The Children of Immigrants’ Bonding to School: Examining the Roles of Assimilation,Gender,Race,Ethnicity,and Social Bonds

Abstract

Social bonds to school (i.e., attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief) can influence educational progress and success for students; however, the children of immigrants’ bonding to school remain unclear. This study utilizes data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 and incorporates multilevel analysis to examine straight-line assimilation, segmented assimilation, and immigrant optimism theories in relationship to the children of immigrants’ school bonds. Findings suggest that bonds to school are moderated by gender, race, ethnicity, and immigrant generation. The implications of the evident disparities in the children of immigrants’ bonds to U.S. public schools are discussed more broadly.

Keywords

high school programs adolescent subjects minority academic success urban education

Introduction

Twenty-five percent of all students in U.S. school districts have at least one immigrant parent and that percentage is expected to rise to 33% by 2040 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Moreover, the impact of immigrants on large U.S. cities, including the effect on communities and schools, has a great influence on urban areas because these areas have been historically immigrant gateways (Kao, Vaquera, & Goyette, 2013; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). It is well established that urban schools are frequently marked by higher concentrations of poverty, greater racial and ethnic diversity, and larger concentrations of immigrant populations and linguistic diversity; however, it is also clear that the population of students within immigrant families are exponentially growing in suburban and rural schools (Kao et al., 2013; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). With this rapid growth of students within immigrant families, there is a need to understand the evidentiary importance of schools as institutions of not only learning but also of socialization. School is where the children of immigrants not only learn about U.S. values, beliefs, and behaviors, but also about their social and cultural role in American society (Lee, 2005; Olsen, 2008; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). It is also important to consider the inequalities linked to gender, race, and ethnicity matter in the children of immigrants’ schooling (Kao et al., 2013; Olsen, 2008). What remains unknown, however, is the pattern of social bonds for students in immigrant families.

The social bond theory (Hirschi, 1969; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez, 1989) provides a conceptual framework to understand socialization and social learning by indicating that an individual’s bonds to social institutions such as family, friends, religion, schools, and the like, influence how that individual will behave. According to the social bond theory, an individual’s bond to social institutions consists of four elements: attachment to parents, peers, and conventional institutions such as school; commitment to long-term educational, occupational, or other conventional goals; involvement in conventional activities such as work, homework, hobbies; and, belief in the moral validity of social norms and expectations. Whereas these elements of social bonds can independently improve behavior and educational success, the combined effect of these four elements on behavior and educational success are greater than the sum of their individual effects. In other words, weak bonds to school have detrimental effects on school experiences and educational outcomes (Bryan et al., 2012; Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004; Maddox & Prinz, 2003; Peguero, Popp, Latimore, Shekarkhar, & Koo, 2011). Conversely, it is also apparent that strong bonds to school can have positive effects on educational progress, success, and attainment (Bryan et al., 2012; Crosnoe et al., 2004). Thus, the aim of this study emerges, to investigate the children of immigrants’ bond to their schools while considering the roles of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status.

To explore this research aim, this study utilizes assimilation theoretical frameworks (i.e., straight-line, segmented, and immigrant optimism) and draws on the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002 and Common Core of Data (CCD) to examine bonding to school for students in immigrant families. There are a number of reasons why social bonds to school have received much educational, social, and policy attention. Students’ bond to school influence their overall pro-social behavior, psychological well-being, healthy interpersonal relationships, and educational progress and success. As the United States becomes increasingly immersed in a globally competitive market, addressing an educational system fraught with educational disparities related to gender, race, ethnicity, and immigrant generation are imperative. It is with this research initiative, examining bonds to school is important to facilitate and promote educational success for students in immigrant families, the fastest growing segment of the U.S. school population. More specifically, there are three specific research questions that this study will address.

Research Question 1: Is generational status a significant factor in understanding students’ bond to their schools?

Research Question 2: If so, are students’ bonds to their schools distinctive by the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status?

Research Question 3: Do those patterns reflect one of a straight-line assimilation, segmented assimilation, or immigrant optimism hypotheses for students in immigrant families?

Theoretical Framework

Social Bonds

Social bond theory provides a framework to understand socialization and social learning by indicating that an individual’s bonds to social institutions, such as family, friends, religion, schools, and the like, influence how that individual will behave. The theory was initially proposed to explain individual’s deviant behavior (Hirschi, 1969). However, it has also been utilized to explain social learning in school (Bryan et al., 2012; Maddox & Prinz, 2003; Wehlage et al., 1989). Student participation and engagement in school activities and interpersonal relationships with other students and teachers are used to represent social attachments, involvement, and emotional learning (Wehlage et al., 1989). As postulated by Hirschi (1969) and Wehlage et al. (1989), there are several dimensions of the social bond: (a) attachment, the social and emotional ties with others that embody normative expectations; (b) commitment, the investment of time, energy, and self in a certain line of activity with deviation from that activity being a rational calculation of the consequences; (c) involvement, the engrossment in conventional activities, which leaves no time for engagement in behavior that contradicts the institution’s goals; and, (d) belief in some legitimate value system within the society which the deviant individual violates. Research has demonstrated that weak bonds to school have detrimental effects on school experiences and educational outcomes (Bryan et al., 2012; Crosnoe et al., 2004; Maddox & Prinz, 2003; Peguero et al., 2011). It is hypothesized that weak bonds to school can have detrimental effects on educational progress, success, and attainment (Bryan et al., 2012; Crosnoe et al., 2004). However, it is also argued that strengthening student bonds to school can facilitate educational progress, success, and attainment (Bryan et al., 2012; Crosnoe et al., 2004). Although it is known that there is a relationship between social bonds to school and educational progress, the knowledge about the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and immigrant generation in relationship to social bonds to school remains unknown.

The social bond theory, however, does not explicitly address the issue of inequality because social bond is conceptually proposed to be invariant across social characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, and immigrant generational status. According to this theory, students’ social bonds to school should account for distinct patterns of individual behavior and educational success by focusing on the strength of social bonds and ties to conventional society (Hirschi, 1969; Wehlage et al., 1989). The children of immigrants, however, are historically and currently more likely to reside in communities that are characterized by poverty, unemployment, crime and violence, isolation, and discrimination (Kao et al., 2013; Lee, 2005; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008; Valenzuela, 1999). This research denotes that social ties to conventional institutions and belief in conventional values become problematic for residents living in such communities. Because schools often reflect the economic, social, and economic characteristics of the community the school is embedded in, it is plausible that these conditions may influence immigrant children’s attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief in their schools.

Assimilation

U.S. schools are one of the fundamental social institutions with which immigrants and their children first come into contact; however, the role of educating and socializing students in immigrant families has been historically debated. At the center of this debate between education and immigration are continuing fundamental questions about who is American, how to become one, at what pace, and how does the school facilitate the process of assimilation. Three theoretical frameworks have emerged from this debate that will be at the center of this research analysis: straight-line, segmented, and immigrant optimism assimilation hypotheses.

Straight-line assimilation

Straight-line assimilationists argue that the assimilation process involves immigrants assimilating to the dominant host culture and in turn this process facilitates upward mobility (Alba & Nee, 2003; Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, Waters, & Holdaway, 2009). Under this straight-line assimilation process, immigrants who assimilate to the dominant host culture will achieve employment, residential, and educational success. Straight-line assimilation suggests that across generations, the children of immigrants from diverse backgrounds come to share a common culture and become indistinguishable from their native-born peers. The children of immigrants are expected to resign their distinct cultural values and beliefs and relocate out of ethnic enclaves to earn improved opportunities that result in higher achievement and attainment across immigrant generations (Alba & Nee, 2003; Kasinitz et al., 2009).

Segmented assimilation

Segmented assimilationists contend the process of straight-line assimilation no longer depicts the opportunities for and access to social mobility immigrants and their children currently have in the United States. Segmented assimilation theorists describe a process of assimilation that results in various social, economic, and educational outcomes, which may reflect a path of upward or downward mobility (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Zhou, 1997). Segmented assimilationists propose that the assimilation process is segmented into several divergent forms of adaptation: assimilation into the White American middle-class; preservation of ethnic cultural traditions and close ethnic ties through social networks; and assimilation into the underclass also referred to as a second-generation decline. Within a segmented assimilation conceptual framework, assimilating and incorporating the dominant group’s values and beliefs may place immigrants on distinct trajectories, one of which may be on a path of marginalization, poverty, and failure (Feliciano, 2009; Lee, 2005; López, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).

Immigrant optimism hypothesis

Immigrant optimism emphasizes progress of immigrant origin groups over successive generations (Kao & Tienda, 1995). But, unlike straight-line or segmented assimilation approaches, this framework stresses the relative overachievements of the second generation compared with the first and third-plus generations, particularly the third-plus majority population. This approach differs by denoting that educational achievement is associated with optimism of immigrant parents who communicate and emphasize high educational aspirations and expectations to their children (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Kao et al., 2013). In other words, immigrants often bring with them a culture of optimism because the motivation for migrating to the United States is one of hope and opportunity. Immigrant parents relay an optimistic belief to their children by highlighting that life in the United States is better than the life in their native country of origin. Within an immigrant optimism conceptual framework, second generation will have higher educational and occupational attainments than either the first generation or third-plus generations.

Gender, Assimilation, and Education

Gender influences the assimilation process. Some research demonstrates that girls in immigrant families report higher educational aspirations and earn higher grades than boys (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Zhou & Bankston, 2001). Other research finds that the daughters of immigrants attain higher education in response to the social and economic situations they encounter in the United States and the opportunities education opens up for them (López, 2003; Yang, 2004; Zhou & Bankston, 2001). For instance, López’ (2003) study of second-generation Dominican, Haitian, and West Indian youths finds that girls are taught to be financially independent so they do not have to rely on men to support them in adulthood. López also finds that stricter familial control of girls carries over into good behavior and higher achievement in schools, as well as higher career aspirations.

Ethnographic studies find that school experiences are shaped by gender. Ngo (2009), Lee (2009), Cammarota (2004), and López (2003) find that second-generation Laotian, Hmong, Latino/a, and Caribbean males, respectively, are criminalized by teachers and administrators and disciplined more in school than girls. As a result, second-generation males tend to have more antagonistic relationships with school personnel than second-generation girls. Furthermore, whereas boys tend to resist gendered and race-based expectations of them by acting out, girls tend to resist such expectations through educational achievement and success.

Some research finds that immigrant families have different expectations of boys and girls. Yang (2004) argues that Asian men display a decline in educational attainment across generations due largely to change in gender equality in status and educational opportunities between the homeland and United States. In other words, because men and women have relatively equal status and educational opportunities in the United States, second and third-plus generation Asian men face less pressure from their families to attain higher levels of education. Others find that immigrant families use stricter control and authority to insist on academic excellence from their daughters (Williams, Alvarez, & Hauck, 2002; Zhou & Bankston, 2001).

The above evidence collectively suggests that gender is not only an individual characteristic of the children of immigrants, but that it is also an aspect to which they must adapt. Research on education and assimilation typically does not take gender into account; therefore, the picture of assimilation processes and the role of education are incomplete. Therefore, it is important to explore gender variation in regard to assimilation and socialization processes in school.

Race, Ethnicity, Assimilation, and Education

Unlike earlier immigration waves, where most immigrants were from Europe, approximately 85% of immigrants from the current immigration wave are from Latin America, Asia, or the Caribbean (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Therefore, the race and ethnicity, or “color,” of the majority of contemporary immigrants sets them apart from the traditional and historical trends in American immigration of primarily White European immigrants. For the current wave of immigrants, some may not have experienced prejudice associated with a particular skin color or racial type in their country of origin (Kasinitz et al., 2009; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2014; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Some Latin American countries have histories of racism and other forms of discrimination, particularly in relation to indigenous and African populations. However, for many who migrate to the United States, their experiences with racism in their home countries is far less pronounced than their experiences in the United States (Feliciano, 2009; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2014). Immigrants and their children, especially those whose physical characteristics are similar to the physical characteristics of U.S. native-born Black/African Americans, can confront a historical legacy and present-day reality of racial and ethnic discrimination in U.S. schools (Kasinitz et al., 2009; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2014; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). The role of race and ethnicity may be significant for the children of immigrants’ schooling as well as their school bonds.

Although there is empirical evidence supporting both theories of assimilation, neither straight-line assimilation nor segmented assimilation fully depicts, predicts, or explains the educational/schooling trajectories of children of immigrants. Some researchers find that Latina/o American, Asian American, and Black/African American students’ educational optimism increased from first- to second-generation status; however, that educational optimism declined by third-plus-generation status (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Kao et al., 2013; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Some research indicates that as Latina/o American immigrant youth assimilate, their educational achievement and attainment improves (Kasinitz et al., 2009). However, others researchers report that by the third-plus generation, Black/African American, Latina/o American, and Asian American youth have higher drop-out rates than their parents (Perreira, Harris, & Lee, 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2014). In addition, prior research has shown that third-plus-generation Latina/o American, Asian American, and Black/African American youth are more likely to engage in misbehavior and experience victimization at school in comparison with their first- and second-generation counterparts (Ewert, 2009; Jiang & Peterson, 2011; Peguero, 2009, 2013; Peguero & Jiang, 2014).

In sum, the research on gender and assimilation and on race/ethnicity and assimilation suggests that the children of immigrants must bridge expectations of two cultures—their and/or their parents’ homeland culture and the U.S. culture—in the socialization and Americanization processes. Many children of immigrants find that their racial and ethnic identification and gender expectations can mark them for specific academic tracks and future opportunities. The intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity can play a significant role in the educational struggles that immigrant youth experience in U.S. schools. Therefore, it is important to investigate, as well as be attentive, to how gender, race, and ethnicity intersect in the children of immigrants’ bond to their schools.

The Current Study

Although major urban school districts such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami historically and continue to sustain the highest proportions of students within immigrant families, it is also apparent that there is a rapid growth of students within immigrant families within suburban and rural schools. Thus, it is important to understand the bonds that the children of immigrants have with their schools because schools ideally facilitate social mobility, educational opportunities, and learn how to navigate their social, cultural, political world (Kao et al., 2013; Olsen, 2008; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). On arrival, however, many immigrants and their children are confronted with gender, racial, and ethnic stratification in U.S. schools. Questions about the children of immigrants’ educational success are inextricably intertwined with the complexities of gender, race, ethnicity, and immigrant generation. As significant factors to be considered in the assimilation process, the children of immigrants’ bonding to school may be impeded by gender, racial, and ethnic inequalities. In sum, three research questions will be explored in this study. Is generational status a significant factor in understanding students’ bond to their schools? If so, are students’ bonds to their schools distinctive by the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status? Finally, do those patterns reflect one of a straight-line assimilation, segmented assimilation, or immigrant optimism hypotheses for students in immigrant families?

Method

Data and Sample

Data for this research are drawn from ELS and CCD. ELS is a longitudinal survey administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2002b) of the U.S. Department of Education. ELS is “designed to monitor the transition of a national sample of young people as they progress from tenth grade through high school and on to postsecondary education and/or the world of work” (p. 7). These data included information about the backgrounds and experiences of students, parents, and teachers, and descriptions of the schools the students attended. ELS also provides “mappings” to the CCD, which is the U.S. Department of Education’s primary database on public elementary and secondary education and provides some of the school-level data.

Because the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status is central, this study focuses on Black/African American, Latina/o American, Asian American, and White American female and male public school students. Data from students who only participated in the abbreviated survey (which did not include parents’ characteristics) were excluded from the sample because parents’ birthplace is essential information to measure the student’s generational status. Students who reported being Native American, multiple races and ethnicities, and/or no race and ethnicity were excluded from the analysis. Thus, a subsample from the ELS data consisting of 9,870 first-, second-, and third-plus-generation students in 580 public schools is utilized.

Dependent Variables

Attachment is an index based on eight items (each coded as 0 = disagree and 1 = agree; α = .76): (a) students get along well with teachers, (b) there is real school spirit, (c) students make friends with students of other racial and ethnic groups, (d) the teaching is good, (e) teachers are interested in students, (f) when I work hard on my schoolwork, my teachers praise my effort, (g) in class, I often feel put down by my teachers (reverse coded as 0 = agree and 1 = disagree to keep the scale consistent as the higher score indicates stronger attachment), and (h) in class I often feel put down by other students (reverse coded as 0 = agree and 1 = disagree to keep the scale consistent as the higher score indicates stronger attachment).

Commitment is an index based on six items (each coded as 0 = disagree and 1 = agree; α = .69): (a) I go to school because I think the subjects I’m taking are interesting and challenging, (b) I go to school because I get a feeling of satisfaction from doing what I’m supposed to do in class, (c) I go to school because education is important for getting a job later on, (d) I go to school because I’m learning skills that I will need for a job, (e) I go to school because my teachers expect me to succeed, and (f) I go to school because my parents expect me to succeed.

Involvement is an index based on four measures of school-based activities items (each coded as 0 = not involved and 1 = involved; α = .63): (a) academic related (e.g., band, play, student government, etc.), (b) school club, (c) intramural sports, and (d) interscholastic sports.

Belief is an index based on five items (each coded as 0 = disagree and 1 = agree; α = .75): (a) everyone knows what the school rules are; (b) if a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will follow; (c) the school rules are fair; (d) school rules are strictly enforced; and (e) the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are.

Independent Variables

Students’ gender is coded as 0 = male and 1 = female based on the student’s self-report of their biological sex.

In ELS survey design, respondents self-report their race and ethnicity. Black/African American, Latina/o American, and Asian American students are over-sampled to obtain a sufficient representation for statistical analyses of these groups. All the analyses in this study incorporated sample weights which were calculated by NCES to compensate for the survey design and non-response bias, and to present findings that are nationally representative (Ingels et al., 2007).

CCD provides the information for the proportion of Latina/o Americans, Asian Americans, and Black/African Americans within a school separately. This is critical because Black/Africans and White Americans are predominantly third-plus-generation students whereas a significant number of Latina/o Americans and Asian Americans are first- and second-generation students.

Generational status is measured as a set of dummy variables indicating whether the student is a first, second, or third-plus generation. Immigration and birthplace information for the students are included in the parents’ survey. First-generation students are children born outside the United States; second-generation students are children born in the United States and have at least one parent born outside the United States; and third-plus-generation students are children born in the United States, and have both parents born in the United States.

The proportion of students in immigrant families in school is measured by the percentage of students who are non-English proficient or have limited English proficiency in the school. However, there are limitations with this measurement to assess the proportion of immigrants within a school. Researchers have discovered that many U.S. born children of immigrants (i.e., second-generation students) are categorized as non-English proficient or having limited English proficiency. Although this is a limitation, researchers have also pointed out that the non-English proficient or limited English proficiency students are predominately first- or second-generation students (Kao et al., 2013; Olsen, 2008; Rong & Preissle, 2008).

Student, Family, and School Control Variables

Student (i.e., educational achievement and positive peers), family (i.e., socioeconomic status, structure, and involvement), and school (i.e., poverty, disorder, security, size, and locale) characteristics are associated with social bonds and/or the school experiences of students in immigrant families (Kao et al., 2013; Lee, 2005; Peguero & Bondy, 2011, 2015; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Thus, these controls are included to investigate the significance of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status in relationship to social bonds to school.

Educational achievement is measured using the standardized measures developed by RTI and NCES. ELS included a reading and math composite scores based on standardized tests developed by the Educational Testing Service. The composite score is the average of the math and reading standardized scores, re-standardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10. Positive peers measure student’s assessment of “among your close friends, how important is it to them that they” (0 = not important, 1 = somewhat important, and 2 = very important) on the following items: (a) attend classes regularly, (b) study, (c) get good grades, (d) finish high school, and (e) continue education past high school.

The NCES pre-constructed measure of family socioeconomic status is a standardized (z-score) variable based on five equally weighted, standardized components: father’s/guardian’s education, mother’s/guardian’s education, family income, father’s/guardian’s occupational prestige, and mother’s/guardian’s occupational prestige. Family structure is a dichotomous variable, which differentiates households in which there are two parents/guardians in the home, relative to single parent/guardian homes, which serve as the reference group. A family involvement index is created using students’ responses to eight questions about whether their parents or guardians engage in a variety of school activities (e.g., checking homework, discussing school courses, etc.).

School poverty measures the proportion of students within each school who receive free or reduce-priced lunches. School disorder is based on 19 items (e.g., physical conflicts, robbery or theft, possession of weapons, etc.) that were reported as a problem in their schools by administrators. School security is constructed by counting 11 items (e.g., require students to pass through metal detectors each day, perform one or more random sweeps for contraband, etc.) that were implemented in their schools by school administrators. School size is measured by total student enrollment. School locale measures whether the school was located in an urban, rural, or suburban (reference category) locale.

Analytic Strategy

As ELS is designed as a cluster sample in which schools are sampled with unequal probability and then students are sampled or “nested” within these selected schools, the subsample of the ELS violates the assumption of independent observations. The nested structure of the ELS (i.e., students within schools) makes multilevel modeling an appropriate analytic tool (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2008). Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) techniques are utilized to examine the relationships between gender, race, ethnicity, generational status, and social bonds to school. All Level 1 (student) and Level 2 (school) predictors have been centered on their group and grand means, respectively. This allows us to examine the probability of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief within each school. This analytical approach can facilitate an interpretation of the probability that the average student report their bond to school within each school while controlling for other pertinent student, family, and school factors.

The analyses proceed in several steps. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the variables in this study. To understand the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status in relationship to social bonds to school, the sample will be split by gender and interactions between race, ethnicity, and generational status are incorporated are analyzed for female students and male students in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Range	M	SD	n
Student-level variables
Dependent
Social control
Attachment	0-8	6.23	1.60	9,870
Commitment	0-6	4.58	1.38	9,870
Involvement	0-4	1.43	1.13	9,870
Belief	0-5	3.35	1.32	9,870
Generational status
First generation	0-1	0.12	0.32	1,170
Second generation	0-1	0.16	0.36	1,540
Third-plus generation	0-1	0.73	0.45	7,160
Race and ethnicity
Latino American	0-1	0.16	0.37	1,630
Black/African American	0-1	0.15	0.36	1,490
Asian American	0-1	0.11	0.32	1,130
White American	0-1	0.57	0.50	5,620
Student characteristics
Female	0-1	0.51	0.50	5,050
Educational achievement	21.50-79.94	49.96	9.94	9,870
Positive peers	0-10	5.10	3.86	9,870
Family characteristics
Socioeconomic status	−2.11-1.98	−0.07	0.73	9,870
Structure	0-1	0.76	0.43	7,500
Involvement	0-8	5.11	2.75	9,870
School-level variables
% children of immigrants	0-63	4.83	8.47	580
School characteristics
% Black/African American	0-100	18.49	0.25	580
% Latino American	0-96	14.05	0.22	580
% Asian American	0-81	5.12	0.11	580
% White American	0-100	60.86	0.32	580
Poverty	0-100	24.93	18.63	580
Disorder	0-19	12.84	1.68	580
Security	0-11	3.58	2.33	580
Size	52-4,631	1,411	839.90	580
Urban locale	0-1	0.28	0.45	160
Rural locale	0-1	0.22	0.42	130
Suburban locale	0-1	0.50	0.50	290

Table 2.

Hierarchical Linear Model Effects and Standard Errors for Girls’ Social Bonds.

	Attachment		Commitment		Involvement		Belief
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Generational status and race/ethnicity
First generation
Black/African American	.620*	.275	.597**	.219	−.082	.245	.480*	.218
Latina American	.315*	.147	.539***	.116	−.105	.102	.254*	.127
Asian American	.085	.139	.503***	.109	–.022	.100	.283*	.128
White American	–.583*	.269	–.101	.235	–.215	.190	.293^†	.185
Second generation
Black/African American	.109	.236	.791***	.187	–.367*	.209	.151	.199
Latina American	.152	.116	.491***	.110	.034	.102	.180^†	.110
Asian American	.028	.141	.272*	.123	.022	.106	.065	.114
White American	–.198	.181	.198	.146	–.033	.128	.032	.129
Race and ethnicity
Black/African American	–.126	.104	.307***	.084	.119*	.071	–.045	.084
Latina American	–.191	.149	.052	.109	.121	.095	–.050	.107
Asian American	.047	.352	.623**	.260	–.261	.278	.242	.296
Student characteristics
Educational achievement	.031***	.003	.005*	.003	.014***	.002	.003	.002
Positive peers	.023***	.007	.032***	.006	.030***	.005	.022***	.006
Family characteristics
Socioeconomic status	–.108**	.042	–.059*	.036	.232***	.030	–.064	.036
Two parent/guardian structure	.102^†	.062	.063	.052	.059	.047	–.014	.052
Involvement	.032**	.012	.058***	.011	.016*	.008	–.005	.010
School characteristics
Proportion children of immigrants	.001	.004	.004^†	.003	–.001	.002	.001	.004
Proportion Black/African American	–.384*	.170	.220*	.117	–.427***	.121	–.139	.140
Proportion Latina/o American	.064	.245	.199^†	.150	–.509***	.142	.185	.198
Proportion Asian American	–.268	.325	.205	.234	–.173	.203	.123	.241
Poverty	–.008***	.002	.003*	.001	–.001	.001	–.001	.002
Disorder	–.018	.022	.016	.015	–.009	.015	–.026^†	.017
Security	.010	.012	.013*	.008	.009	.007	.009	.010
Size	–.001	.001	.001	.001	–.001***	.001	.001	.001
Urban	–.006	.078	–.018	.053	–.021	.049	–.015	.066
Rural	–.120^†	.077	–.113*	.057	.053	.059	–.010	.065
Intercept	6.276***	.029	4.708***	.021	1.484***	.019	3.421***	.024
Random effects	Variance	χ²	Variance	χ²	Variance	χ²	Variance	χ²
Between schools	.197***	1,051.425	.052***	758.433	.078***	956.039	.126***	973.325
Within schools	2.088		1.544		1.092		1.529

Note. The omitted categories are White American third-plus generation, single parent/guardian family structure, and suburban schools.

†

p ≤ .1. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Linear Model Effects and Standard Errors for Boys’ Social Bonds.

	Attachment		Commitment		Involvement		Belief
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Generational status and race/ethnicity
First generation
Black/African American	.260	.316	.528**	.223	.236	.220	.333^†	.208
Latino American	.299*	.142	.677***	.127	.155*	.092	.204*	.122
Asian American	.431**	.164	.721***	.145	.137^†	.101	.185^†	.123
White American	.268	.205	.572**	.207	–.008	.191	.102	.221
Second generation
Black/African American	.261	.214	.549**	.219	.137	.205	–.062	.221
Latino American	.045	.134	.370**	.132	.193*	.100	.014	.126
Asian American	.195^†	.143	.597***	.142	.085	.096	.203*	.113
White American	.016	.175	.287*	.158	.003	.093	–.008	.141
Race and ethnicity
Black/African American	.180^†	.118	.520***	.102	.424***	.071	–.195*	.097
Latino American	–.185	.163	.138	.124	.199*	.097	–.155^†	.143
Asian American	.171	.280	.625*	.324	–.228	.191	.119	.280
Student characteristics
Educational achievement	.026***	.003	–.002	.003	.004*	.002	.002	.002
Positive peers	.018*	.008	.040***	.007	.026***	.005	.026***	.007
Family characteristics
Socioeconomic status	–.039	.045	–.074*	.039	.251***	.031	–.081*	.040
Two parent/guardian structure	.041	.064	.101*	.057	.101**	.042	.054	.055
Involvement	.015	.012	.037***	.010	.024***	.007	.016*	.009
School characteristics
Proportion children of immigrants	–.003	.004	.002	.003	.001	.002	–.002	.003
Proportion Black/African American	–.303*	.164	.574***	.136	.063	.118	–.167	.131
Proportion Latina/o American	–.121	.236	.493**	.182	–.098	.151	–.137	.166
Proportion Asian American	–.278	.305	.520*	.276	–.200	.246	.034	.246
Poverty	–.001	.002	.002^†	.002	–.002	.001	.002^†	.001
Disorder	–.009	.024	.004	.018	.007	.014	–.004	.018
Security	–.001	.013	.006	.010	.007	.009	.008	.009
Size	.001	.001	.001	.001	–.001***	.001	.001	.001
Urban	–.031	.080	.028	.064	.006	.056	–.030	.059
Rural	–.066	.088	–.005	.068	.035	.055	.020	.068
Intercept	6.165***	.031	4.424	.025	1.366***	.021	3.268***	.024
Random effects	Variance	χ²	Variance	χ²	Variance	χ²	Variance	χ²
Between schools	.215***	1,019.258	.116	889.758	.088***	952.049	.103***	881.620
Within schools	2.339		1.859		1.023		1.650

Note. The omitted categories are White American third-plus generation, single parent/guardian family structure; and suburban schools.

†

p ≤ .1. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

As presented in Table 1, the average level of students’ attachment is 6.23 on an 8-point scale, commitment is 4.58 on a 6-point scale, involvement is 1.43 on a 4-point scale, and belief is 3.35 on a 5-point scale in the sample. With regard to generational status, 12% are first generation, 16% are second generation, and 73% are third-plus-generation students in this sample. At the school-level, approximately 4.83% of the student population consists of children of immigrants.

Female Children of Immigrants’ Bonds to School

Girls’ attachment to school

As presented in Table 2, there are generational, racial, and ethnic distinctions for girls’ attachment to school. First-generation Black/African American and Latina American girls have increased attachment to school in comparison with third-plus-generation White American girls. However, first-generation Asian American girls have decreased attachment to school in comparison with third-plus-generation White American girls.

Girls’ commitment to school

The study found that first-generation Black/African American, Latina American, and Asian American girls have increased commitment to school in comparison with third-plus-generation White American girls. Second-generation Black/African American, Latina American, and Asian American girls have increased commitment to school compared with third-plus-generation White American girls. Third-plus-generation Black/African American and Asian American girls have increased commitment to school compared with their third-plus-generation White American counterparts. It also appears that increasing proportion of children of immigrants within a school is linked to increased commitment to school for girls.

Girls’ involvement in school

Second-generation Black/African American girls have decreased school involvement compared with third-plus-generation White American girls. Third-generation Black/African American girls have increased school involvement in comparison with third-plus-generation White American girls.

Girls’ belief in the school rules

There are generational, racial, and ethnic differences for girls’ belief in the school rules. First-generation Black/African American, Latina American, Asian American, and White American, as well as second-generation Latina American, girls have increased belief in the school rules compared with third-plus-generation White American girls.

Student, family, and school characteristics associated with girls’ bonds to school

For student-level characteristics, in general, findings indicate that increasing educational achievement and increased numbers of positive peers are linked to increased bonds to school for girls. As for family characteristics, socioeconomic status, structure, and involvement are linked to girls’ bond to school. Increasing family socioeconomic status is associated with decreasing levels of attachment and commitment to school, but with increased levels of school involvement. Girls in two parent/guardian family structures have increased levels of attachment. An increased level of family involvement is associated with increased school attachment, commitment, and involvement. As for school characteristics, in general, proportion of racial and ethnic minorities in a school, poverty, security, and school locale are related to girls’ bond to school. Increasing proportions of Black/African Americans in a school, increasing levels of poverty within a school, and being located in a rural area are associated with decreased attachment to school for girls. Increasing proportions of Black/African Americans and Latina Americans in a school, increasing levels of poverty within a school, and increasing levels of school security are associated with decreased commitment to school. However, girls’ commitment to rural schools is relatively lower in comparison with suburban schools. Increasing proportions of Black/African Americans and Latina Americans in a school and increased levels of security are associated with decreased school involvement for girls. Increased levels of school disorder are linked with decreased belief in the school rules.

Male Children of Immigrants’ Bonds to School

Boys’ attachment to school

As presented in Table 3, first-generation Latino American and Asian American boys have increased attachment to school in comparison with third-plus-generation White American boys. The study also found that second-generation Asian American and third-plus-generation Black/African American boys have increased attachment to school compared with third-plus-generation White American boys.

Boys’ commitment to school

First-generation Black/African American, Latino American, Asian American, and White American boys displayed increased commitment to school in comparison with third-plus-generation White American boys. Second-generation Black/African American, Latino American, Asian American, and White American boys have increased commitment to school compared with third-plus-generation White American boys. Third-plus-generation Black/African American and Asian American boys have increased commitment to school compared with third-plus-generation White American boys.

Boys’ involvement in school

First-generation Latino American and Asian American boys have increased school involvement in comparison with third-plus-generation White American boys. Second-generation Latino American boys have increased school involvement in comparison with third-plus-generation White American boys. Third-plus-generation Black/African American and Latino American boys have increased school involvement compared with third-plus-generation White American boys.

Boys’ belief in the school rules

There are generational, racial, and ethnic differences for boys’ belief in the school rules. First-generation Black/African American, Latino American, and Asian American, as well as second-generation Asian American, boys have increased belief in the school rules compared with third-plus-generation White American boys. Third-plus-generation Black/African American and Latino American boys have decreased belief in the school rules in comparison with third-plus-generation White American boys.

Student, family, and school characteristics associated with boys’ bonds to school

For student-level characteristics, in general, findings indicate that increasing educational achievement and increased numbers of positive peers are linked to increased bonds to school for boys. As for family characteristics, socioeconomic status, structure, and involvement are linked to boys’ bond to school. Increasing family socioeconomic status is associated with decreasing levels of commitment to school and belief in the school rules, but with increased levels of school involvement. Boys in two parent/guardian family structures have increased levels of commitment and involvement. An increased level of family involvement is associated with increased school commitment, involvement, and belief. As for school characteristics, proportion of racial and ethnic minorities in a school, poverty, and school locale are related to bonds to school for boys. Increasing proportions of Black/African Americans in a school is associated with decreased attachment to school. Increasing proportions of Black/African Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans in a school and increasing levels of poverty within a school are associated with increased commitment to school. Increased levels of security are associated with decreased school involvement for boys. An increased proportion of Asian Americans in school are linked with increased belief in the school rules.

Discussion

The primary research aim of this study emerges—to investigate the children of immigrants’ bond to their schools while considering the roles of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status. Straight-line assimilation, segmented assimilation, and immigrant optimism hypotheses were also used to guide this research analyses. Thus, the findings warrant highlighting and further discussion of how these aforementioned theoretical assimilation frameworks further our understanding about the children of immigrants’ bonds to school and the gender, racial, ethnic, and generational differences.

Assimilation

Findings depict students’ social bonds to school (i.e., attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief) across three immigration generations of female and male Black/African Americans, Latina/o Americans, Asian Americans, and White Americans. For the reason that school is an institution of socialization and assimilation (Kao et al., 2013; Lee, 2005; Olsen, 2008), and for the reason of gender, racial, and ethnic educational inequality (Chou & Feagin, 2008; Feliciano, 2009; López, 2003; Valenzuela, 1999), understanding the children of immigrants’ bonding to school is vital to the success or failure of public schools as a democratic and meritocratic institution. Although results suggest some support that straight-line assimilation, segmented assimilation, and immigrant optimism are relevant, discussing results through each of these theories to better understand the relationships between education, assimilation, and students’ bonding to school is necessary.

Straight-line assimilation

Within a straight-line assimilation paradigm (Alba & Nee, 2003; Kasinitz et al., 2009), it is suggested that regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status, as immigrant students adapt to the dominant host culture’s values, beliefs, and norms, they will develop stronger social bonds with their school. There are some examples that can be interpreted as confirmation for a straight-line assimilation approach toward understanding school involvement. For instance, third-plus-generation Black/African American boys have higher levels of school involvement and attachment than first- and second-generation Black/African American boys. Among Black/African American girls, third-plus generation has higher levels of school involvement than first and second generation; but, there is a pattern of “second generation” decline in school involvement from first to second generation before an increase in school involvements for third-plus generation. In general, however, the reality of straight-line assimilation assertion does not hold up within this study.

Segmented assimilation

This study of students’ bonding to school also supports a segmented assimilation framework by finding that generational status, gender, and race and ethnicity matter in assimilation processes as well as reflect distinctive educational outcomes. That is, there is evidence indicating a second-generation decline of school bonds for Latina/o American, Asian American, and Black/African American immigrant students. For example, first-generation Black/African American and Latino American boys have increased beliefs in the school rules and its enforcement; however, that belief in the school rules diminish and result in decreased belief in the school rules and its enforcement by third-plus generation. The declining belief that Black/African American and Latino American boys have in the fairness and equity of the school rules and punishments only exacerbates the disciplinary marginalization they experience in U.S. schools. This belief also intensifies the social and educational implications of this marginalization. Black/African American and Latino American boys are not only more likely to be labeled “bad” or defiant, but are also at an elevated risk for in-school discipline sanctions as well as exclusionary discipline sanctions (Kupchik, 2010; Rios, 2011). Black/African American and Latino American boys are at risk for underachievement, dropping out, and being incarcerated (Rios, 2011; Werblow, Urick, & Duesbery, 2013).

There is also evidence indicating a decline in social bonds for second- and third-plus-generation Black/African American girls. For instance, in comparison with first-generation Black/African American girls, second- and third-plus-generation Black/African American girls have diminishing attachment to school, involvement in school, and a belief in school rules. Research typically focuses on Black/African American boys’ belief in school rules as fairly or unfairly enforced and how this might affect their school experiences (Kupchik, 2010; Rios, 2011; Werblow et al., 2013). While this focus is perhaps understandable given Black/African American boys’ risk for underachievement, it also potentially excludes Black/African American girls’ from analysis and suggests that they are not also at risk. Yet, research finds that even though second- and third-plus-generation Black/African girls are not misbehaving more than their Latina and White counterparts, they, like Black/African American boys, are more likely to receive in school sanctions for disciplinary infractions, be labeled “loud” and “defiant,” and be suspended or expelled from school (Blake, Butler, Lewis, & Darensbourg, 2011; Crenshaw, Ocen, & Nanda, 2015; Morris, 2007). It is possible that the decline in Black/African American girls’ social bonds are linked to their disproportionate punishment. The segmented assimilation perspective raises questions about the specific contours of gender, race, and generational status and their impact on Black/African American girls’ attachment and involvement in school.

Immigrant optimism hypothesis

Findings also support immigrant optimism hypothesis for the children of immigrants’ bonding to school, which emphasizes that first- and second-generation immigrant students have improved educational experiences that disappear by third-plus generation (Kao & Tienda, 1995). For example, first- and second-generation Asian American boys have increased attachment to school and belief in the school rules and its enforcement, but disappears for third-plus-generation Asian American boys. The immigrant optimism hypothesis raises questions about the model minority stereotype and its impact on third-plus-generation Asian American male students’ attachment to school and belief in the school rules and its enforcement. According to the model minority stereotype, Asian American students are perceived as hard-working, self-sufficient, and possessing a drive for success that will propel them into the middle-class (Lee, 2005; Teranishi, 2002). Within the model minority stereotype, the academic success of Asian American students is used to argue that the U.S. schools are democratic, meritocratic, and free of racial discrimination and inequality (Lee, 2005; Teranishi, 2002). Therefore, it seems there should not be a decline in third-plus-generation Asian American male students’ attachment to school and belief in the school rules and its enforcement. Yet, research also underlies how the model minority stereotype makes invisible the racism and discrimination that Asian American students have experienced and continue to experience (Lee, 2005; Lei, 2003; Ngo, 2009; Teranishi, 2002). Moreover, the data on Asian American students are frequently aggregated and mask the tremendous differences in achievement and educational experiences across Asian ethnic groups. While Filipino and Southeast Asian male students, such as those from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, are often depicted as model minorities, they are also depicted as dropouts and gangsters (Lee, 2005; Lei, 2003; Ngo, 2009; Teranishi, 2002). Qualitative research on the educational experiences of Filipino and Southeast Asian males, and second-generation boys in particular, finds that stereotypes of gangsters can inform teachers’ perceptions and interactions with this particular group of students (Lee, 2005; Lei, 2003; Ngo, 2009; Teranishi, 2002). In the context of immigrant optimism, future research should investigate a link between the model minority stereotype and its impact on Asian American males’ bond to school.

There is also support for immigrant optimism hypothesis in relation to female immigrants’ bonding to school. For example, in comparison to first- and second-generation Latina youth, third-plus-generation Latina girls have diminished commitment to school. Research finds that first- and second-generation Latina girls have increased support for academic success from school personnel and from their immigrant parents (Feliciano, 2012). Other studies note that familial gendered socialization of first- and second-generation Latina girls, which holds them to higher behavioral standards than boys and places more responsibilities on them at home, leads to better commitment to school (Feliciano, 2012; López, 2003; Williams et al., 2002). Consistent with the idea of immigrant optimism hypothesis that educational achievement is correlated with the idealism of immigrant parents who convey high aspirations in school, it is conceivable that third-plus-generation Latina girls’ declining commitment to school may be associated with their parents’ generational status and a shift in familial gendered socialization.

The immigrant optimism hypothesis also raises questions about assimilation processes and their impact on third-plus-generation Asian American girls’ belief in school rules. Research demonstrates that Asian American girls tend to experience greater social control from their parents than boys (Espiritu, 2001; Lee, 2005; Zhou & Bankston, 2001). Asian American girls’ perceptions of greater familial control can lead to lower levels of family cohesion and to increased delinquency in school with later immigration generations (Bui, 2009). These perceptions may also, in turn, diminish Asian American girls’ belief in school rules as fairly enforced. Moreover, qualitative research suggests that some Asian American girls resist family control by developing closer relationships outside of the family and by defying strict gender norms through, for example, choice of clothing, make-up, and hairstyles. Such girls are found to be more likely to cut classes and defy school authorities (Lee, 2005), leading to a negative effect on grades and school bonds. In light of this study’s findings, and given that social bonds are associated with educational progress and success (Bryan et al., 2012; Crosnoe et al., 2004), addressing third-plus-generation Asian American girls’ deteriorating belief in school rules is imperative for equitable schooling in U.S. society.

Limitations and Future Research

Future research can address the limitations of this study as well as build on its findings. This study focused solely on the children of immigrants’ social bonding to school as part of a broader socialization and assimilation process to U.S. society. It is important, however, to examine teachers and administrators’ roles in students’ bonding to school. Poor student–teacher relationships are associated with decreased feelings of belonging, lower school engagement, academic failure, and dropping out (Lee, 2005; Peguero & Bondy, 2011, 2015; Valenzuela, 1999).

Although family characteristics were controlled for in the study, family involvement, expectation, and self-efficacy were not foregrounded in this study’s analysis. While the social bond theory provides insight into the children of immigrants bonding to school, it can also be argued that self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997; Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011) or parental self-efficacy (Giallo, Treyvaud, Cooklin, & Wade, 2013; Jones & Prinz, 2005) highlight the importance of parents in students bonding to school. In addition, research suggests that the role of family for immigrant youth are important toward educational success and progress as well as gender, racial, and ethnic disparities associated with family expectations and involvement (Kao et al., 2013; Olsen, 2008; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2014). Research demonstrates that there are gender, racial, and ethnic disparities associated with self-efficacy and educational progress (Akos & Galassi, 2004). Thus, future research that examines the role of self-efficacy is reasonably warranted because family may be vital on the children of immigrants’ social bonds to school and educational attainment.

Shortcomings of these data also foreclose an examination of various educational policies on the children of immigrants’ social bonds. For example, zero-tolerance policies that have permeated schools since the 1990s may be harmful to students’ belief that school rules are fair and punishment is non-discriminating. Traditional notions of gender, particularly femininity, may mediate female children of immigrants’ belief in school rules and punishments as fair. Latina American and Black/African American girls are more frequently cited and referred for improper dress and behavior that defy the standards of middle-class, White femininity (Bettie, 2003; Blake et al., 2011; Garcίa, 2009; Lei, 2003; Rolón-Dow, 2004). Interestingly, Asian American girls are often viewed as meek and passive victims of cultural sexism and are therefore in need of saving (Lee, 2005; Olsen, 2008). The lack of consistency in what constitutes proper dress code and behavior may influence female children of immigrants’ perceptions of school rules and punishments.

Furthermore, Race to the Top, which emphasizes meeting performance-based standards through English-only high-stakes tests, may be detrimental to the children of immigrants’ attachment and commitment to school and may be pushing them away from developing strong social bonds. It is also important to assess the variations of social bonds among different ethnicities and countries of origin. Educational experiences vary significantly for Mexican, Haitian, Korean, Hmong, and Filipino, Sengalese, and Ghanaian youth (Kao et al., 2013; Lee, 2005; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Teranishi, 2002). A recent decline in the national economy combined with a heated social, political, and economic debate over immigration, a debate that includes access to U.S. schools for all young people, may contribute to immigrant youths’ diminishing social bonds.

The social, cultural, economic, and political context may matter for the children of immigrants’ bond to their schools. To better understand the role of immigration-related factors in student bond to their schools, the social, cultural, political, and economic environment of immigration should be considered, especially considering urban, suburban, and rural distinctions. Further qualitative research on this topic would benefit from ethnographic observations in a classroom and interviews with immigrant youth, teachers, and administrators to allow for a more precise identification of how immigrant youth bond with their schools by generation status, race, ethnicity, and gender. For example, a multi-sited urban, suburban, and rural ethnography would allow for comparisons to be made between schools with different levels of diversity represented in their student population, and schools in different geographical contexts with distinct histories with addressing the needs of students within immigrant families. Research is needed to better understand how the social, cultural, political, and historical contexts of the nation, a school, and its community shape immigrant students’ bonding to urban, suburban, and rural schools.

Conclusion

Historical and contemporary research examines the ongoing uneasiness of immigration and its influence on U.S. public education (Apple, 2004; Kao et al., 2013; Rong & Preissle, 2008). Although these studies adequately describe the role of schools in preserving and reproducing inequalities, they generally have not sufficiently accounted for the role of students’ social bonding to school in perpetuating and/or disrupting such inequities. Perhaps schools are a stage in the process of assimilation and socialization to life in the United States, and children of immigrants’ social bonding helps facilitate this process, as well as increase the likelihood of reproducing the already existing cultural, academic, economic, and political status quo. If schools are charged with the task of nurturing all children’s potential to shape the nation and the world, then understanding the children of immigrants’ social bonding to school is imperative.

Educational progress, especially in the context of Common Core standards and high-stakes testing, frequently focuses on objectively measureable outcomes such as achievement and attainment. This study suggests, however, that research on Black/African American, Latina/o American, and Asian American students should be more attentive to a variety of schooling experiences that culminate in educational progress and success beyond grades and test scores. Efforts made to understand how immigrant children assimilate to American culture must acknowledge that this is a social process which occurs through a variety of institutions, including schools. It is also important to acknowledge that assimilation across different genders, races, and ethnicities has not unfolded in an even and gradual acceptance of U.S. values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors. Socialization, Americanization, gender, race, ethnicity, and generational status indeed matter in all aspects of education for the children of immigrants, many of whom are marginalized within the U.S. school system. Families with children who come to the United States are of special interest because these children are a part of the nation and world’s future: its parents, its leaders, its citizens, and its voters. Focus on the impact of social bonding on the children of immigrants’ education is therefore germane to creating democratic and just schools for all students.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Gratitude is extended for the helpful comments and constructive suggestions from the editor and blind reviewers throughout the development of this research manuscript. Appreciation is conveyed for the support offered by the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice-Network (RDCJN).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice W.E.B. Du Bois Fellowship (Grant 2012-IJ-CX-0003).

Author Biographies

Jennifer M. Bondy is an assistant professor in the School of Education at Virginia Tech. Her research focuses on gender, immigration, and education along with youth citizenship. She has published in journals such as Race, Ethnicity and Education, Teachers College Record, and High School Journal.

Anthony A. Peguero is an associate professor of sociology and a research affiliate of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention at Virginia Tech. His research interests involve youth violence, socialization and marginalization, schools and the adaptation of children immigrants. He serves as consultant on the Cartoon Network’s campaign against bullying; co-editor of Sociology Compass, Crime and Deviance Section; and editorial board for Journal of Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, and Journal of Criminal Justice. He is also a National Institute Justice W.E.B. Du Bois Fellow; 2015 Virginia Tech Institute for Society, Culture and Environment (ISCE) Fellow; 2014 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Tory J. Caeti Outstanding Young Scholar Award Winner; 2013 American Society of Criminology Coramae Richey Mann Award Winner; and member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network which holds the dual goal of advancing research on the intersection of race, crime and justice and of promoting racial democracy within the study of these issues by supporting junior scholars from under-represented groups.

Brent E. Johnson is a native of Cincinnati, Ohio. He received his undergraduate degree from Howard University, Masters in School Counseling from Xavier University (Ohio), and Doctorate degree (PhD) in Educational Leadership from Miami University (Ohio). Dr. Johnson has worked in the field of education for over 18 years. He has served as a classroom teacher, assistant principal, and a school counselor. He currently works full-time as a school counselor at Forest Park high School in Forest Park, Georgia and part-time as an adjunct professor of Education at Gordon State College in Barnesville, Georgia. He primarily researches issues concerning equity as it relates to school and society.

References

Akos

Galassi

J. P.

(2004). Gender and race as factors in psychosocial adjustment to middle and high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 102-108.

Alba

Nee

(2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Apple

M. W.

(2004). Ideology and curriculum (25th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bettie

(2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blake

J. J.

Butler

B. A.

Lewis

C. L.

Darensbourg

(2011). Unmasking the inequitable discipline experiences of urban Black girls: Implications for urban stakeholders. Urban Review, 43, 90-106.

Bryan

Moore-Thomas

Gaenzle

Kim

Lin

C. H.

(2012). The effects of school bonding on high school seniors’ academic achievement. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90, 467-480.

Bui

H. N.

(2009). Parent–child conflicts, school troubles, and differences in delinquency across immigration generations. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 412-441.

10.

Cammarota

(2004). The gendered and racialized pathways of Latina and Latino youth: Different struggles, different resistances in the urban context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 53-74.

11.

Caprara

Vecchione

Alessandri

Gerbino

Barbaranelli

(2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 78-96.

12.

Chou

Feagin

(2008). The myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing racism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

13.

Crenshaw

K. W.

Ocen

Nanda

(2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced, and underprotected. New York, NY: Center for Intersectionality and Policy Studies.

14.

Crosnoe

Johnson

M. K.

Elder

G. H.

(2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 60-81.

15.

Espiritu

Y. L.

(2001). “We don’t sleep around like White girls do”: Family, culture, and gender in Filipina American lives. Signs, 26, 415-440.

16.

Ewert

(2009). Student misbehavior during senior year: A comparison of immigrants and the native-born. Social Science Research, 38, 826-839.

17.

Feliciano

(2009). Education and ethnic identity formation among children of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants. Sociological Perspectives, 52, 135-158.

18.

Feliciano

(2012). The female educational advantage among adolescent children of immigrants. Youth & Society, 44, 431-449.

19.

Garcίa

(2009). “Why do you want to know about that?” Heteronormativity, sexism, and racism in the sexual (mis)education of Latina youth. Gender & Society, 23, 520-541.

20.

Giallo

Treyvaud

Cooklin

Wade

(2013). Mothers’ and fathers’ involvement in home activities with their children: Psychosocial factors and the role of parental self-efficacy. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 343-359.

21.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

22.

Ingels

S. J.

Pratt

D. J.

Wilson

Burns

L. J.

Currivan

Rogers

J. E.

Hubbard-Bednasz

(2007). Education longitudinal study of 2002: Base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2008-347). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

23.

Jiang

Peterson

(2011). Beyond participation: The association between school extracurricular activities and involvement in violence across generations of immigration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 362-378.

24.

Jones

Prinz

(2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341-363.

25.

Kao

Tienda

(1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 1-19.

26.

Kao

Vaquera

Goyette

(2013). Education and immigration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

27.

Kasinitz

Mollenkopf

J. H.

Waters

M. C.

Holdaway

(2009). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

28.

Kupchik

(2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York, NY: New York University Press.

29.

Lee

S. J.

(2005). Up against whiteness: Race, school and immigrant youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

30.

Lee

S. J.

(2009). Unraveling the model minority stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

31.

Lei

J. Y.

(2003). Unnecessary toughness: Those “loud Black girls” and those “quiet Asian boys.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 34, 158-181.

32.

López

(2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender disparity in urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.

33.

Maddox

S. J.

Prinz

R. J.

(2003). School bonding in children and adolescents: Conceptualization, assessment, and associated variables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 31-49.

34.

Morris

(2007). “Ladies” or “loudies”: Perceptions and experiences of Black girls in classrooms. Youth & Society, 38, 490-515.

35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Common core of data. Washington, DC: Author.

36.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002b). Education longitudinal study. Washington, DC: Author.

37.

Ngo

(2009). Ambivalent, urban immigrant identities: The incompleteness of Lao American student identities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 201-220.

38.

Olsen

(2008). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: The New Press.

39.

Peguero

A. A.

(2009). Victimizing the children of immigrants: Latino and Asian American student victimization. Youth & Society, 41, 186-208.

40.

Peguero

A. A.

(2013). An adolescent victimization immigrant paradox? School-based routines, lifestyles, and victimization across immigration generations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1759-1773.

41.

Peguero

A. A.

Bondy

J. M.

(2011). Immigration and students’ relationship with teachers. Education and Urban Society, 43, 165-183.

42.

Peguero

A. A.

Bondy

J. M.

(2015). Schools, justice, and immigrant students: Segmented assimilation, race, ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of fairness and order. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1-42.

43.

Peguero

A. A.

Jiang

(2014). Social control across immigrant generations: Adolescent violence at school and examining the immigrant paradox. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 276-287.

44.

Peguero

A. A.

Popp

A. M.

Latimore

T. L.

Shekarkhar

Koo

D. J.

(2011). Social control and school misbehavior: Examining the role of race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 259-275.

45.

Perreira

K. M.

Harris

K. M.

Lee

(2006). Making it in America: High school completion by immigrant and native youth. Demography, 43, 511-536.

46.

Portes

Rumbaut

(2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

47.

Portes

Rumbaut

(2014). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

48.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Congdon

R. T.

(2008). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

49.

Rios

V. M.

(2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York: New York University Press.

50.

Rolón-Dow

(2004). Seduced by Images: Identity and schooling in the lives of Puerto Rican girls. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 8-29.

51.

Rong

X. L.

Preissle

(2008). Educating immigrant students in the 21st century: What educators need to know. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Suárez-Orozco

Todorova

(2008). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

53.

Teranishi

(2002). Asian Pacific Americans and critical race theory: An examination of school racial climate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 144-154.

54.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Current population survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.

55.

Valenzuela

(1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

56.

Wehlage

G. G.

Rutter

R. A.

Smith

G. A.

Lesko

Fernandez

R. R.

(1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

57.

Werblow

Urick

Duesbery

(2013). On the wrong track: How tracking is associated with dropping out. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 270-284.

58.

Williams

L. S.

Alvarez

S. D.

Hauck

K. S.

(2002). My name is not María: Young Latinas seeking home in the heartland. Social Problems, 49, 563-584.

59.

Yang

P. Q.

(2004). Generational differences in educational attainment among Asian Americans. Journal of Asian American Studies, 7(1), 51-71.

60.

Zhou

(1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 63-95.

61.

Zhou

Bankston

C. L.

(2001). Family pressure and the educational experiences of the daughters of Vietnamese refugees. International Migration, 39(4), 133-151.