp vercomehe bstaclesaced ydisadvantagedhildren.Previousiteraturenthenew econd enerationighlightshe mportancefparentaluman apital, amilytructure,nd modes f ncorporatione.g.,KaoandTienda1995;Hao andBonstead-Bruns998;Portes ndRumbaut001),school eer nfluencese.g.,PortesndZhou1993;PortesndMacLeod1996),and ommunityndneighborhoode.g., hou ndBankston998;Pong ndHao2007). In theircomprehensivetudy f immigrants'hildren, ortesandRumbaut2001)stress hepivotaloleof xternalupporteyondhefamilynfosteringpwardmobilitymong mmigrants'hildren.Significantthers rekeyfactorsonnectingisadvantagedtudentsothe nstitutionalesourcesfschools nd communitiesStanton-Salazarnd Dornbusch 995;Portes ndFernandez-Kelly008).Less attentionasbeenpaid o chool urricula,ollege-bound rograms,nd tudent-educatorelationsnpublic chools.Individuals'tatusttainmentstypicallyeasuredy heirccupationalres-tige, ncome arned, ndyears fschoolingompleted. apidtechnologicaladvancenthenew conomylaces premiumnhigh-techkills. his,nturn,turns ields fstudyntosignificantathseadingodifferinglotsn the aborforceGroggerndEide 1995).Specialtyraining attersecause thasstrongimplicationsor oungsters'ccupationalttainmentnfulldulthood.hus, on-ceptualizationsfthe social osition fyoungdults houldncludepecialtytrainingnfieldsfpostsecondarytudy.



5/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARDMOBILITY 65Theremay e concernsboutwhetheroungdulthoodanfullyapturehesocialmobilityfthedisadvantaged,homay ake ongeroachieve han headvantaged.he ifeourse erspectiveuggestshemportancefage-appropriate,on-trackransitionse.g.,earning bachelors egree n engineeringy agetwenty-six)n nitiatingfull otentialor rowth,hereas delayed,ff-tracktransitionanonly ealize art f that rowthElder 1998).Economic tudiesabout ources f ifetimenequalityHuggett,entura,ndYaron 007)findhat,atagetwenty,ifferencesn nitial onditionsccount ormore fthevariationin lifetimearningsnd wealth hando differencesngrowthver lifetime.Amongnitialonditions,ariationsnhumanapitalre mostmportant.

TheRole ofthe School nStudent utcomesBecausemiddlendhighchool cademic utcomesredictostsecondarydu-cationttainmentAdelman999, 006),we draw nthe ociologyf ducationit-eratureounderstandhe ocialmobilityfdisadvantagedmmigrants'hildren.Theschools an nstitutionastwo alientspects:tructurend ocial elations.Structuraleaturesnclude ectorpublic, atholic,nd therrivatechools),ur-riculumtracking,bilityrouping,nd ontent),pecificrogramscollege-boundfor ll studentsndfor isadvantagedtudentsnparticular),ndother ttributes(enrollmentize nddemographicomposition).elationalttributesnclude ol-

lectiveesponsibilityteachersnd dministratorsharingesponsibilityortudentlearning),cademictandards,nd student-educatoronds teachers'nterestnstudents'earningnd collegeattendance).chools' tructuralnd relationalaspects ifferot nlywhen omparingectorsut lsowhen omparingchoolswithinhe ame ector.hesevariationsffecttudents'pportunityo earn.Sectorstratifychools ndproduce ifferenttudentutcomesyofferingvaryingearningpportunities.uch esearch asfocusednthe dvantagesro-vided yCatholicchools. racticesndpoliciesnthose chools strongontentcurriculum,trictiscipline,ommunalpirit areconduciveostudentearning(Hoffer,reeley,ndColeman 985), s are eachers' eliefshat ll studentsanlearnnchallengingoursesBryk,ee,andHolland 993). ector ifferencesnthecompositionfability roups, eterminantsfplacement,ndcross-groupmobilityargelyxplainhe uperiorcademicchievementfCatholicchool tu-dents. orexample,n Catholicchools,most tudentsreplacedntheregular-level bility roupwhile nly small roportionf tudentsreplaced neitherthe dvanced r ow-levelbility roup. ycontrast,ublic chool tudentsredistributedvenlynadvanced,egular,nd ow-levelbilityroups.ome rguethat hehigherchievementf Catholic chool tudentsmaybe attributedoselectionactors,uch s high-SES amilyackgroundndrigid atholicchooladmissiontandards.owever,recenttudysinghepropensity-scoreatch-ingmethod indshat atholicchool nambiguouslynhancestudentshohavelower ropensityo self-selectnto uch choolsMorgan001).



6/29

66 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMYBefore he1980s, rackingnsecondarychools asubiquitous.tudents ereseparatedy chievementrabilityor nstruction.his reated ndsupportededucationalnequalitynthe asis frace/ethnicitynd ocial lassOakes1985).Concomitantith hedecline fde uretrackingver hepast wodecades, efactorackingasemerged. early alf f tudentsnpublic choolsre till ak-ingdifferentoursesnsimilarubjectsLucas1999).What oursestudentsake reatlyffectsheircademicuccessStevenson,Schiller,nd Schneider 994)becausecourses ary yacademic ontentndexpectationsor erformance.ecausethe structuref thecurriculumeter-mines ourse vailabilityndsequence, isadvantagedtudentsreespeciallyharmedy highlyifferentiatedurriculum.arrow urriculand trongca-demicfocus hatbenefitow-incomendminoritytudentsLee and Smith

1993) retypicalnCatholicchools. ublic choolswith imilarttributesendto bemore uccessfulhan ther ublic choolsBryk,ee,andHolland 993).When he urriculumshighlyifferentiated,s foundnmany ublic chools,diversitynrace/ethnicityndSES ismoreikelyobe associated ith ace- ndclass-basede facto rackingLucasandBerends 002).Public chool tudentsaremoreikelyobe defacto rackedhan hosenprivatechools.Institutionservingnaffluentndable clienteleend o offerigorousndenrichedrogramsfstudy. emographiciversityithin choolsmay reateinequalityf accessto advanced ourses. orthese easons,tudies f studentperformanceften ontrolor chool emographicomposition,uch s aggre-gate ES andproportionfracial, thnic,nd anguageminorities.igh choolswith large nrollment ay lienate nddiscouragetudentsromearning(Bryk,ee,andHolland 993;Lee andSmith996;Rosenholtz991).AlthoughsomepushfordownsizingchoolsNationalAssociationfSecondarychoolPrincipals996), therstress heresourcesndopportunitiesvailablen argeschoolsSchneider, yse,nd Keesler 006-2007).The relationalttributesfschools ave ongbeenrecognizeds importantfactorsffectingtudentchievement.heexpectationsf nstitutionalgents,like eachers,ounselors,ndprincipals,nfluencetudents' otivationo earn.Pallas tal. 1994)find hat eachersiew tudentsnhigh-abilityroupssmorecompetenthan hosen ow-abilitynes.When owexpectationsreconveyedto tudents,heir elf-esteemiminishesnd heirmotivationecreases. atholicschools re successfulneducatingisadvantagedhildren ecausethey avehigh xpectationsvenfor tudentsn ow-abilityroupings.eachers'xpecta-tionsnotwithstanding,heemotional ondsbetween eachers/counselorsndstudentsre crucial o engage nd motivateoungsters.onceptualizinguchemotional ondsas a form fsocialcapital, tanton-SalazarndDornbusch(1995)find hatwithin-schoolocial apitals not scriticalo studentsithmid-dle- ohigh-incomeackgroundss it s totheirower-incomeounterpartshodo nothaveparentsohelp hem ccessresourcesnschool.Inschools haracterizedy collectiveesponsibilitythats,when chool er-sonnel hare ccountabilityor oungsters'otal evelopmentstudentutcomestend o be betterhannschools ith ow evels f ollectiveesponsibilityLee,



7/29


Smith,ndCroninger997). nschools ithhighollectiveesponsibility,eacherstend ohave reaterobsatisfactionndhigher orale,nd tudentsre ess ikelyto cut lasses rdrop ut.Greater ollectiveesponsibilityorearningncreasesgains or veryone,ndmore o forow-SES tudents.naddition,ighcademicstandardsavepositiveffectsor veryoneBryknd Driscoll 988;Biyk, ee,andHolland 993; ee andSmith993, 996;Lee, Smith,ndCroninger997).Asawhole, esearchn schools s nstitutionstressestructuralndrelationalattributes.uch attributesovernhecapacityf students oparticipatendmake rogressn earning. ay-to-daychool xperiencesccumulatend hapestudents'cademicutcomesnhighchool ndtheirccess oandperformanceinpostsecondarynstitutions.

Weconceptualizeositivechool ttributesslesser acialorclassdifferentiation,academically igorousurricula,egularndadvanced urricula rovidedo most tudents,strongenseofcollectiveesponsibility,ighacademic mphasis,ndrobust tudent-educator onds.

HypothesesWe contendhat chools ave long-lastingnfluencen ndividuals'ife hancesandproposewohypotheses.irst, ositivetructuralndrelationalttributesfschoolsnfluencetudents'ocial ositionnyoungdulthood. econceptualizepositivechoolttributess esser acial rclass ifferentiation,cademicallyigor-ouscurricula,egularnd advancedurricularovidedomost tudents,trongsenseof collectiveesponsibility,igh cademicmphasis,ndrobust tudent-educator onds. econd, ositivetructuralndrelationalttributesf schoolsshould enefitverytudentegardlessffamilyackground.e alsodetermineempiricallyhichositivetructuralndrelationalttributesenefittudentsromdisadvantagedackgroundsore hanheirdvantagedounterparts.Becauseof thesmall ample ize ofdisadvantagedmmigranthildrennNELS,we areunable o test tatisticallyhetheruch hildrenainmore ene-

fits rommobility-promotingchool ttributeshan o other tudents.nstead,we resortosummaryescriptionsf ndividualasesofdisadvantagedtudentsofMexicanndChinese rigins.



8/29

68 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Data andMeasuresOuranalysisraws rom ourwaves fdata from heNational ducationalLongitudinaltudyNELS: 88).TheNELSbaseyear urveyrovidesnformationoncountryforigin,ateof rrival,enerationaltatus,amilyackground,ndacademic ackgroundn1988when tudents eren the ighth rade. he firstfollow-upurveyn1990providesnformationbout he espondenthighchool.The second ollow-upurveyn 1992 containsmeasuresfcollege-boundro-gramsnd relationalttributesf welfth-gradechools swell s students'osi-tionnthe urriculumtructure.ogauge he ong-termffectfhighchools, eusedata romhe ourthollow-upurveyf12,144 espondentsn2000.Availableinformationncludes ducationalttainment,ields fpostsecondarytudy,nd

employmenttatus. y2000,most espondentsere gedtwenty-sixrtwenty-seven. hese data suit urpurposes iven hetwelve-yearollow-upfa largenationalample, hichncludes subsamplef mmigrants'hildren.Weconsidertudentssdisadvantagedf heir arentsadveryow ocioeco-nomic tatusneighthrade: pecifically,fthefamilyES was below he20thpercentilend heparentsad ess han welve earsf chooling.his estrictivedefinitionfdisadvantageertainsoonly ,045 ases 8.6percent)fthe2000NELS sample.We focus n three imensionsf youngdults ocial osition:1. Educational ttainmenthat erticallyifferentiatesoungdults' otentialroductivityinthe abormarket.Wespecifyour evels f chool ttainmentnopostsecondarydu-cation, omecollegewithout degree, ssociate degreeorcertificate,nd bachelorsdegree nd above.We do notfurtherifferentiateducationalttainmentelowpost-secondaryducation ecausepostsecondaryducations now he tandardor conomicwell-being.2. Field fpostsecondarytudy mong hosewhogained postsecondaryegree. fwe dif-ferentiate orkers orizontally,ield fpostsecondarytudy redictsndividualutureearningsndoccupational restige.We highlightwomajorfields: cience nd engi-neeringse) and business ndprofessionalbp).Allother ields regroupedna thirdcategory.3. Employmenttatus workingr notworking) mong hosewithout postsecondarydegree.Because of herisingemand or ostsecondaryducation, e omit aborforceattachmentamong hosewith ostsecondaryegreesnthis nalysis.Combininghese hree imensions,urdependentariables anordinal ari-ableof en ategoriesromow ohigh: opostsecondaryducation,otworking(nopse-nowk);opostsecondaryducation,orkingnopse-wk);ome ollege, otworkingsc-nowk);ome ollege, orkingsc-wk);ssociatedegree r ertificate,other ieldsaa/ct-ot);ssociates egree rcertificate,usiness rprofessionalfieldsaa/ct-bp);ssociates egree rcertificate,cience ndengineeringields(aa/ct-se);achelors egree rhigher,ther ieldsba-ot); achelors egree rhigher,usiness rprofessionalieldsba-bp); nd bachelors egree rhigher,science nd ngineeringieldsba-se).1Studentsnter igh choolwith actorsfamilyackground,ndividualemo-graphics,nd cademicbackground)hatnfluenceheir ighchoolearningnd



9/29


preparationor ostsecondaryducation.Wemeasure hose eaturesneighthgrade. tudents'ocial lass s ndicatedy heir arents'ES,which,nNELS,is a standardizedompositeariable asedonparentalducation,ncome,ndoccupation.or mmigrants'hildren,ountryf riginndgenerationtatusreimportant.e combine ace, thnicity,ndcountryforigino constructneleven-categoryariablewithn extraategoryo ndicatemissingational ri-gin).Given he mallerroportionfwhites nd blacks mong mmigranthil-dren,we include ll whitesn a categorynd all blacks n another ategory.AmongHispanics,we identify exicans, ubans,PuertoRicans, nd otherHispanics.AmongAsians,we identifyhinese,Filipino,Korean, nd otherAsians.Mexicansn= 946),Chinesen= 165), ndFilipinosn= 140)are thethreeargestational-originroups.Inmultivariatenalysis,e nclude llgroups.nourdescriptivenalysisndsummaryescriptions,e highlight exican nd Chinesebecausevery ewFilipinosfour)ndno Cubans it urdefinitionfdisadvantage.he firsten-eration eferso foreign-bornhildren ith oreign-bornarents;he secondgenerationncludeshildren ornn theUnited tateswith t east neparentborn broad.Third rhigher-orderenerationsre native-bornhildren ithnative-bornarents.Students'igh choolearnings also conditionedy heir cademic repara-tion ndmotivation,hich s commonly easured y previouschievement.Thus,we usegrade etentionp toeighth rade oindicateackof academic

preparation.tudents'wn educationalxpectationsn eighth radecapturetheirmotivationeforenteringigh chool.We measure setof school tructuralariablesnthetenthgrade. choolsectorsdistinguishetweenpublicand Catholicor otherprivate chools.Schooldemographicompositionncludes ercentagef anguageminoritiesandpercentagef tudentsarticipatingnthefree r ow-costunch rogram.The locationf chool an be urban,uburban,ndrural. urriculumontentis measured ythenumber fregularmath ourses ffered. nother et ofschool tructuralariabless measuredntwelfthrade. tudents'ositionnthe urriculumtructures measuredntwelfthrade ecause hat nformationis not availablefor he tenth rade.Students eportedwhetherheywereplaced na collegepreparationrogram,egular rogram,rvocationalro-gram.n addition,rogramsfcollegenformationisseminationndapplica-tion ssistanceaptureystematicrrangementsnschools.Wealso nclude helevel fparticipationnfederallyunded rogramshat romote ollege tten-dance fdisadvantagedtudents,uch sUpward ound ndtheTalent earchprograms.2e create compositeo measure he evel f tudentnvolvementinsuch ndeavors.We alsomeasure full etof chool elationalariablesntenthrade. choolcollectiveesponsibilitys a compositeasedon5-pointcale nswerso elevenquestionsor eachers,uch s I canget hrougho themost ifficulttudent,Teachers reresponsibleorkeepingtudents rom roppingut of class nd



10/29

70 THEANNALSFTHEAMERICANCADEMYschool, nd I would hange pproachf tudentsre notdoingwell. We usethe choolmean f his ompositeotap he evel f ollectiveesponsibilityndits tandardeviationocontrolor he ariationf eachers'esponsibilityn tu-dentearning.Academicress, phrase sed n the ducationiteraturee.g.,Lee andBryk 988), eferso the cademic limate osteredythe chool ndteachersoemphasize hightandardor tudentchievement.t s a compositebased on several -pointcale answerso fivetems or chool dministrators,such s Teachersress tudentsoachieve, Studentsre xpectedodo home-work, nd Teachermoraleshigh. Fordetails f he ompositesf ollectiveresponsibilitynd academicpress,see Lee, Smith, nd Croninger997.)Informationn collectiveesponsibilitynd cademic resssunavailableor hetwelfthrade. he variablesescribingtudent-educatoronds re constructedfromtudents'eportsn teachers'nterestnthe tudent'searningnd he evelofencouragementfferedyeducatorsor ollege ducation.hesetwovari-ables re measurednboth enth ndtwelfthrades.

AnalytictrategiesWe usea quantitativepproach upplementedith escriptionsf ndividualcases ofdisadvantagedmmigranttudentsaken romNELS. The descriptiveanalysisocumentsocialmobilityatternsfdisadvantagedtudentsfwhite,

Mexican,ndChinese rigin.We then nalyzehe ssociationsetweenatternsof structuralnd relationalttributesfhigh chools ndstatusttainmentnyoungdulthood.The observedelationshipetweenchool ttributesndsocialmobility aybe confounded ithfamily ackgroundecausethe latternfluenceschoolselection.n addition,he tructuralnd relationalttributesfthe choolmaybe correlatednd onfoundachother.o test urhypothesesegardinghe oleofthe choolnyoungdults' ocialmobility,eusean orderedogitmodel oanalyze he ordinal en-categoryependent ariable. or individual, letB.denote vector fbackgroundariablesfamilyackground,ndividualemo-graphics,ndacademic ackground);10.denote enth-gradechool ariables,S12.denote welfth-gradechool ariables,ndCki enote he umulativerob-abilityfmobilityor achcategoryfthedependentariable, = 1, . . . , 9.Theorderedogitmodelsexpressedsjgi=yp*m'p2Sio


11/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY 71

Equation 1) is the main-effectodelwherewe assumethat he school nstitu-tion ffectsrethe ame for hewholepopulation, egardlessf heirdisadvantagedstatus. o testwhetherhe dentifiedmobility-promotingnstitutionalarrangementsmorestronglyenefit isadvantagedhanadvantagedtudents, e specifyn indi-catorfordisadvantagedtatus t andthe nteractionerms etween his ndicatorand selected choolvariables. he interaction-effectodelsenable us to testourhypothesesegardingifferentialchool ffectsby disadvantagedtatuses.As with ll follow-upongitudinalurveys,missing ata is a persistent roblemthat sevenmoreprominentna studyikeourswheremany ariablesmore haneighty riginal ariables nd forty-eightonstructedariables) t differentevels(individual,amily,nd school)are involved.NELS does a relativelyood ob inmakinghesamplen each waverepresentativeor hestudy opulation ithappro-priate ongitudinaleights. he complete amplefor he2000 wave fourthollow-up) is12,144.However,nly tudentD andgender avenomissingalues; ll otheroriginal ariables avesmallto moderatemissingases ranging rom .7 percent(e.g., ge) to15.7percent e.g., tudents'placementncurriculumtructure).We adopta state-of-the-artultiplemputationechnique o accountformiss-ingdata (Rubin 1987; Royston 004). Traditionalimputationypically eplacesmissing alueswith hemean,mode,orregression rediction ased on nonmiss-ingvalues.Thatapproach s nowregarded s inadequate.Forstatisticalnferenceto be valid, t is essential o include thecorrect mountof randomnessnto theimputationsndtoincorporatehatuncertaintyhencomputingtandard rrorsand confidence ntervals orparameters f interest. n multiple mputations,missing bservationsre assumedto be missing t random.Multiple mputationtakes n iterativeprocedure n which achvariable simputed asedoncompletecases,and theimputed alues of thisvariable re used inthenextvariable.Thisprocedure s carried n until llmissing alues are imputed.3The basic deaofdata nalysis ithmultiplemputationss to dealwithmissingatabyrandom raws rom hemultivariaterobabilityistributionfvariablesnthedata.Instead fonly nesample,multiplemputationsreate number fsimulateder-sions fthesample, achofwhich ontainsimputed aluesfor hemissingasesandisanalyzed eparately.n thisstudy, e usefive uchsamples. stimatedparametersfor particularariable re averaged ogive single stimate. tandard rrors recomputed ccordingo the Rubinrules, evised o allow for hebetween- ndwithin-imputationomponentsfvariationntheparameterstimates.4

Descriptive esultsYoung dultoutcomes

Racial/ethnicisparitiesnsocialpositionmongyoung dultsnour data reflectracial ivides ut lsorevealmany uances.Here,we focus n the wolargestmmi-grant roups,Mexican-originndChinese-origin,ndcompare hemwithwhites.Figure1depicts he distributionfone dimension f socialposition educational



12/29

72 THEANNALSF THEAMERICANCADEMYFIGURE 1EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AMONG WHITE,

MEXICAN,AND CHINESE YOUNG ADULTS

NOTE: View the slices from 2 o'clock, lockwise. o_pse no postsecondaryducation;aa/cert associate degree rcertificate;a+ = bachelors egreeor above.

attainment.monghosewith ostsecondaryducation,heracial/originivideissharp y he atetwenties:7percentfwhites,2percentfMexicans,nd63percentfChinesehad received bachelors egree r above.However,hepercentagef ssociatedegrees rcertificatesoes notdiffersmuch: 4per-centforwhites,5percent orMexicans,nd 18percent orChinese.A largepercentage40 percent) fMexicans ad somecollegeeducationwithoutdegree, ompared ith 0percentfwhites nd 17percentfChinese. heper-centagefour ongitudinalample frespondentsithoutostsecondaryduca-tion s larger orMexicans33 percent) haneitherwhites21 percent) rChinese2percent).Social ositionsdeterminedymore han ducationalttainment.oryoungadults,pecialtyrainingor hehigherducated nd workforcettachmentorthe owerducated rekey o human apital ccumulation.igure shows hatlabor orce etachmentmong eoplewithoutpostsecondaryducations ow



13/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY 73FIGURE 2THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOCIAL POSITION AMONG

WHITE, MEXICAN,AND CHINESE YOUNG ADULTS

NOTE: View he licesfrom2o'clock, lockwise. ategoriesrenopostsecondaryducation,notworkingnopse-nowk); o postsecondaryducation,workingnopse-wk); omecollege,notworkingsc-nowk);omecollege,workingsc-wk); ssociatesdegreeorcertificate,therfieldsaa/ct-ot);ssociate degree rcertificate,usiness rprofessionalieldsaa/ct-bp);sso-ciatesdegreeor certificate,cience and engineeringields aa/ct-se); achelorsdegreeorhigher,ther ieldsba-ot);bachelors egree rhigher,usiness rprofessionalieldsba-bp);and bachelors egree rhigher,cience ndengineeringieldsba-se).

(3 percent fwhites, 0percent fMexicans, nd zeroamongChinese).The rel-ativeproportionf abor forcedetachmentwithin hesome-college roup sverysmalland similar or ll threegroups.Chinese with n associate degreeor cer-tificate ccount for relatively igh percentage n scienceand engineering13percent). Amongcollege graduates, similarpercentagedistributionf studyfields s foundbetweenwhites nd Mexicans,who havea smallerproportionn



14/29

74 THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYscience nd ngineeringhan hinese. hinese ake he ead nproviding8per-cent f heir roup or he cience ndengineeringields,scomparedo7per-cent fwhites nd2percentfMexicans.We are nterestedn howdisadvantagedtudentsdvance rfail o advancefromheir arents'ow socioeconomictatus. igure comparesducationalattainmentnd fields fstudy etweenhedisadvantagedndtheadvantagedamongwhites,Mexicans,ndChinese. igure (a) is for achelors egree rabove BA)and3(b) for ssociates egree rcertificateAA/Ct).hetopthreesections f achbar ndicate heproportionsf he hree ypesffields ndthebottomection ombinesll thosewhose ducations owerhanBA.Figure a) shows hat hedifferencen BAand fields f tudy etweenowSES andhigh ES ismost trikingorwhitesnd eastforChinese.AlthoughMexicanss a whole xhibit lower evelofcollege raduation,isadvantagedMexican tudentsre more ikelyhandisadvantagedhite tudentso earnbachelorsegree.t s ikelyhatmmigrantrive rofoundlyonveyednPortesandFernandez-Kelly2008) soperatingmonghedisadvantaged.nterestingly,low-SES tudentsfbothMexicanndChinese roupsre ess ikelyostudyci-ence andengineeringhan usinessr other ields,uggestinghat he tudyfscience ndengineerings associatedmorewith ES thanwith ace/ethnicity.Science ndengineeringubjectsequire strong athbackground.urresultsquestion hepopular elief hatAsians endto be uniformlyoodat math.Rather, ath killsppear o be related ofamilyES.

Figure (b) shows ery ifferentES subpatternsmong A/Ctrantees.heproportionfAA/Ctranteess similaretweenow-SES ndhigh-SESorwhitesandMexicansut ower or ow-SES han igh-SES mong hinese. or ow-SESAA/Ctranteesf ll hree roups,usinessndprofessionalieldsremost ttrac-tive, articularlyor hinese,scompared ith heir igh-SESounterparts.BackgroundharacteristicsWhat ackgroundharacteristicso studentsringntohigh chool? able1lists hedistributionfbackgroundariablesySES within hreeracial-origingroups.We find ubstantialifferencesnthedistributionfgenerationaltatus.While heoverwhelmingajorityfwhites re third rhigher enerationorbothhigh-nd ow-SES tatuses,bout 0 percentfhigh-SESMexicans ndonly 7percent f ow-SES Mexicans re third rhigher eneration. mongChinese, ew rethird enerationnd themajorityre firsteneration,egard-less ofhigh- r ow-SES tatus. verall,hevastmajorityf ow-SESMexicanandChinese tudentsre firstr second eneration.Turningothe ES composite,lthoughe findittle roup ifferencesnthemean ES ofthe ow-SES ategory,hemean ES inthehigh-SES ategoryshighestor hinese nd owest orMexicans,eflectingheunique owhumancapitalndnegative ode f ncorporationmongMexican arentsPortesndRumbaut 001).The gender istributions uneven mongow-SESstudents:



15/29

THE ROLEOF SCHOOL N UPWARDMOBILITY 75FIGURE 3FIELDS 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

NOTE: ba_se bachelors egree rhigher,cience ndengineeringields; a_bp bachelorsdegree rhigher,usiness rprofessionalields; a_ot bachelors egree rhigher,ther ields;aa_se associatedegree rcertificate,cience ndengineeringields;ajbp = associatedegreeorcertificate,usiness rprofessionalields;a_ot associatedegree rcertificate,ther ields.SES = socioeconomictatus.



16/29

76 THEANNALSF THEAMERICANCADEMYTABLE 1WEIGHTED DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY AND

ACADEMIC BACKGROUNDS: BY THREE GROUPS AND LOW SESWhite Mexican Chinese

High Low High Low High LowVariable SES SES SES SES SES SESFirst eneration 0.008 0.014 0.073 0.303 0.509 0.764Secondgeneration 0.045 0.034 0.330 0.526 0.397 0.236Third rhigher eneration 0.947 0.952 0.597 0.171 0.094 0.000SES ineighth rade 0.125 -1.329 -0.413 -1.363 0.296 -1.314Male 0.503 .478 0.503 0.371 0.618 0.399Age 26.3 26.9 26.4 26.6 26.3 26.7Everrepeated grade 0.153 0.425 0.189 0.321 0.076 0.050Student xpectationn 15.6 13.7 15.1 14.3 16.1 15.9eighth radeObservations 7,924 398 608 338 151 14Percentageow SES 5.23 40.21 8.74SOURCE: Authors'ompilationasedon National ducational ongitudinaltudyNELS;1988-2000). ES = socioeconomictatus.manymorewomen hanmen, speciallyorMexicanndChinese roups. pos-sible xplanationsthat ow-SESmale tudents,articularlyinorities,remorelikelyobe drawnodelinquentctivitiesnddrop utof chool arly.Whethera studentver epeated grade y ighth radesgreateror ow-SES tudentsthan or igh-SEStudentsmongwhites ndMexicans utnotChinese.Distributionfhigh choolvariablesStudentsfdifferentocioeconomicackgroundsre exposed o differentschool nvironmentsseeTable ). Intenthrade, hite tudentsnthehigh-SEScategoryremoreikelyo ttendatholicnd therrivatechools, hile he astmajorityf ow-SES tudentsttendedublic chools, egardlessf their ace/ethnicity99.2percentorwhites,8.4percentorMexicans,nd100percentorChinese). ercentageanguageminorityndpercentageunch rogramre alsoclassbased.Wecan seethe oncentrationf ow-SESMexican ndChinese tu-dentsnhigh anguage-minoritychools. irtuallyll low-SES studentsttendschools ith high roportionf tudentsnthefree/reduced-pricedunch ro-gram. urriculumontent easuredy henumberf egular athourses,ow-ever, oesnot xhibitifferencesetweenow- ndhigh-SEStudents ithinllthree acial/originroups. egardingenth-gradechool elationalttributes,eseethat he choolmean f ollectiveesponsibilitysactuallyower or igh-SESMexicanndChinese tudentshan or heir igh-SESounterparts.imilarly,ow-SES Mexican nd Chinese tudentsreexposed ohighercademic ress nd



17/29


greatereachers'nterestnd educators'ollegeencouragement.urningotwelfth-gradechool ariables,e observe largelylass-basedatternn tudents'positionncurriculumtructure ith heexceptionf Chinese tudents: orehigh-SEStudentsreplacedncollege reparationrogramsnduniformlyorelow-SES tudentsreplacednvocationalrograms.lso, returno class-basedpatterns observedor welfth-gradetudent-educatoronds,whichwas consis-tentlyigheror igh-SEStudentshan or ow-SES tudents.Multivariateesults

EffectsfbackgroundharacteristicsOurfirst ultivariatenalysisxaminesace/origin,amilynd ndividualack-ground,enth-gradechool ariables,ndtwelfth-gradechool ariablesnfourincrementalodelshownnTable3. The race/originodel model ) showsthatCubans re similarowhites. lacks,Mexicans,uertoRicans,ndotherHispanicsareworse hanwhites, hereasllAsian roupsare etter.henega-tiveMexicanffect-.735) s significantlyreaterhan henegativelack ffect(-.480), onsistentith umerousreviousindingsbout hepersistentexicandisadvantageneducationalttainmenthaped yparents'owhumanapitalndnegativeeceptione.g., ortes ndRumbaut001;Perlmann005).AfteramilySES, generationtatus,ndividualemographics,ndacademic ackgroundreincludednthe backgroundodel model ),Mexicans' isadvantageeducesby half utnonethelessemainsizable nd ignificant.he tenth-gradechoolmodel model ) and he twelfth-gradechoolmodel model )yieldittleddi-tionalhangenrace/originoefficients.hepersistent,egative exican ffectsconsistentith reviousindingsbout he mpactfnegative ode f ncorpo-rationfMexican arents hen ES is held onstant.Movingothe ottomanel fTable ,we noticehat he irstgenerationaresbetterhan he econd eneration,hich,nturn,ares etterhan he hirden-eration.hismonotoniceclinenmobilityrovidesvidence o upporthe ela-tionshipetweenimmigrantrive ndtime assagentheUnited tates. oonafterrrival,mmigrantarentsavehigh xpectationor heir hildrenndpushthemo succeedPortesndFernandez-Kelly008).Generationaltatus eflectsthe engthf ime he mmigrantamilyasbeen ntheUnited tates. hepas-sageof time ringsbout elentlesscculturation,hich rogressivelyeakensimmigrantrivePortesndRumbaut001).Thesegenerationalffectsrefairlystable crossncrementalodels,uggestinghatgenerationaltatus oesnotconfound ith chool tructuralnd relationalttributes.heexpectedarentalSES effectxhibitsmall ndsteady eclines s tenth-ndtwelfth-gradechoolvariablesre ncluded,uggestinghat he chool tructuralnd relationalttrib-utes re tmost nlyweaklyelatedo social lass.Wefind ogender ifferenceinyoungdults' ocialposition,hich choes he ncreasingmpiricalvidencethat howshe atchingpofwomen ithmen.However,ecause urdependent



18/29

78 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYTABLE 2DISTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL AND RELATIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF

SCHOOLS: BY THREE GROUPS AND LOW SESWhite Mexican Chinese

High Low High Low High LowVariable SES SES SES SES SES SESStructuralntenthgradeSchool ectorPublic 0.893 0.992 0.944 0.984 0.926 1.000Catholic 0.062 0.008 0.033 0.014 0.040 0.000Private 0.045 0.000 0.022 0.001 0.034 0.000

Languageminority0 percent 0.375 0.523 0.038 0.029 0.070 0.1261-10percent 0.534 0.354 0.354 0.158 0.503 0.32011+percent 0.091 0.124 0.608 0.813 0.427 0.555Lunchprogram0 percent 0.123 0.026 0.055 0.025 0.088 0.0361-10percent 0.436 0.321 0.188 0.064 0.460 0.25311-50percent 0.397 0.522 0.454 0.501 0.233 0.38951+ percent 0.044 0.132 0.304 0.411 0.219 0.322LocationUrban 0.538 0.725 0.713 0.649 0.529 0.622Suburban 0.462 0.275 0.287 0.351 0.471 0.378Rural 0.330 0.626 0.252 0.216 0.042 0.126Number fregularmath ourses 4.164 4.203 4.110 3.948 4.224 4.713Relationaln tenthgradeSchool ollectiveesponsibilitySchoolmean 0.090 -0.028 0.257 0.343 0.176 0.235SchoolSD 0.535 0.577 0.714 0.649 0.678 0.761School cademic ress -0.012 -0.146 -0.200 -0.055 0.300 0.942Student-educatorondsTeachers' nterest 0.758 0.718 0.731 0.755 0.790 0.847Educators' ollege ncouragementLow 0.331 0.447 0.329 0.250 0.381 0.340Medium 0.190 0.194 0.218 0.200 0.135 0.213

High 0.479 0.359 0.453 0.550 0.484 0.447StructuralntwelfthradeStudentpositionn curriculumtructureCollegeprep 0.494 0.184 0.349 0.287 0.581 0.734Regular 0.366 0.600 0.505 0.475 0.370 0.207Vocational 0.140 0.216 0.146 0.238 0.049 0.059Schoolprogramsssisting 2.805 2.157 2.598 2.510 3.709 3.110collegegoingFederalprogramsordisadvantaged 0.960 1.058 1.270 1.328 1.533 1.698RelationalntwelfthgradeStudent-educatorondsTeachers nterest 0.822 0.810 0.846 0.843 0.863 0.794Educators' ollege ncouragementLow 0.292 0.646 0.324 0.436 0.137 0.210Medium 0.132 0.091 0.136 0.111 0.139 0.151High 0.576 0.263 0.540 0.453 0.724 0.639

SOURCE: Authors'compilationased on National ducational ongitudinaltudyNELS; 1988-2000).NOTE: SES = socioeconomictatus.



19/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL N UPWARDMOBILITY 79TABLE 3EFFECTS OF BACKGROUND ON THREE-DIMENSION SOCIAL

POSITION AMONG YOUNG ADULTSRace/OriginBackgroundTenth-GradeTwelfth-GradeVariable (1) (2) School3) School4)

Race/ethnicity/national-originBlack -0.480 -0.089 -0.074 -0.118(0.055) (0.058) (0.060) (0.060)Mexican -0.735 -0.327 -0.279 -0.312(0.059) (0.071) (0.075) (0.075)Cuban 0.271 -0.067 -0.103 0.015(0.221) (0.227) (0.230) (0.233)Puerto ican -0.641 -0.482 -0.390 -0.299(0.144) (0.158) (0.160) (0.164)OtherHispanic -0.226 -0.262 -0.209 -0.164(0.102) (0.110) (0.111) (0.112)Chinese 1.299 0.609 0.696 0.579(0.137) (0.156) (0.158) (0.161)Filipino 0.311 -0.490 -0.429 -0.547*(0.149) (0.161) (0.163) (0.167)Korean 0.951 -0.208 -0.098 -0.114(0.174) (0.188) (0.188) (0.186)Other sian 0.848 0.171 0.221 0.236(0.099) (0.113) (0.114) (0.117)GenerationtatusSecond eneration -0.213 -0.223 -0.188(0.090) (0.089) (0.092)Third rhigher eneration -0.705 -0.698 -0.638(0.085) (0.089) (0.094)Parental ES 0.859 0.783 0.680(0.026) (0.029) (0.029)Male -0.030 -0.028 -0.016(0.033) (0.033) (0.034)Age -0.101 -0.100 -0.044

(0.034) (0.034) (0.034)Everrepeated grade -0.733 -0.718 -0.495(0.057) (0.057) (0.059)Studentxpectationneighth rade 0.256* 0.235** 0.163(0.010) (0.010) (0.010)NOTE:Estimatesrebased nthe ullample f12,144 espondents.odel entersnly ace/eth-nicity/nationalriginndicators. odel2 addsfamilyackground,ndividualharacteristics,ndacademic ackground. odel3 addstenth-gradechoolvariables.Model4 addstwelfth-gradeschool ariables.tandardrrorsre nparentheses.ES = socioeconomictatus.Significantt 5 percent.**Significantt 1percent.



20/29

80 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMY

variableonsistsf hree imensions,omen'sdge n ducationalttainmentndtheir allingehindnsciencendengineeringay ancel achotherut.We contend hat arly cademicbackgroundaptures eadiness orhighschoolearning.ow evels f cademic reparedness,ndicatedygrade epeti-tionand low initial xpectations,armyoungsters' obility rospects. hestrengthf cademic reparednesss reduced utremainstatisticallyignificanteven fterwelfth-gradechool ariablesre ncludedn themodel.Effectsf enth-gradechool ariablesThe effectsf enth-gradechool ariablesrommodels and4 areshownnTable4. In model ,Catholicndprivatechools redict igherocialpositionamong oungdults.When ectorsre ontrolled,ostchooltructuralariables,with he xceptionf high ercentagef anguageminorities,onot ffectocialmobilityutcomes.We have lsotestednd foundhat ther emographicea-tures,uch spercentagefwhitesndpercentagef ingle-parentamilies,onotmatter. possible easons that chool ectorlmostverlaps ith emographiccomposition.or nstance,o Catholicndprivatechools avemore han 0per-cent f tudentshoparticipatenfree rreduced-costunch rograms.he eadofCatholicndprivatechool, owever,isappearss twelfth-gradechool ari-ablesmeasuringtructuralndrelationalttributionsre ntroducednmodel .Ashypothesized,strongenseofcollectiveesponsibilitymong eacherssignificantlymprovestudents'ocialposition t young dulthood. lso ashypothesized,trongcademic ress s positivelyssociated ithhigherocialpositionnyoungdulthood. hethereachersre nterestedn student'searn-ing ndwhethereachersndcounselorsncouragehe tudentopursue col-legeeducationromotehefortunesfyoungdults.Thus, esultsrommodel show he mportantole f enth-gradeducation.Although ublic chools s a wholefallbehindCatholic rprivatechoolsnpromotingutureocial ositions,ighevels f ollectiveesponsibilitynd ca-demicpress n publicschools an reducedifferencesn mobilityutcomesbetweenchool ectors.n addition,tudent-educatorondsplay n indepen-dent, et mportantole ntransmittingnstitutionalesourcesostudentsndneutralizingectoralifferences.oodrelationalttributesnapublic chool anbrightentudents'utures.his sespeciallyignificantor ow-SES tudents.Thesignificantffectsfmanyf he enth-gradechool ariables,xceptol-lective esponsibilitynd teachers'nterest,re overriddenytwelfth-gradeschool ariables.hereason sthat tudents'lacementnthe welfth-gradeur-riculumtructures largely eterminedythetenth-gradechoolfactors.naddition,ducators'ollege ncouragements more losely elated o collegedecisionntwelfthrade hann tenth rade.Effectsf welfth-gradechoolvariables

Estimatesorwelfth-gradechool ariablesrommodel are hownnTable .Placementf tudentsnupper rackshould ave clear onsequenceor heir



21/29

THE ROLE OFSCHOOL N UPWARDMOBILITY 81TABLE 4EFFECTS OF TENTH-GRADE SCHOOL STRUCTURAL

AND RATIONAL ATTRIBUTES ON THE THREE-DIMENSIONSOCIAL POSITION AMONG YOUNG ADULTSTenth-Grade Twelfth-GradeVariable School 3) School 4)

Structuralntenth radeCatholic, rivatepublic s thereference) 0.306** 0.127(0.088) (0.089)Languageminority0 percents thereference)1-10percent -0.051 -0.016(0.040) (0.041)11+percent -0.120** -0.119(0.060) (0.061)Lunchprogram0 percents thereference)1-10percent 0.115 0.151(0.090) (0.092)11-50percent 0.058 0.112(0.091) (0.092)51+ percent 0.032 0.090(0.108) (0.111)Locationurban s thereference)Suburban 0.016 -0.001

(0.045) (0.046)Rural 0.059 -0.013(0.049) (0.051)Number fregularmath ourses 0.033 0.017(0.019) (0.022)Relationaln tenth radeSchool ollectiveesponsibilitySchoolmean 0.099** 0.091**(0.041) (0.041)SchoolSD -0.063 -0.066(0.048) (0.049)School cademic ress 0.092*** 0.044(0.030) (0.031)Teachers'nterest 0.261*** 0.114***(0.039) (0.042)Educators' ollege ncouragementMedium 0.129*** -0.029(0.049) (0.051)High 0.352*** 0.067(0.040) (0.043)NOTE: Estimatesrebasedon thefull ample f12,144 espondents. odels3 and4 includerace/national-origin,amilyackground,ndividualharacteristics,nd academicbackground.Model3 enters enth-gradechool ariablesnthree teps.Model4 addstwelfth-gradechoolvariables. tandardrrors re nparentheses.**Significantt5 percent. **Significantt 1percent.



22/29

82 THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICANACADEMY

high ducationalttainmentndthefield f tudy.hat s whatwe found. hepremiumf he ollege reparationrogramsespeciallytrong. ollege-boundprogramslsohave promotingffect.ederal rogramsor hedisadvantagedsuchas UpwardBoundhave an overall mallnegativeffect. he student-educatorond ariablesntwelfthradere mportantor oungdult utcomes,strongerhan he ffectsf hese ariablesn tenth rade.In sum,model (the astcolumn f Tables3 through) shows, irst,hatMexican ndFilipinotudentsall ehindwhitetudents,utChinesendotherAsian tudentsare etter.econd, irst-generationtudentserformetterhansecond-generationtudents,ho,nturn,erformetterhan he hirdenera-tion. hird,arentalES remainsignificantlytrong,nd cademic ackgroundandearly ducationalxpectationsontinueopredict oungdult utcomes.Fourth,mong enth-gradechool ariables,ollectiveesponsibilitynd teach-ers' nterestnstudentearningemainmportantredictors.inally,lltwelfth-grade chool ariablesresignificantnshapingouth'sutureocial ositionsDifferentialchool ffectsydisadvantagedtatusDo the dentifiedactorsifferySES background?e use model totest hedifferentialffectsf enth-gradechoolariables,ndweusemodel to esthe if-ferentialffectsf welfth-gradechool ariables.o differentialffectsre oundortenth-gradechoolectornddemographicompositionnd welfth-gradeeachers'interestnd ducators'ollege ncouragement.his s n mportantindingecausedisadvantagedtudentsanthrivender avorablechool ttributes.Table6 reportsesults f he nteractionetween tudentES, ononehand,and chool'selationalttributesntenthradend tructuralttributesntwelfthgrade,nthe ther.Wefindignificantifferentialffectsor ow- ndhigh-SESstudentslong isparatealues f chool ariables.ecause f he mall umber(1,045) fdisadvantagedtudentsnour amplegiven ur trictefinition),econsiderstatisticalevel f 10 for estingn nteractionffect.olumns and3repeat he estimatesrom hepreviousmain-effect odelsforcomparison.Column reveals hat, esides he beneficial igh evel ofstudent-educatorbonds, he educators'medium evelof collegeencouragementfrom itherteacher r ounselorutnot oth)sadvantageousnly or ow-SES tudents.nyexternalupport,ven rom neteacher,illhelp ransmitnstitutionalesourcesto low-SES tudents.s Stanton-Salazarnd Dornbusch1995) uggest,choolrelations ay e the nlyhannelor esourceransmissionor ow-SES tudents.Moregenerally,his indings n inewith he dentificationf reallyignificantother s a decisivefactorn producingducationaluccess PortesandFernandez-Kelly008).Model ashowshebonus ffectfbeingna college reparatoryrogramorlow-SES tudentsp < .10)and a uniformffectfbeingna regular rogram.Sinceplacementf tudentsn the urriculumtructuresoften ssociated ithstudents'ocial lass, hepositiveffectf ollege reparatoryrogramsor ow-SES studentsointso directionsor olicyntervention.odel4bincolumn



23/29

THE ROLEOF SCHOOL N UPWARDMOBILITY 83TABLE 5EFFECTS OF TWELFTH-GRADE SCHOOL STRUCTURAL

AND RELATIONAL ATTRIBUTES ON THREE-DIMENSIONSOCIAL POSITION AMONG YOUNG ADULTSVariable Twelfth-Gradechool 4)StructuralntwelfthradeStudent ositionncurriculumtructure(vocationals thereference)Collegeprep 1.103**0.054)Regular 0.356***0.049)Schoolprogramsssistingollegegoing 0.149***0.016)

Federalprogramsor isadvantaged -0.058** 0.026)Relationaln twelfthradeTeachers'nterest 0.148***0.045)Educators'ollege ncouragementMedium 0.468***0.060)High 0.726***0.050)NOTE: Estimates re based on thefull ampleof 12,144respondents.Model 4 includesrace/ethnicity/national-originndicators,amilyackground,ndividualharacteristicsnd aca-demicbackground,ndtenth-gradechoolvariables. tandard rrorsre nparentheses.**Significantt5 percent. **Significantt 1percent.shows hat ederal rogramsor hedisadvantagedenefitow-SESstudents(.146 .070= .076),while henegativeffector igh-SEStudentssrelativelysmall.These results rovide opulation-levelvidence or he critical ole ofexternalupportor hildren hosemmigrantarents erenegativelyeceivedinthehost ountryseePortesnd Rumbaut001).

Disadvantagedmmigrants'hildrenWho AchievedUpwardMobility:omeExamplesThusfar, e havefocusednupwardmobilitymong isadvantagedhildrenatthe ggregateevel.Nonetheless,e face heproblemf mall ample izeofsuccessfulasesfrom isadvantagedackgrounds.ustomizedtudies uch stheChildrenf mmigrantsongitudinaltudyCILS) have he ameproblem(PortesndFernandez-Kelly008).Therefore,e usesummaryescriptionsoillustrate ajor indingsrom urquantitativenalysis. e narrowhe copeofsuccess o bachelordegreesnd ucrativeields f tudy.First, e outlinehe asicmobilityatternsorMexicansndChinesend om-pare hem ith hose f hird-generationhites.y urdefinition,he ercentageofMexicans ithdisadvantagedackground40percent) asmore han our imeshigherhan hepercentageor hinese9percent)ndabout ightimes igherthan hepercentageorwhites5percent).he rate fgainingbachelorsegree



24/29

84 THEANNALS FTHE AMERICAN CADEMYTABLE 6SELECTED INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL STRUCTURAL

AND RELATIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND LOW-SES INDICATORTenth-Grade Twelfth-GradeVariable School 3) (3a) School 4) (4a) (4b)

TenthgradeTeachers'nterest 0.261000 0.268(0.039) (0.041)Teachers'nterest LowSES -0.082(0.105)Educators'ollege ncouragement 0.130 0.088(medium) (0.049) (0.050)Educators' ollegeEncouragement 0.416(Medium) Low SES (0.147)Educators'ollege ncouragementhigh) 0.352 0.333(0.040) (0.041)Educators' ollegeEncouragement 0.175(High)x LowSES (0.140)TwelfthradeCollege repprogram 1 103 1 078(0.054) (0.056)CollegePrepProgram LowSES 0.277(0.164)Regular rogram 0.356 0.344

(0.049) (0.051)Regular rogram Low SES 0.071(0.114)School rogramssistingollege-going 0.149** 0.151**(0.016) (0.016)School rogramssistingollege-Going -0.047LowSES (0.040)Federal rogramsor isadvantaged -0.058** -0.070**(0.026) (0.028)Federal rogramsor isadvantaged 0.146*LowSES (0.087)NOTE: Estimates re basedonthefull ample f12,144 espondents. odels3 and4 in this able re thesame as those npreviousmodels.Model3a introduces set of nteractionerms o model3. Models4aand 4b introducenteractionerms o model4 one set at a time.Standard rrors re inparentheses.SES = socioeconomictatus.*Significantt 10percent. *Significantt 5 percent. Significantt 1percent.

among isadvantagedtudentss about7 percentorMexicans,0 percentorChinese,nd3 percent or hird-generationhites.n comparison,achelorsdegree atesmonghe dvantagedre14.3percentorMexicans,3.3percentorChinese,nd36.3percentorhird-generationhites.hesepatternsregeneral-izable orMexicansndwhites utnot or hinese ecause he ubsampleizeofdisadvantagedhinesesfourteen,hichs too mall or tatisticalse.From heMexicannd Chinese roups e selected few tudentshohad alow-SES ackgroundut chievedpwardocialmobility.epresentwoout f



25/29


eleven)uccessfulirst-generationexicans,ne out f ixteen)uccessfulecond-generation exican tudent,nd one (outofeight)first-generationhinesestudent. odisadvantagedhinese tudentsre econd rthirdeneration.First-generationexicans. osa, Mexicanmmigrantirl,ame otheUnitedStates tagefour. eitherfherparents ompleted igh chool.Herparentalsocioeconomictatuswasveryow,withinhebottom percentf the NELSsample.Rosa had highexpectationsorcollegeeducationn eighth rade.AlthougherEnglish roficiencyas ow, he did notrepeat nygrade r takeany emedialeadingr remedialmath ourses. osastenth-gradeigh choolwaspublic,mall,nd rural.More han 0percentfthe tudentody ncom-passedracial r ethnicminorities,lmost ll studentsarticipatednthe free

lunchprogram,nd more han10 percent id not haveEnglish roficiency.Despite hese dverse onditions,he chool xhibitedesirable tructuralndrelationalttributes:ollectiveesponsibilityn thetop quartile f all NELSschoolsnd academic ressnthe opquintile. osas teachers ereverynter-estednher earning,nd he chool ounselornd eacherstronglyncouragedher ogotocollege.n twelfthrade, osawasplaced na college reparatoryprogram.pongraduation,hewas dmittedo public our-yearniversity.hemajoredn businessnd earnedherbachelors egreenbusinessmanagementand dministrationn 1996. n 1999,Rosabecame manager.he feels hat hehasconsiderableutonomynddecision-makingapacitynherob.Juan amefromMexico o theUnited tateswhenhe was five ears ld n1978.His Mexicanarents'ES was nthe10th ercentilef heNELS parentalSES distribution.neighthrade, uans arents oped hat e would raduatefromollege,ndJuan arboredhe amehope.AlthoughisEnglish roficiencywas ow ndhisreadingest corewas nthebottomuartile,e didnothave otake nyremedial nglish lasses nd wasnever eldback.At the ametime,Juanxhibitedighchievementnmath,ankingnthe 5th ercentile.n tenthgrade, e entered public igh choolna suburbanrea.The schoolwas argeanddiversentermsfrace, ES, and anguageminorities.ollectiveesponsi-bilitynd academic resswere t about hemedian evel mongNELS schools.The school fferedour egular ath oursesnd woAdvanced lacementAP)

math ourses. uans eachers ereverynterestednhis earning;ducatorstthe choolwhoknew uan tronglyncouragedim opursueollege dmission.Hisexpectationsrew igher hen e was ntenthrade.ntwelfthrade, uanwas n college reparationrogram.e continuedobenefitromtrongondswith eachersnd counselors.ponhigh chool raduation,e was admittedoa four-yearublic niversityhere emajorednart-speech/drama.e receiveda bachelors egreen 1996. n 2000Juanwas an officemanager.Second-generationexicans.osewasbornntheUnited tatesnthe1970s.HisMexicanmmigrantarents'ES wasbelow he th ercentilemongNELS

parents. owever ose ndhisparents oped hathe would btain graduatedegree. ornntheUnited tates, e wasfluentnEnglish. iseighth-gradeest



26/29

86 THE ANNALS F THE AMERICAN CADEMYscorenreading as above verage,uthismathcorewasbelow he40th er-centile.n 1989,Jose ttended large rban ublic chool. ts curriculumasrigorous,fferingive egularmath ourses ndfive ollege-levelourses. heschool rganizedollegenformationairsndprovideddvice nhow ofinancea higherducation.he school lsoactivelyarticipatedn thefederallyundedUpward oundProgram.n his enior ear, osewasplaced n a technicaldu-cation rogram,uthe alsoparticipatednUpward ound,which urturediscollege spirations.eachersollectivelyeldhigh esponsibility.ose'seachersin his enth ndtwelfthrades adstrongnterestn his earning.n the welfthgrade,chool ounselorsndteacherstronglyupportedose's ursuitf col-legeeducation. e wasadmittedo a four-yearublicuniversityn 1992.Hemajorednelectricalndcomputerngineeringndwas awarded bachelorsdegreenengineering.osewas a computerystemnalystn2000.

First-generationhinese. ing, five-year-oldirl,rrivedntheUnitedtatesfrom hinawith erparentsn the ate 1970s.Withoutigh chool ducation,herparents ere nthebottomuintilef heSES distribution.neighthrade,Yings eadingndmathtandardizedest coreswere bove he 0th ercentile.BothYing nd herparentsxpected ing o earn graduate-levelegree. n1989, he entered suburbanublichigh chool,where 0percentf tudentsparticipatednthefree unch rogram.he school ad a large nddiversetu-dentbody. he schools ollectiveesponsibilityas about verage.Academicpress, owever,as nthetop20percentmongNELS schools. ing eportedthat er eachers ere erynterestednher,nd he chool ounselornd each-ers tronglyncourageder opursue college ducation.ntwelfthrade, ingwasplaced none of everalollege reparationrograms.ings ondswith erteachersndother ducatorsemainedtrongntwelfthrade.Upongraduation,Yingwas dmittedo four-yearublic ollegewhere hemajorednbiology.hegraduated ith bachelors egreenbiologicalcience. urrently,he swork-ing s a medical ractice rofessionalhile ontinuingopursue higheregree.

Similaritiesmong ases.A firstommonalitynthese tudentss their ublicschool ttendance.nly 1out1,045 isadvantagedtudentsn NELS attendedCatholic rprivatechools.Among 38 low-SESMexican-origintudents hoachievedpwardmobility,nly attendedatholicchoolsnd1 attendedpri-vate chool. hus, yourdefinition,chool ector annot e a determinantorupwardmobilitymonghedisadvantaged.second ommonalitys immigrantdrive,xemplifiedyhigh arentalxpectationsnd constantushfor hildren'sacademic uccess.Anoutstandingimilarity,owever,ntailshestructuralndrelationaleaturesf he chools ttendedy hose isadvantagedhildrentheyall xperiencedrigorousurriculum,ighevels f ollectiveesponsibility,trongacademicress, ollege-boundrograms,nd losebondswith eachersndothereducators.wo r more f hese onditionservedsimportantorcesromotingupwardmobilityndhelpingtudentsvercomearriers.eadersanfindtrongparallelsf ur elected aseswith hose escribedyZhou t al. 2008).



27/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY 87

ConclusionThisstudyoinsothersn thisvolume earchingor ausesofexceptionaladvancementmong isadvantagedmmigrants'hildren. nalyzinghe socialpositionsfyoungdultsntheirate wentiesn2000,wetraced pwardmobil-ity o the tructuralnd relationalttributesf thehigh chools hose tudentsattended.rawingn theoriesromsociologyfeducation, e tested ypothe-sesusing our aves fdatafrom ELS.Wefocused n twommigrantroupsMexicanndChinese andcomparedhemwithhird-generationhites.Threemajor indingsan be drawn rom ur nalysis.irst,noverwhelmingmajorityfdisadvantagedtudentsttendublic chools. ortunately,hedistrib-ution ffavorablechoolttributes,hethertructuralrrelational,snot ntirelybased n school ector.chool elationalttributesremuch ess ikelyovaryystudents'ocial lass ackgrounds.ome elationalttributesre venmore cces-sible odisadvantagedhildrenhan otheirdvantagedounterparts.hesepat-ternsuggesthat olicynterventionhould im tstrengtheningtructuralndrelationalttributes.econd, hildren'spwardmobilitys affectedy tructuralandrelationalttributesntheir ighchools.Most chool ffectsre he ame ordisadvantagednd dvantagedtudents.tudent-educatoronds ndcurriculumstructureave ven trongerositiveffectsndisadvantagedtudents.inally,wefind ubstantialifferencesnthemobilityatternsfChinese,Mexicans,ndwhites. eitherhinese orMexicanshow onvergenceoward hitesnyoung-

adult ocialpositions, result onsistentith heobservationsyZhou et al.(2008).The largegapbetweenMexicans nd whitess particularlyorrisome,becauseMexicansmakeup the argest roup f children ho have mmigrantparents. lthoughe have dentifiedchools' tructuralnd relationalttributesthat anhelpMexicanhildrenucceed,mostMexican hildrenttend choolsthat o nothave hose avorableharacteristics.ombined ith amilyisadvan-tage,this factoruggestshatdownwardmobilitymong econd-generationMexicansmay otbe reversed ithout ajor olicyfforts.Ourstudyuggestshatnvestingnthe tructuralndrelationalttributesfpublic choolss part f thesolution ordisadvantagedhildren,egardlessfnationalrigin,ndespeciallyorMexicans. heupwardmobilityf first-ndsecond-generationmmigranttudentsppears o be muchmore ependentntheirxperiencesnhighchoolhan hat f heir igher-generationounterparts.Notes

1. The order f cience/technologyse) orbusiness/professionalbp) sdebatable.We usea model-baseapproach o determine hich rder s optimal rom he data.BycomparingheBayesiannformationCriterionBIC) fromhe wo rderedogitmodels or he en-categoryependent ariable hat witch hese andbpposition ithin ssociate degree nd bachelors egree,we find hat hecurrent rder eads toa better it f hemodel.2. The Departmentf Education rovides iscretionaryrantso nstitutionsfhigher ducation oworkwithhigh chools ogenerate isadvantagedtudents' kills ndmotivationecessaryor uccess npostsecondaryducation. rovided ervicesncludednstructionnreading, riting, athematics,cience,



28/29

88 THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICANACADEMY

studykills,nd other ubjects. owever,rior valuationsf heseprogramsnly oundporadic ositiveeffectsn a setof tudentutcomesU.S. Departmentf Education 004).3. Missingalues f llvariables sed nthemultivariatenalysisre mputed sing hemultiplempu-tationechniqueo that hefull ample f12,144nthe2000wave sused n model stimations.y welfthgrade, herewere 931 dropouts,mongwhom nly 84 dropped utbytenth rade.Sincehigh chooldropouts avehigh choolexperience,urmultiplemputationpplies ohigh chool ropoutsf heir al-ues onhigh chool ariablesremissing.4. We use theStata ommand ice to createfivemultiplemputationamples nd micombine oproduce heestimatesndtheir tandardrrors.

ReferencesAdelman, lifford.999.Answersn the oolbox:Academicntensity,ttendanceatterns,nd bachelorsdegree ttainment. ashington,C: National nstituten Postsecondaryducation, ibraries,ndLifelong earning, .S. Departmentf Education.. 2006. The toolbox evisited: aths to degreecompletionromhighschoolthroughollege.Washington,C: Office fVocationalnd Adult ducation, .S. Departmentf Education.Bryk, nthony.,andMary . Driscoll. 988.The chool s community:heoreticaloundations,ontex-tual nfluences,nd consequencesorstudentsnd teachers.Madison:National enter n EffectiveSecondarychools,UniversityfWisconsin.Bryk, ntonia, alerie . Lee, andPeterBlakeley olland.1993. Catholic chool nd the ommon ood.Boston:Harvard niversityress.Elder,GlenH.,Jr. 998.The life ourse s developmentalheory.hildDevelopment9 (1): 1-12.Featherman,. L., andR. Hauser.1978.Opportunityndchange.New York:Academic ress.Grogger,eff,nd EricEide. 1995.Changes ncollege kills nd therise nthecollegewagepremium.JournalfHumanResources0:280-310.Hao,Lingxin,nd MelissaBonstead-Bruns.998. Parent-childifferenceneducationalxpectationsndacademic chievementf mmigrantnd native tudents.ociologyfEducation 1:175-98.Hoffer, homas,AndrewM. Greeley,nd James . Coleman.1985.Achievent rowthn publicandCatholic chools. ociologyfEducation 8:74-97.Huggett,Mark,GustavoVentura,nd Amir aron. 007. Sources f ifetimenequality. BER WorkingPaperno.W13224,National ureau fEconomicResearch, ambridge,MA.Kao,Grace, nd Marta ienda. 995.Optimismnd chievement:he ducationalerformancef mmigrantyouth. ocialScienceQuarterly6 (1): 1-19.Lee, V E., and A. S. Bryk. 988. Curriculumrackings mediatinghe socialdistributionfhigh choolachievement.ociologyfEducation 1:78-94.Lee,Valerie ., andJulia . Smith. 993.Effectsf chool estructuringn the chievementndengagementofmiddle-gradetudents.ociologyfEducation 6:164-87.. 1996.Collectiveesponsibilityorearningnd ts ffectsngainsn chievementor arlyecondary

school tudents.mericanournalfEducation 04:103-47.Lee,V.E., J.B. Smith,ndR.G. Croninger.997.Howhigh chool rganizationnfluenceshe quitabledistributionf earningn mathematicsnd science. ociologyfEducation 0:128-50.Lucas,SamuelRoundfield.999.Trackingnequality:tratificationndmobilitynAmericanigh chools.NewYork: eachers ollegePress.Lucas,SamuelR.,andMarkBerends. 002.Sociodemographiciversity,orrelatedchievement,nddefacto racking.ociologyfEducation 5:328-48.Morgan, tephen . 2001.Counterfactuals,ausaleffect eterogeneity*ndtheCatholic chool ffectnlearning.ociologyfEducation 4:341-74.NationalAssociationf Secondary chool Principals. 996. Breaking anks:Changing n Americaninstitution.eston, A:NationalAssociationfSecondarychoolPrincipals.Oakes,J.1985.Keepingrack:How schools tructurenequality. ewHaven,CT: YaleUniversityress.Pallas,AaronM.,DorisR. Entwisle, arlL. Alexander,ndM. Francis tluka. 994.Ability-groupffects:Instructional,ocial, r nstitutional?ociologyfEducation 7:27-46.



29/29

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL IN UPWARD MOBILITY 89Perlmann, oel. 005. Italians hen,Mexicans ow:Immigrantrigins nd second-generationrogress,1890 to2000. New York:Russell ageFoundation.Pong, uet-ling,ndLingxin ao. 2007.Neighborhoodnd schoolfactorsnthe schoolperformancefimmigrants'hildren.nternational igration eview 1 (1): 206-41.Portes, lejandro,ndPatricia ernandez-Kelly.008. Nomarginor rror: ducational ndoccupationalachievementmongdisadvantagedhildrenfimmigrants.he Annals ftheAmericanAcademyfPolitical nd SocialScience 20:12-36.Portes, lejandro,ndDag MacLeod.1996. Educationalprogressfchildren f mmigrants:he roles fclass, thnicity,nd school ontext.ociologyfEducation 9:255-75.Portes,Alejandro,nd RubenG. Rumbaut. 001. Thelegacies.Berkeley: niversityf Californiaress;and NewYork:Russell ageFoundation.Portes, lejandro,nd Min Zhou.1993.The new econdgeneration:egmentedssimilationnd tsvari-ants.TheAnnals f heAmerican cademy fPolitical nd SocialScience 30:74-96.Rosenholtz,usanJ.1991. Teachers' orkplace: he ocialorganizationf chools.New York: ongman.Royston,. 2004.Multiple mputationfmissingalues.The StataJournal (3): 227-41.Rubin, . B. 1987.Multiplemputationornon-responsensurveys. ew York: ohnWiley.Schneider, arbaraL., AdamE. Wyse, nd VenessaKeesler. 006-2007. s smallreally etter? estingsome ssumptionsbouthigh chool ize.Brookingsapers n Education olicy, p.15-47.Washington,DC: Brookingsnstitution.Stanton-Salazar,.,andSanfordM. Dornbusch. 995. Socialcapital ndthereproductionf nequality:InformationetworksmongMexican-originigh chool tudents.SociologyfEducation8 2): 116-35.Stevenson, avid L., Kathryn. Schiller,nd Barbara chneider. 994.Sequencesofopportunitiesorlearning. ociology fEducation 7:184-98.U.S. Department fEducation.2004. The mpacts fregular pwardbound: Results rom he thirdfollow-upata collection.Washington,C: Governmentrintingffice.Zhou,Min, ndCarlL. BankstonII. 1998.GrowingpAmerican: ow Vietnamesehildrendaptto ifein the United tates.NewYork:Russell ageFoundation.Zhou,Min,Jenniferee, Jody giusVallejo,RosauraTafoya-Estrada,nd Yan Sao Xiong. 008. Successattained, eterred,nd denied:Divergent athwayso socialmobilityn Los Angeles new secondgeneration.heAnnals f heAmerican cademyfPoliticalnd Social Science 20:37-61.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	victor-hugo-ramos
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

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

Documents