The Academic Adaptation of Immigrant Students with Interrupted Schooling

Abstract

This study provides the first national-level assessment of the size and academic performance of immigrant students with interrupted schooling. Exploiting unique aspects of the Educational Longitudinal Study (2002), a national-level survey of U.S. 10th graders, this study identifies students with interrupted schooling and uses multivariate analysis to assess their academic performance compared to other immigrants and nonimmigrants. Results indicate that over 10% of foreign-born youth experience interrupted schooling. These students have lower academic achievement and attainment than their peers, but are just as or more engaged in school. Premigration demographics, but not postmigration family and school characteristics, explain some of these academic performance differences and the consequences of interrupted schooling differ for primary- and secondary-grade-age arrivals.

Keywords

academic performance children of immigrants English language learners immigrant youth interrupted schooling

Though we suspect large numbers of immigrant children arrive in the United States with inadequate or interrupted formal schooling,¹ we do not know the scope of this problem or how these students are faring academically in U.S. schools. The limited evidence that we do have suggests the consequences of interrupted schooling, that is, missed years of schooling, are severe. National-level research using a proxy indicator for interrupted schooling indicates that these students have a high school dropout rate seven times higher than students without interrupted schooling (70% to 10%; Fry, 2005). Smaller-scale research suggests that students with interrupted or inadequate schooling score lower on standardized tests and have lower GPAs than immigrant students who arrive with quality, continuous schooling (Browder, 2014; Callahan, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

That said, the data we have on immigrant children with interrupted schooling is largely out of date or limited in its relevance, particularly on a national scale (Browder, 2014; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). Frequently, authors cite that 20% of immigrant youth experience interrupted schooling of two or more years (e.g., Arenson, 2000; Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; C. Suárez-Orozco, 2001). But this estimate is from a U.S. Department of Education report from the early 1990s (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993). More recently, Fry (2005) estimated only 6% of foreign-born teens experience interrupted schooling. This research, however, used a proxy indicator to identify interrupted schooling that likely underestimated its occurrence. Other studies provide important insights into the academic well-being of students with interrupted schooling, but they are based only on local or state data (Browder, 2014; Callahan, 2005; Garcia, 1999; Lukes, 2015; McDonnell & Hill, 1993; Poggio & Gindling, 2010; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Wright & Li, 2008). No research exists that uses nationally representative data to assess the prevalence and academic performance of students with interrupted schooling (Browder, 2014; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).

Immigrant students who arrive in the United States with interrupted schooling, however, are an important area of study. These students not only frequently lack English language skills, which have been the focus of most educational interventions (Callahan, 2005; Gándara & Rumberger, 2009; Kanno & Cromley, 2013; Murray, Batalova, & Fix, 2007; Thomas & Collier, 2002), but may also lack understanding of grade-level content material (Bunch, 2013; DeCapua & Marshall, 2010; Richardson Bruna, 2009). Consequently, they may struggle to perform at the same level of their peers even if taught in their own language, which creates a special academic challenge (Browder, 2014; Gindling & Poggio, 2010; Lukes, 2015; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).

This study aims to provide new and more accurate information about the prevalence of interrupted schooling. To do so, this article exploits unique aspects of the U.S. Department of Education’s Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS:2002), which is a national-level survey of U.S. 10th graders. The ELS:2002 is the only national dataset that includes the necessary data to accurately identify interrupted schooling: age of arrival and last grade completed in home country.² Most datasets do not include the last grade completed in home country, so researchers often infer it and interrupted schooling by looking at age of arrival and whether a student is over age for his or her current grade level in the United States (Fry, 2005; Gindling & Poggio, 2010). However, this inference method is prone to error. Because the U.S. school system prioritizes placing students in grade levels based on age-appropriateness³ rather than last grade completed (see Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court Decision; Browder, 2014), students who have missed years of schooling are often not over age for their grade unless they are retained. Consequently, many students with interrupted schooling are not identified. The ELS:2002 data rectify this data challenge by identifying the last grade completed in home country, which makes gaps in grade level and school interruptions easy to identify.

Using a better measure of interrupted schooling, this article examines three research questions. First, the study identifies the prevalence of interrupted schooling among foreign-born students in the United States. Second, the study examines the academic performance of students with interrupted schooling and how interrupted schooling is associated with academic achievement, engagement, and attainment. Third, the study examines whether the consequences of interrupted schooling differ for immigrants who arrive at primary- or secondary-grade age. By profiling the scope and academic performance of students with interrupted schooling, this article provides important insights for educators and policymakers who want to develop effective programs and policies.

Educational Outcomes of Immigrant Children: The Immigrant Paradox and Premigration and Postmigration Resources

The U.S. immigrant population is sharply bifurcated: Although there are exceptions and no group is monolithic, it includes high-skilled professionals predominantly from Asia (e.g., China, India, South Korea), and unskilled manual laborers predominantly from Latin America and the Caribbean (e.g., Mexico, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic; Portes & Fernández-Kelly, 2008).⁴ As such, the resources immigrant parents have to invest in their children’s education vary widely. That said, the data are clear that more children of immigrants are socioeconomically disadvantaged than advantaged (Portes & Rivas, 2011; C. Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2009; M. M. Suárez-Orozco, Darbes, Dias, & Sutin, 2011). Compared to children of U.S.-born parents (hereafter referred to as children of natives), children of immigrants are more likely to live in a poor household (24% vs. 15%) where no parent has a high school degree (24% vs. 8%; Crosnoe & Turley, 2011). And nearly one in three (30%) live in a household with tenuous legal status because at least one member is unauthorized (Passel, 2011).

Despite these socioeconomic disadvantages, extant research finds that children of immigrants have higher levels of school achievement, engagement, and attainment than children of natives. Researchers have found that children of immigrants perform better on standardized tests, have higher GPAs, have more positive attitudes toward school, and are less likely to drop out of high school (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Glick & White, 2003; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Perreira, Harris, & Lee, 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Though stronger for Asians, this advantage is also observed for Latinos, especially after controlling for socioeconomic disadvantages (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011).

Education researchers often refer to this as the “immigrant paradox,” a term first used to explain why immigrants have better health outcomes than natives, despite having higher levels of economic and social risk (Garcia-Coll & Marks, 2012). Similar to health, education researchers often find that academic achievement and motivations are higher among children of immigrants than children of natives (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Portes & Rivas, 2011). To explain the paradox, researchers point to immigrant families’ protective cultural values and strong family support. Familial beliefs in hard work, resilience, and optimism help immigrant children weather the economic, social, and psychological stressors that they encounter in the United States (Kao & Tienda, 1995; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009).

That said, the evidence for the immigrant paradox in education is mixed, in part, because immigrant students’ educational performance reflects differing premigration and postmigration experiences. Among first-generation immigrant children in particular, researchers find that academic performance differs widely across race/ethnicity (Glick & White, 2003; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Perreira et al., 2006), age of arrival (Stiefel, Schwartz, & Conger, 2010), and gender (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011). But research has not determined how much of this variation is driven by premigration rather than postmigration circumstances. Most of the research is on postmigration factors only. This research finds that differences in postmigration racial/ethnic discrimination, socioeconomic status, familial composition, and school and community resources contribute to immigrant youths’ diverging patterns of academic performance (see Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Portes & Rivas, 2011). Indeed, there is strong evidence that the socioeconomic status of immigrant families in the United States shapes the types of educational resources available to them and the quality of the schools their children enter (Perreira et al., 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009).

Growing evidence, however, also points to the importance of premigration factors. One study finds that immigrant parents’ premigration rather than postmigration socioeconomic status is a stronger predictor of children’s academic achievement (Pong & Landale, 2012). Other studies find that characteristics of immigrant families’ home countries, such as political stability (Levels, Dronkers, & Kraaykamp, 2008), educational quality (Bozick, Malchiodi, & Miller, 2016), and relative socioeconomic status within that country (Feliciano, 2005, 2006) affect children’s academic achievement and motivations. These studies indicate that premigration resources and conditions in the home country influence educational outcomes in the United States. However, few studies have examined how the premigration resources of immigrant students themselves, particularly premigration schooling experiences, shape their ability to succeed in U.S. schools.

Immigrant Children and Their Diverse Premigration Schooling Histories

When looking more closely at premigration schooling as a salient factor, several types of students emerge. Some immigrant students, typically those from well-educated parents, come to the United States academically well-prepared. They are highly literate in their home language, have a strong and sometimes superior foundation in grade/age appropriate content knowledge, and may have taken English language courses or attended bilingual English schools (Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2002; Garcia, 1999; Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001; C. Suárez-Orozco, 2001). These students typically have parallel or continuous formal schooling experiences, meaning they attended school in their home country up to the grade level they entered in the U.S. educational system (Faltis & Coulter, 2008). They may initially struggle in school because they are not yet fluent in English; however, within a few years, they are often able to catch up to and exceed the achievement levels of their U.S.-born peers (Freeman et al., 2002; Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001; Stiefel et al., 2010).

In contrast, there are students with interrupted schooling (also known as “students with interrupted formal education”) who arrive in the United States with significant gaps in their formal schooling or no formal schooling at all (Browder, 2014; Custodio, 2011; DeCapua, Smathers, & Tang, 2009). Many of these immigrant students have lived in refugee camps, war-torn countries, or cultures where girls are not given formal schooling (Custodio, 2011). Most have migrated to escape economic deprivation and thus come from areas with limited public schooling (DeCapua et al., 2009; McDonnell & Hill, 1993; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). For example, in Mexico and many countries in Central America, compulsory public schooling has only relatively recently been extended from sixth to ninth grade, but half of all children in these countries still stop attending school after sixth grade (Lukes, 2015). That is because many of these children have to work or cannot afford textbooks or school uniforms (Garcia, 1999; Lukes, 2015). Finally, the migration process itself (e.g., lengthy travel, struggles navigating the U.S. school system, circular migration) can disrupt schooling (Glick & Yakibu, 2016; Lukes, 2015; Rendall & Torr, 2008).

Between students with continuous and interrupted schooling are students with limited schooling. These students have not missed years of schooling, but because the educational system in their home country is limited in comparison to the United States, they arrive with large gaps in content knowledge (Browder, 2014; DeCapua et al., 2009). In developing countries and rural areas, schooling is often limited by scarce resources (e.g., no textbooks, no chalkboard, only one teacher per school), inadequate preparation of teachers, part-time school days, and outdated pedagogy based on rote learning and memorization (Custodio, 2011; Freeman et al., 2002; Luke, 2015).

Educational Outcomes of Immigrant Children: The Role of English Language and Premigration Schooling

Among all types of immigrant children, the primary premigration resource that educators and researchers focus on is English language ability (Gándara & Rumberger, 2009; Gindling & Poggio, 2010; Lukes, 2015; Murray et al., 2007; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). Most immigrant students enter the U.S. schooling system needing to learn academic English while at the same time keeping pace with grade-level academic content. This is a difficult task even for those with no missed years of schooling. Research finds that academic English language fluency can take 4 to 7 years to develop, during which time many students struggle to keep pace academically with their English-speaking peers (M. M. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

However, immigrants who arrive with interrupted or limited schooling have additional educational challenges that are less well understood. Similar to U.S. students whose school interruptions (e.g., school mobility/transfers, stop-outs) affect their academic performance (Rumberger & Lim, 2008), immigrant students with interrupted schooling may have gaps in academic content knowledge that directly influence their ability to perform at grade level, even if they are English-proficient (Browder, 2014; Gindling & Poggio, 2010; Lukes, 2015; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000).

Additionally, gaps in academic content knowledge resulting from interrupted schooling may negatively influence a student’s ability to learn English. Cummins (1979, 2000) proposed that, because first language (L1) competency facilitates second language (L2) acquisition, students who have stronger L1 academic proficiency (versus conversational proficiency) can more easily acquire L2 academic proficiency. In fact, research on L2 acquisition indicates that L1 literacy skills and academic grounding are strongly related to both students’ ability for L2 acquisition and how quickly they can acquire it (Browder, 2014; Lukes, 2015; Thomas & Collier, 2002). There is debate, however, as to whether the interconnection between L1 and L2 academic proficiency is a cognitive or social artifact, that is, reflects socioeconomic advantages of those with strong L1 academic proficiency and/or sociocultural biases against low-income minority students (Faltis & Valdés, 2016; MacSwan, 2000). Nonetheless, though the mechanisms are less clear, overall this research suggests that students with interrupted and limited schooling may have postmigration academic challenges that stem from interrelated and often reinforcing English language and academic content challenges or barriers.

Students With Interrupted Schooling: Evidence on Their Academic Performance and Postmigration Educational Resources

This article focuses on students with interrupted schooling, that is, missed years of school. Though sparse, the evidence on these students suggests they face long-term challenges in both catching up to grade-level content knowledge and English language acquisition. For example, longitudinal research on language minority students in five school districts finds that just one year of interrupted schooling can reduce test scores in reading and math by 10% to 15%, even after students have been in the United States for many years (Thomas & Collier, 2002). A more recent small-scale survey of English language learners finds that students with interrupted schooling make slower yearly gains in learning English, which in turn contributes to lower end-of-grade test performance (Browder, 2014). Additional evidence from New York finds similar achievement and English language challenges. Compared to other English language learners, students with interrupted schooling are 20% to 50% less likely to meet proficiency standards on fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math tests, and they take over a year longer to test out of English language learner status (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010; New York State Department of Education, 2009).

Other research suggests that the academic challenges students with interrupted schooling face may be connected to other postmigration familial and school difficulties. Students with interrupted schooling are often low-income and work to support their families; consequently, they struggle to balance school, family, and work demands (Lukes, 2015; McDonnell & Hill, 1993; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). Furthermore, these students may not have a strong family structure to support them: Some are worker migrants who come to the United States alone (Fry, 2005; Lukes, 2015), some are rejoining one or both parents who migrated earlier (M. M. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011), and some arrive with their families but experience familial disruptions because of migration and adaptation stressors (Glick, 2010). Moreover, students with interrupted schooling are likely to be placed in high-poverty and minority schools, which have limited resources and supports for immigrant students (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Wright & Li, 2008). Case studies indicate that schools often fail to identify students with interrupted schooling, misclassify them into special education programs, and do not provide adequate educational supports (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010; McDonnell & Hill, 1993).

Despite these challenges, qualitative evidence finds that students with interrupted schooling remain resilient and determined. Teachers report that immigrant newcomers, including those with interrupted schooling, are highly motivated academically and the least likely to engage in behavioral problems (Garcia, 1999; Poggio & Gindling, 2010). Other studies find that despite significant adversity (e.g., war trauma, schooling gaps of 10 years or more, migrating alone at a young age), students with interrupted schooling succeed in U.S. schools because they are mature, have strong educational beliefs, and are highly motivated (Bartlett, 2008; Lukes, 2015). As such, this article examines academic engagement along with educational achievement and attainment. School engagement may minimize the academic obstacles students with interrupted schooling face.

Theoretical Framework: The Academic Challenges and Strengths of Students With Interrupted Schooling

As a theoretical framework, this article suggests that premigration schooling history and postmigration familial resources, school context, and student resiliency will shape the educational assimilation of immigrant students with interrupted schooling (Portes & Rivas, 2011; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009; M. M. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011). The article also considers whether the consequences of interrupted schooling differ by age of arrival. First, premigration schooling determines the resources that students themselves bring with them to U.S. schools (Bunch, 2013; DeCapua & Marshall, 2010; Richardson Bruna, 2009). Those who arrive with interrupted schooling—compared to their peers with quality, continuous schooling—have fewer foundational literacy skills and will struggle long-term to catch up to age-appropriate academic content and English language fluency (Browder, 2014; DeCapua & Marshall, 2010; Lukes, 2015). Premigration schooling histories, however, may also capture important, unobserved premigration familial socioeconomic factors (Feliciano, 2005, 2006; Portes & Fernandez-Kelly, 2008).

Second, the postmigration familial and school challenges that students with interrupted schooling encounter and their strong resilience will shape their academic performance (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Perreira et al., 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). Students with interrupted schooling may have few familial supports to aid them in closing educational gaps because familial socioeconomic challenges that led to school interruptions are likely to persist in the U.S. (Pong & Landale, 2012) and family structures may be weakened (Glick, 2010; Lukes, 2015; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). These students may also have few schooling supports; the racially, economically, and linguistically isolated schools in which they are placed are often of lower quality and concentrate disadvantaged students (Crosnoe, & Turley, 2011; M. M. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2011). These schools lack the cultural, linguistic, and technological supports students with interrupted schooling need and are plagued by racial and social divisions that generate fear, hostility, and isolation (C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). That said, students with interrupted schooling may be able to negate some of these challenges through their strong levels of resilience and determination as suggested by optimism theories (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Kao & Tienda, 1995; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009).

Finally, the article considers whether the influence of interrupted schooling differs by age of arrival. Students with interrupted schooling who arrive as teens may have a greater challenge because they often have a grade gap of many years and more challenges learning English but only a few years before they age out of public school (typically age 21; Conger, 2009; Custodio, 2011). That said, there is some evidence that children with interrupted schooling who arrive in primary school continue to perform below their peers well into high school (Browder, 2014; McDonnell & Hill, 1993; Thomas & Collier, 2002). As a result, some researchers have argued that interrupted schooling may be a more important predictor of academic well-being than age of arrival (Browder, 2014; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

Methods

Data

This analysis uses data from the ELS:2002, which is sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. Beginning in the spring of 2002, NCES collected data on a cohort of 15,890⁵ 10th graders drawn from a sample of 750 schools; NCES conducted follow-ups in 2004, 2006, and 2012. The analysis primarily draws data from the base-year (2002), but for attainment measures also uses data from the first and second follow-ups (2004 and 2006). This large dataset contains information from students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. Unlike other datasets typically used to study immigrant students, the ELS:2002 has information on age of arrival and last grade completed in home country, which precisely identify interrupted schooling.

Sample

In order to provide a comparative framework for how students with interrupted schooling fare, I include all base-year sample students in the ELS:2002 sample, no matter their nativity status (N = 15,240). To reduce the number of missing values, NCES imputed missing test scores as well as key demographic indicators (e.g., SES). To further reduce missing observations⁶ and maintain consistency with NCES, I impute the remaining missing data using chained equations in STATA. This method replaces missing values with plausible substitutes based on fully conditional specification (e.g., logit for binary variables and regression for linear variables; K. J. Lee & Carlin, 2010). I create 10 different data sets and combine the results into one set of regression coefficients and standard errors. Following the recommendation of statisticians across disciplines, I impute missing data on all variables, dependent and independent (Graham, 2009). To ensure results were not sensitive to this imputation, I also ran the analysis using nonimputed data and found similar results (available upon request).

Measures

Outcome Measures

This article examines indicators of academic achievement, school engagement, and academic attainment. For academic achievement, I use reading and math test scores, specifically the NCES-preferred, criterion-based “Item Response Theory-estimated number right” test score. This score estimates the number of questions a student would have answered correctly had they answered all test pool questions. The benefit of the Item Response Theory measure is that it assesses students’ cognitive skills and allows for cross-group comparisons of those skills. In contrast, standardized test measures (i.e., T-scores) only indicate how students compare to their peers, not their level of skill.

I assess school engagement behaviorally and academically by developing two continuous scales that measure higher levels of engagement. For behavioral engagement, I follow prior research (Bradley & Renzulli, 2011; Fall & Roberts, 2012) and calculate the average of seven items reported by the student, specifically how often in the past year the student (a) was late for school, (b) cut/skipped class, (c) was absent, (d) got into trouble, (e) got in-school suspension, (f) was suspended, and (g) was transferred for discipline reasons. Students responded on a scale of 1 to 5 (i.e., never, 1–2 times, 3–6 times, 7–9 times, and 10 or more times). I average and reverse code these items, so higher scores indicate more engagement. This scale has good internal consistency (α = .70).

To measure academic engagement, I measure student engagement based on class attentiveness, homework completion, and class attendance (Fall & Roberts, 2012; Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001). To provide an external (i.e., not self-reported) measure of engagement (Fall & Roberts, 2012), I utilize math and reading teachers’ reports on three items each (six in total) regarding how often (a) the student completes homework, (b) is attentive in class, and (c) is absent from class (i.e., never, rarely, some of the time, most of the time, and all of the time). I reverse code the reports on absenteeism and average the six measures to create a scale that ranges from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating more academic engagement. This scale possesses good internal consistency (α = .81).

I measure school attainment using two measures: high school dropout status and on-time high school completion. First, I use the NCES-created measure of dropout status in 12th grade that identifies a student as a dropout if she or he is not enrolled in school, has not received a diploma or general equivalency degree, or has missed 4 or more consecutive weeks not due to an accident/illness (1 = dropout; 0 = else). Second, because the high school dropout measure does not capture students who remain in school but may struggle to complete high school on time, I also use the NCES-created measure of high school completion status (as of 2006) to identify on-time high school completion (1 = received high school [non–general equivalency degree] diploma by summer 2004 or earlier; 0 = else).

Nativity and Premigration Schooling

The main independent variable of interest combines nativity status and immigrant students’ premigration schooling experience. There are five mutually exclusive categories: (a) U.S.-born children of natives, that is, both parents and child are U.S.-born; (b) U.S.-born children of immigrants, that is, child is U.S.-born and parents are foreign-born; (c) foreign-born, U.S. only educated students, that is, arrived before school-age and received no schooling abroad; (d) foreign-born students with continuous schooling abroad; and (e) foreign-born students with interrupted schooling abroad (reference group).

To identify whether schooling was interrupted or continuous, I use age of arrival, grade last completed in home country, and U.S. norms of school progression. To identify the appropriate age level for each grade, I use the grade placement chart from the Los Angeles Unified School District (2012), which is the second largest and one of the most immigrant-populated school districts in the United States. To be conservative, I use the maximum age allowed for each grade. For example, consider a student who arrives to the United States at age 10. Following the maximum age for each grade level, this student would be assigned to the fourth grade. To be counted as experiencing continuous schooling, then, a student must have completed third grade (or higher) in his or her home country. If the highest grade completed was less than third grade, that student is counted as experiencing interrupted schooling.

Though age cutoffs for each grade level differ slightly across school districts, the cutoff I use aligns with the grade enrollment cutoff used by Fry (2005) in his calculation of interrupted schooling.⁷ Moreover, when possible, I adjust this measure for students who came from countries where age of school commencement is later than that in the United States. For example, in China school age commencement is age 7, compared to age 6 in the United States. Thus, a 10-year-old Chinese student who naturally progressed through school in China may have only completed second grade (rather than third grade) when she or he arrives to the United States. This student is counted as being continuously schooled. Note that most countries have the same school age commencement as the United States; furthermore, many countries commence at a younger age, in which case my measure of interrupted schooling is even more conservative (World Bank, 2015).

Student, Family, and School Measures

In order to control for confounding premigration differences and to assess the influence of postmigration family and school contexts, I include individual-, family-, and school-level measures. For premigration characteristics, I control for student’s native language (1 = non-English native language; 0 = English is native language), gender, race/ethnicity, and whether the student arrived at secondary-grade age (1 = arrived age 12 or later; 0 = arrived before age 12 or U.S.-born).⁸ For race/ethnicity, there are seven mutually exclusive groups: (a) non-Hispanic White (reference group), (b) non-Hispanic Black, (c) Chinese origin, (d) Other Asian origin, (e) Mexican/Central American origin, (f) other Hispanic origin, and (g) other race/ethnicity. These race/ethnicity variables capture groups with large proportions of immigrants and, in cases where data were sufficient in size, separate national origins. For family characteristics, I control for family income (range: 0–20 and adjusted to be in the 10,000s), highest parent education (less than high school, high school, some college, and bachelor’s degree or more), and family structure (biological parent, stepparent, single parent, and other family). To assess the influence of school context, I include school quality proxy measures and characteristics of the student body found to be associated with the typical schools students with interrupted schooling attend: proportion on free/reduced lunch, proportion minority, proportion limited English proficient population (categorized as low [<0.10] and high [≥0.10] because it is highly skewed), student-teacher ratio, urbanicity (urban, rural, and suburban), and public/private (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010; McDonnell & Hill, 1993; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Wright & Li, 2008).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive Analysis

To examine how students with interrupted schooling and other immigrant newcomers fare in U.S. schools, I first assess the prevalence of interrupted schooling. I then use descriptive statistics to provide the first national-level comparison of the characteristics and academic performance of students with interrupted schooling and other immigrant and nonimmigrant students.

Multivariate Analysis

Next, I use regression analysis to examine how premigration and postmigration factors contribute to the academic well-being of students with interrupted schooling. Here, the focus is on understanding the overall association between interrupted schooling and academic well-being and how premigration characteristics and post-migration family and school resources contribute to this relationship.⁹ Thus, I use the following general model fit by ordinary least squares for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes:

Y_{i j} = α_{0} + β_{1} G_{i j} + β_{2} P_{i j} + β_{3} F_{i j} + β_{4} S_{j} + ε_{i j,}

where i indexes individuals and j indexes schools, Y_ij is the outcome variable of interest, G_ij is a vector of four dummies indicating student’s premigration schooling experience by nativity status (students with interrupted schooling are the reference), P_ij is a vector of premigration demographic characteristics, F_ij is a vector of family characteristics, S_j is a vector of school characteristics, and ε_ij is an error term. All analyses correct for design effects by using the base-year expanded student sample weight and a correction for school clustering (Maas & Hox, 2004). For the attainment measures, which come from the first and second follow-ups, I use the base-year weight because attainment data are available even for non-wave participants¹⁰ and all independent variables are from the base year.

In this model, the coefficients on the G_ij variables capture the mean differences in academic well-being between students in each of the respective categories compared to students with interrupted schooling (the reference group), controlling for other factors in the equation. Note that by making students with interrupted schooling the reference group, I assess their academic well-being compared to all of their peers. The comparison between students with interrupted and continuous schooling is the most important because it uniquely captures the influence of missed years of schooling while controlling for foreign-born status (parent and child) and any non-U.S. schooling. However, comparisons to other student groups are also informative. In particular, comparing students with interrupted schooling to other immigrant students (i.e., foreign-born, U.S.-only educated, and U.S.-born children of immigrants), and nonimmigrant students (i.e., U.S.-born children of natives) is useful for assessing whether the immigrant paradox extends to students with interrupted schooling.

For the analysis, I assess alternative specifications of Equation 1, first using a parsimonious specification (i.e., no controls) that captures overall differences in academic well-being. Next, I add premigration demographic indicators (i.e., non-English native language, race/ethnicity, secondary-grade-age arrival, and gender) in order to control for confounding pre-migration differences. Then, I add postmigration family and school characteristics to assess how these factors contribute to academic well-being. Lastly, using this finalized model, I run additional analysis to assess the results for primary- and secondary-grade-age arrivals. For all of these analyses, I report p-values at the .10 level because the relatively smaller sample of students with interrupted schooling (~140) may limit power and increase the probability of a Type II error, that is, failing to detect an effect that is present (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016).

Results

The following sections describe the results from the descriptive and multivariate analyses. Overall, findings indicate that there is a larger share of foreign-born students with interrupted schooling than previously estimated. The results also indicate that although students with interrupted schooling lag behind all of their peers academically in both achievement and attainment, especially compared to foreign-born students with continuous schooling, they are equally or more engaged in school. Premigration demographics explain some of the differences in academic performance, while postmigration family and school characteristics explain little to none of the differences. Lastly, the results indicate that the consequences of interrupted schooling differ for primary- and secondary-grade-age arrivals.

The Prevalence of Interrupted Schooling

Table 1 presents the premigration schooling background and grade age of arrival for 10th grade, foreign-born students. First, the results indicate that over 60% have received some education outside of the United States, whereas a little less than 40% have been educated only within the U.S. school system. Particularly troubling is that more than 1 in 10 (11.4%) foreign-born students arrive in the United States with interrupted schooling. Thus, interrupted schooling is more common than previously thought (6%; Fry, 2005). The remainder of foreign-born students, about 50%, arrive with continuous schooling.

Table 1

Premigration Schooling Background and Grade Age of Arrival for 10th-Grade Foreign-Born Students, Data Educational Longitudinal Study 2002 (Weighted)

	Percent
Educated in the U.S. only	37.9%
Educated outside the U.S.: Continuous schooling	50.7%
Percent arrive primary-grade age (K–6th grade)	61.9%
Percent arrive secondary-grade age (7th–12th grade)	38.1%
Educated outside the U.S.: Interrupted schooling	11.4%
Percent arrive primary-grade age (K–6th grade)	35.0%
Percent arrive secondary-grade age (7th–12th grade)	65.0%

Note. N = 1,340 and reflects unweighted sample Ns.

Second, the results highlight that students with interrupted schooling are more likely to arrive in the United States as adolescents. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of students with interrupted schooling arrive in the United States at secondary-grade age (12 or older), whereas most students who are continuously schooled arrive at primary-grade age (62%). On average, students with interrupted schooling are about two grades behind (result not shown) upon arrival in the United States, which means that these mostly foreign-born teens have a sizeable content/knowledge gap to overcome in a relatively short time period.

The Characteristics and Academic Well-Being of Students With Interrupted Schooling

To better understand the characteristics of students with interrupted schooling, Table 2 provides summary statistics of premigration demographics as well as family and school resources by nativity and premigration schooling. Results indicate that, similar to other immigrant students, students with interrupted schooling are predominantly Hispanic, either from Mexico/Central America (44%) or another Hispanic region (8%), and are predominantly non-English native language speakers (84%). Like other immigrant students, students with interrupted schooling tend to come from families with limited resources and attend disadvantaged schools, but some of these disadvantages are greater for those with interrupted schooling. For instance, 29% of students with interrupted schooling come from a family where neither parent has a high school degree, a rate that is substantially higher than students with continuous schooling (18%; marginally significant difference) as well as U.S.-born children of immigrants (15%) and children of natives (3%). In terms of school characteristics, students with interrupted schooling are often located in schools with higher percentages of minority students (65%), limited English proficient students (56% in high–limited English proficient schools), and students eligible for free/reduced lunch (38%) than most of their immigrant and nonimmigrant peers.

Table 2

Characteristics of 10th-Grade Students by Nativity Status and Premigration Schooling Background, Data Educational Longitudinal Study 2002 (Weighted)

	Foreign-Born Students			U.S.-Born Students
	Interrupted Schooling	Continuous Schooling	U.S.-Only Educated	Child. of Immigrants	Child. of Natives
	Mean/Prop. (SD)	Mean/Prop. (SD)	Mean/Prop. (SD)	Mean/Prop. (SD)	Mean/Prop. (SD)
Premigration demographics
Female	.50	.54	.52	.48	.50
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White (ref.)	.21	.11	.13	.23	.73^a
Non-Hispanic Black	.16	.06^a	.06^a	.08	.15
Mexican/Central Amer. origin	.44	.43	.46	.35	.05^a
Other Hispanic origin	.08	.16	.08	.13	.01^a
Chinese origin	.00	.06^a	.02^a	.03^a	.00^a
Other Asian origin	.10	.15	.22^a	.11	.00^a
Other race/ethnic group	.02	.03	.02	.06^a	.05^a
Secondary-grade-age arrival	.65	.38^a	.00^a	.00^a	.00^a
Non-English native lang.	.84	.89	.74	.42^a	.02^a
Family characteristics
Family income (in $10,000s)	3.57	3.65	4.12	5.27^a	6.42^a
	(2.78)	(3.55)	(4.13)	(4.31)	(4.64)
Highest parent education
< High school	.29	.18	.30	.15^a	.03^a
High school	.15	.19	.12	.19	.20
Some college	.24	.31	.23	.29	.38^a
BA degree+ (ref.)	.33	.32	.34	.36	.39
Family structure
Biolog. parent family (ref.)	.58	.58	.66	.61	.57
Stepparent family	.18	.15	.09	.15	.17
Single parent	.18	.23	.23	.22	.24
Other family structure	.06	.04	.02	.03	.02
School characteristics
Prop. free/reduced lunch	.38	.32	.29^a	.27^a	.19^a
	(.26)	(.23)	(.22)	(.22)	(.18)
Prop. minority	.65	.61	.56^a	.53^a	.28^a
	(.29)	(.28)	(.32)	(.32)	(.27)
Prop. limited English proficient
Low (<.10; ref.)	.40	.46	.52	.62^a	.89^a
High (≥.10)	.56	.52	.47	.36^a	.09^a
Student-teacher ratio	18.51	19.02	19.21	18.65	16.66^a
	(3.64)	(4.32)	(4.73)	(4.50)	(4.55)
Urbanicity
Urban (ref.)	.56	.52	.45	.40^a	.25^a
Rural	.02	.08^a	.08^a	.10^a	.23^a
Suburban	.42	.40	.48	.50	.52
Public (vs. private)	.98	.96	.94^a	.93^a	.92^a
N	140	660	540	2,590	11,320

Note. (1) Ns rounded to nearest 10, reflect unweighted sample sizes. (2) Prop. = proportion; child. = children; ref. = reference category.

Statistically different (p < .05) from students with interrupted schooling.

To determine the academic well-being of students with interrupted schooling, Table 3 presents the unadjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) in educational outcomes by nativity and premigration schooling. Results indicate that students with interrupted schooling lag behind all of their peers in achievement and attainment, but have similar or higher levels of engagement. Specifically, in reading and math, students with interrupted schooling have lower test scores than all of their peers, including students with continuous schooling. The average reading (M = 21.20) and math (M = 28.32) test score for students with interrupted schooling are 11% and 16% lower, respectively, than that of students with continuous schooling (M_Read = 23.58 and M_Math = 32.75). Similar differences are observed in attainment: foreign-born students with interrupted schooling are more likely to drop out of school (26%) than all of their peers, including foreign-born students with continuous schooling (10%). Additionally, foreign-born students with interrupted schooling are less likely to complete high school on time (74%) than all of their peers, though the difference is not statistically significant when compared to students with continuous schooling (82%).

Table 3

Educational Outcomes of 10th-Grade Students by Nativity Status and Premigration Schooling, Data Educational Longitudinal Study 2002 (Weighted)

	Achievement
	Reading			Math
	Mean	(SD)	(95% CI)	Mean	(SD)	(95% CI)
Foreign-born students
Interrupted schooling	21.20	(9.28)	(19.68–22.73)	28.32	(11.90)	(26.36–30.28)
Continuous schooling	23.58*	(9.11)	(22.89–24.28)	32.75*	(11.98)	(31.83–33.66)
U.S. only educated	26.54*	(9.73)	(25.72–27.37)	34.21*	(12.33)	(33.17–35.26)
U.S.-born students
Children of immigrants	27.81*	(9.84)	(27.43–28.18)	35.78*	(12.09)	(35.31–36.25)
Children of natives	30.17*	(9.64)	(30.00–30.35)	37.91*	(11.80)	(37.69–38.13)
	Engagement
	Behavioral Engagement			Academic Engagement
	Mean	(SD)	(95% CI)	Mean	(SD)	(95% CI)
Foreign-born students
Interrupted schooling	4.50	(0.42)	(4.43–4.57)	3.87	(0.67)	(3.76–3.98)
Continuous schooling	4.44	(0.47)	(4.41–4.48)	3.92	(0.66)	(3.87–3.97)
U.S. only educated	4.30*	(0.56)	(4.26–4.35)	3.87	(0.68)	(3.81–3.92)
U.S.-born students
Children of immigrants	4.33*	(0.49)	(4.31–4.35)	3.82	(0.65)	(3.79–3.84)
Children of natives	4.37*	(0.48)	(4.36–4.38)	3.86	(0.63)	(3.85–3.88)
	Attainment
	High School Dropout			On-Time High School Completion
	Prop.	(SD)	(95% CI)	Prop.	(SD)	(95% CI)
Foreign-born students
Interrupted schooling	.26	(.39)	(.20–.33)	.74	(.39)	(.67–.80)
Continuous schooling	.10*	(.27)	(.08–.12)	.82	(.33)	(.79–.84)
U.S. only educated	.08*	(.26)	(.06–.10)	.85*	(.32)	(.82–.88)
U.S.-born students
Children of immigrants	.08*	(.25)	(.07–.09)	.84*	(.31)	(.83–.85)
Children of natives	.08*	(.25)	(.07–.08)	.88*	(.30)	(.87–.88)

Note. N = 15,240, reflects the unweighted sample size.

Statistically different (p < .05) from foreign-born students with interrupted schooling.

For school engagement, the results are reversed: Students with interrupted schooling are equally or even more engaged than all of their peers. Focusing on behavioral engagement, results indicate that students with interrupted schooling demonstrate moderately higher levels of engagement than all of their peers except students with continuous schooling. For example, the mean difference in behavioral engagement between students with interrupted schooling (M = 4.50; SD = 0.42) and foreign-born, U.S. only educated students (M = 4.30; SD = 0.56) is over a third of the sample mean standard deviation (M = 4.39; SD = 0.50). Focusing on academic engagement, results indicate that students with interrupted schooling are as engaged as all of their peers; there are no mean differences in engagement levels across any of the groups.

Predictors of the Academic Well-Being of Students With Interrupted Schoolings

Because these overall differences in academic well-being may be capturing key premigration demographic and postmigration family and school differences, this section uses regression analysis to assess how these different factors shape the academic well-being of students with interrupted schooling. Table 4 presents the regression analysis for each of the six outcomes in three separate Panels: (A) achievement, (B) engagement, and (C) attainment. Each outcome has four models: (1) baseline, (2) premigration demographics, (3) family characteristics, and (4) school characteristics. Appendix A in the online version of the article provides the complete results of the full school model.

Table 4

Regressions of Academic Indicators for 10th-Grade Students by Nativity Status and Premigration Schooling (Foreign-Born Students With Interrupted Schooling Ref. Category), Data Educational Longitudinal Study 2002

	(1) Base	(2) Premigration	(3) Family	(4) School	(1) Base	(2) Premigration	(3) Family	(4) School
	b/ME	b/ME	b/ME	b/ME	b/ME	b/ME	b/ME	b/ME
Panel A. Achievement	Reading				Math
Foreign-born students
Continuous schooling	2.38**	0.54	0.73	0.51	4.43***	2.25*	2.49**	2.21*
U.S. only educated	5.34****	1.35	1.69*	1.42	5.90****	1.75	2.16*	1.81
U.S.-born students
Children of immigrants	6.60****	0.67	0.70	0.48	7.46****	1.58	1.58	1.33
Children of natives	8.97****	−0.59	−0.33	−0.60	9.60****	−0.14	0.16	−0.08
Adjusted R-squared	.03	.15	.24	.25	.02	.17	.26	.27
Panel B. Engagement	Behavioral Engagement				Academic Engagement
Foreign-born students
Continuous schooling	−0.05	−0.02	−0.01	−0.02	0.05	0.03	0.05	0.04
U.S. only educated	−0.20***	−0.14*	−0.13*	−0.14*	0.00	−0.02	−0.01	−0.02
U.S.-born students
Children of immigrants	−0.16**	−0.10	−0.09	−0.10	−0.05	−0.06	−0.04	−0.05
Children of natives	−0.13**	−0.15*	−0.12*	−0.15**	0.00	−0.10	−0.06	−0.08
Adjusted R-squared	.00	.03	.04	.05	.01	.07	.11	.12
Panel C. Attainment	High School Dropout				On-Time High School Completion
Foreign-born students
Continuous schooling	−0.16***	−0.08**	−0.08**	−0.08**	0.08	0.04	0.04	0.04
U.S. only educated	−0.18***	−0.08**	−0.09**	−0.08**	0.11**	0.05	0.06	0.05
U.S.-born students
Children of immigrants	−0.18***	−0.07*	−0.07*	−0.07*	0.11**	0.03	0.03	0.03
Children of natives	−0.18***	−0.05	−0.05	−0.05	0.14***	0.01	0.02	0.01

Note. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions continuous outcomes; logits dichotomous outcomes with marginal effects reported. Weighted and adjusted for school clustering. Unweighted N = 15,240. Four cumulative models ran for each outcome; Model 2 adds demographic controls (gender, race/ethnicity, age of arrival, non-English native language); Model 3 adds family controls (income, parent education, and family structure); and Model 4 adds school controls (proportion free/reduced lunch, minority, and limited English proficient; student-teacher ratio, urbanicity, and public).

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.

Overall, the results suggest that students with interrupted schooling may have the discipline and motivation to be successful in high school, but they often lag behind their continuously schooled peers in achievement and attainment, even after adjusting for differences in premigration and postmigration characteristics. The main exception is reading achievement. In reading, foreign-born students with interrupted schooling perform similarly to students with continuous schooling once controls are included. This finding suggests that immigrant students educated abroad, no matter their premigration schooling background, may face unique challenges learning to read in the U.S. educational system. This challenge becomes most evident once the analysis focuses on secondary-grade-age arrivals.

Academic Achievement

Panel A presents the results for academic achievement and finds that premigration demographic differences partly explain why students with interrupted schooling achieve less than their peers. The baseline models (Model 1) reiterate findings presented in Table 3. Specifically, students with interrupted schooling perform lower in reading and math than all students, as evidenced by the significant and positive coefficients. The results for Model 2 demonstrate that premigration demographic differences explain all of the achievement gap differences in reading and some but not all of the differences in math. For instance, in reading once demographic differences (i.e., racial/ethnic origin, secondary-grade-age arrival, and non-native English speaker) are controlled for in Model 2, the coefficients for all of the student groups decrease substantially (often to near zero) from Model 1 and become nonsignificant. In math, a similar pattern emerges, that is, coefficients reduce and become nonsignificant, except for students with continuous schooling. For these students, the coefficient in Model 2 decreases by about half (from 4.43 to 2.25) but remains positive and marginally significant. Overall, these results suggest that when comparing students with interrupted schooling to their continuously schooled peers, only math achievement challenges, not reading, extend beyond premigration demographic differences.

Models 3 and 4 find little evidence that postmigration family and school characteristics contribute to the achievement gap of students with interrupted schooling. In both math and reading, the addition of family characteristics (Model 3) has minimal impact on the coefficients for most student groups. There continues to be no difference in reading performance between students with interrupted and continuous schooling. In math, students with interrupted schooling continue to underperform compared to their continuously schooled peers; that is, the coefficient for the latter remains significant and relatively unchanged in size. These overall patterns mostly persist with the addition of school characteristics in Model 4. In Model 4, math test scores for students with continuous schooling are 2.21 points higher than that of students with interrupted schooling, which is about a fifth of the sample mean standard deviation (M = 38.08; SD = 11.95). Taken together, these results indicate that the math achievement challenges of students with interrupted schooling compared to those with continuous schooling stem beyond postmigration family and school challenges.

School Engagement

Panel B of Table 4 presents results for the school engagement outcomes. These results indicate that students with interrupted schooling are just as or more engaged than their peers and that differences in premigration and postmigration factors do not explain these engagement-level differences. In terms of behavioral engagement, the baseline model (Model 1) indicates that students with interrupted schooling are more engaged than all of their peers except those with continuous schooling. The negative and significant coefficients on each of these student groups indicate that each group has lower levels of behavioral engagement than students with interrupted schooling. This baseline advantage remains relatively robust even when premigration demographic (Model 2), postmigration family (Model 3), and school controls (Model 4) are added. Notably, the results in Model 4 indicate that the behavioral engagement of foreign-born, U.S.-only educated students (–.14) and U.S.-born children of natives (–.15) is over a fourth of a standard deviation lower than that of students with interrupted schooling. In terms of academic engagement, the coefficients for all student groups are small, often negative, and nonsignificant, which indicates that students with interrupted schooling are just as academically engaged as all of their peers. Also, because the results do not change across the models for either outcome, the overall results indicate that neither premigration nor postmigration factors explain the strong engagement levels of students with interrupted schooling.

Educational Attainment

Finally, the results in Panel C indicate that students with interrupted schooling are likely to attain less than all of their peers and that premigration demographic differences account for some of this disadvantage. Note that for these logistic models, I report the marginal effects to simplify interpretation into percentage point changes. In terms of dropping out of high school, the marginal effects in the baseline model (Model 1) are all negative and statistically significant, which indicates that students with interrupted schooling are more likely to drop out than all of their peers. With the exception of U.S.-born children of natives, these results remain relatively robust, though smaller in size, in the full model (Model 4). In other words, even after controlling for English language challenges and age of arrival as well as demographic, family, and school disadvantages, students with interrupted schooling are still 7 to 8 percentage points more likely to drop out of high school than all of their immigrant peers, that is, all immigrants and children of immigrants. The results for on-time high school completion are similar; students with interrupted schooling are less likely to complete high school on time than all of their immigrant peers, but the coefficients are smaller and nonsignificant. These nonsignificant results may be due to the fact that the on-time high school completion measure had more imputed missing data; in this case, the results may be less precisely estimated, that is, have greater standard errors.

The Influence of Interrupted Schooling for Primary- and Secondary-Grade-Age Arrivals

Finally, Table 5 examines whether interrupted schooling is more challenging for immigrants who arrive at secondary- rather than primary-grade age, since the former are more likely to face a greater grade gap and have less time to catch up. To complete this analysis, I classify students with interrupted schooling into two groups: primary-grade-age arrival and secondary-grade-age arrival (reference group). I do the same for students with continuous schooling and show results for the baseline (no controls) and full (all controls) models.

Table 5

Regressions of Academic Indicators for 10th-Grade Students by Nativity Status and Premigration Schooling Assessing Primary- and Secondary-Grade Age of Arrival (Foreign-Born Interrupted Schooling Secondary-Grade-Age Arrival Ref. Category), Data Educational Longitudinal Study 2002

	Base Model		Full Model		Base Model		Full Model
	b/ME	(SE)	b/ME	(SE)	b/ME	(SE)	b/ME	(SE)
Panel A. Achievement	Reading				Math
Foreign-born interrupted schooling
Primary-grade-age arrival	7.13	(2.22)***	5.56	(1.77)***	6.83	(2.72)**	4.34	(2.01)**
Foreign-born continuous schooling
Primary-grade-age arrival	6.69	(1.21)****	5.43	(1.10)****	8.18	(1.70)****	5.92	(1.36)****
Secondary-grade-age arrival	1.86	(1.19)	1.03	(1.21)	4.53	(1.63)***	2.91	(1.47)**
Foreign-born U.S. only educated	7.72	(1.19)****	6.04	(1.09)****	8.19	(1.56)****	5.49	(1.32)****
U.S.-born children of immigrants	8.99	(1.05)****	5.59	(0.98)****	9.76	(1.43)****	5.41	(1.17)****
U.S.-born children of natives	11.36	(1.03)****	4.55	(1.03)****	11.89	(1.42)****	4.04	(1.23)***
Adjusted R-squared	.03		.25		.02		.28
Panel B. Engagement	Behavioral Engagement				Academic Engagement
Foreign-born interrupted schooling
Primary-grade-age arrival	−0.16	(0.17)	−0.17	(0.17)	−0.02	(0.21)	−0.09	(0.20)
Foreign-born continuous schooling
Primary-grade-age arrival	−0.17	(0.07)**	−0.19	(0.07)**	0.01	(0.11)	−0.06	(0.11)
Secondary-grade-age arrival	−0.01	(0.07)	−0.01	(0.07)	0.10	(0.10)	0.06	(0.11)
Foreign-born U.S. only educated	−0.25	(0.06)****	−0.28	(0.06)****	−0.01	(0.10)	−0.10	(0.11)
U.S.-born children of immigrants	−0.22	(0.06)****	−0.26	(0.06)****	−0.06	(0.09)	−0.14	(0.09)
U.S.-born children of natives	−0.18	(0.06)***	−0.31	(0.06)****	−0.01	(0.09)	−0.17	(0.10)*
Adjusted R-squared	.00		.05		.00		.12
Panel C. Attainment	High School Dropout				On-Time High School Completion
Foreign-born interrupted schooling
Primary-grade-age arrival	−0.06^a	(0.11)	−0.03^a	(0.07)	0.08	(0.13)	0.04	(0.09)
Foreign-born continuous schooling
Primary-grade-age arrival	−0.21	(0.07)***	−0.13	(0.05)**	0.13	(0.08)	0.08	(0.05)
Secondary-grade-age arrival	−0.13	(0.08)*	−0.08	(0.06)	0.07	(0.08)	0.04	(0.06)
Foreign-born U.S. only educated	−0.20	(0.07)***	−0.12	(0.05)**	0.14	(0.07)*	0.08	(0.05)
U.S.-born children of immigrants	−0.20	(0.07)***	−0.11	(0.05)**	0.13	(0.07)*	0.06	(0.05)
U.S.-born children of natives	−0.20	(0.07)***	−0.09	(0.05)*	0.17	(0.07)**	0.04	(0.05)

Primary-grade-age arrival with interrupted schooling statistically different from continuous schooled (p < .05).

p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01, ****p < .001.

First, these results indicate that by the 10th grade, students with interrupted schooling who arrived at primary-grade-age have caught up to their continuously schooled peers and other student peers in some but not all areas. For instance, among students who arrived at primary-grade age, the achievement levels of students with interrupted schooling are similar to those of students with continuous schooling; that is, coefficient differences between these two groups are not statistically significant (Reading X² = .01, p > .10; Math X² = .72, p > .10). That said, it is worth noting that among primary-grade-age arrivals, students with interrupted schooling are more likely to drop out of high school than students with continuous schooling (X² = 4.58; p < .05) as well as most other student groups, which suggests that some academic challenges remain.

Second, the results suggest that all immigrant students who arrive at secondary-grade age are highly motivated but face significant challenges; some of these challenges, however, are greater for those with interrupted schooling. In math, the positive and significant coefficients for all student groups in the full model indicate that secondary-grade-age arrival students with interrupted schooling are the most disadvantaged of all groups. This disadvantage also exists in reading achievement and educational attainment, that is, high school dropout, but differs because it similarly affects secondary-age-grade arrivals with continuous and interrupted schooling. In reading achievement and attainment, secondary-grade-age arrival students with interrupted schooling lag behind other student groups but do not differ from their continuously schooled counterparts. Despite these academic challenges, all secondary-grade-age arrivals, both with interrupted and continuous schooling, demonstrate relatively higher levels of engagement than all of their peers. There is no difference in the behavioral engagement between these two groups, and the coefficients on the other student groups are negative and mostly statistically significant. Taken together, these results make clear that students who arrive later, while highly motivated to succeed, may be hindered by a complex web of English language and educational challenges. These challenges are particularly consequential for reading achievement and highlight the unique literacy and language needs of all later-arrival English language learners.

Discussion

Exploiting unique aspects of the ELS:2002, this study provides the first national-level assessment of the prevalence, characteristics, and academic performance of students with interrupted schooling. Several findings merit discussion, but first an important caveat: This study focuses on students with interrupted schooling who stay in school until the 10th grade—a subgroup of students with interrupted schooling that is likely advantaged. By 10th grade, the most academically disadvantaged students with interrupted schooling have likely dropped out or never enrolled (Oropesa & Landale, 2009). However, data on the premigration schooling of these youth are not available. Thus, this study highlights key challenges that remain even for the subgroup of students with interrupted school that are likely to be the most advantaged.

The Prevalence of Interrupted Schooling

First, how big of a problem is interrupted schooling? This study found that 11.4% of foreign-born 10th-grade students have experienced school interruptions upon arrival in the United States. This estimate exceeds the recent, proxy-based estimate of 6% (Fry, 2005). Instead, it better matches the U.S. Department of Education’s early 1990s across-age-group estimate that about 13% of foreign-born students experience interrupted schooling (20% of high school, 12% of middle school, and 6% of elementary school students; Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993). The current study’s estimate captures a mixture of these age groups and aligns with New York’s recent estimate that about 1 in 10 English language learners have experienced interrupted schooling (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010).

Finding that over 10% of foreign-born students arrive in the United States with interrupted schooling highlights two important issues. First, there is a sizeable number of immigrant children who enroll in U.S. schools with missed years of schooling. These children face a grade gap of about 2 years on average, which is a significant academic disadvantage. Second, this finding suggests that other research using proxy-based estimates (Fry, 2005) may underestimate the occurrence of interrupted schooling. To address this, greater effort should be made to include premigration indicators in national datasets.

The Academic Performance of Students With Interrupted Schooling

Next, given that so many students with interrupted schooling are in U.S. schools, how are they faring academically relative to their peers? This study highlights complexities in the academic performance of students with interrupted schooling. Overall, students with interrupted schooling achieved and attained less than the rest of their peers, including, most importantly, foreign-born students with continuous schooling. However, their lower performance partially reflected other premigration challenges, particularly the fact that the vast majority (65%) of them arrived at secondary-grade age. Once premigration demographic characteristics were controlled for, the academic performance of students with interrupted schooling was more mixed. Compared to their foreign-born, continuously schooled peers, students with interrupted schooling continued to attain less but now only demonstrated lower achievement in math, not reading. Moreover, students with interrupted schooling performed academically like U.S.-born children of natives and lagged behind their more academically advantaged immigrant peers, that is, foreign-born, U.S.-only educated students and U.S.-born children of immigrants.

In terms of achievement, the differing results for reading and math mirror prior evidence and highlight the unique math challenges that students with interrupted schooling face. Similar to smaller-scale research, this study found that achievement gaps between students with interrupted and continuous schooling were greater in math than reading (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010; Callahan, 2015). Because math, in contrast to reading, is less dependent on English language literacy skills, it may better isolate the consequences of interrupted schooling (Bunch, 2013; Richardson Bruna, 2009; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2017; Thomas & Collier, 2002). In fact, in addition to having missed years of schooling, students with interrupted schooling are often defined as being below grade level in math (Custodio, 2011; Freeman et al., 2002; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). Though the results of this study cannot determine why math is particularly problematic for students with interrupted schooling, the results reiterate the need for educators to focus on the math development of these students.

In terms of how students with interrupted schooling compare to their other immigrant peers, one of the most critical findings is that students with interrupted schooling do not appear to benefit from the same immigrant advantage (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Kao & Tienda, 1995). In other words, students with interrupted schooling often performed similarly in achievement and attainment to U.S.-born children of natives, but lagged behind their immigrant peers. For instance, after controlling for premigration demographic characteristics, students with interrupted schooling and U.S.-born children of natives had similar dropout rate likelihoods and were both more likely to drop out of high school than any of the other immigrant groups. Taken together, these results demonstrate that immigrant students with interrupted schooling are academically capable but also distinctly different from other children of immigrants.

The school engagement results highlight the strong motivation and resiliency of students with interrupted schooling. Despite the greater overall academic challenges that students with interrupted schooling face, they were more behaviorally engaged than most of their peers and just as academically engaged (as reported by their teachers) than all of their peers. These results align with other qualitative evidence that finds students with interrupted schooling devote themselves to school and learning because they see education as the only pathway to get ahead, which is something teachers recognize and praise (Bartlett, 2008; Lukes, 2015; Poggio & Gindling, 2010; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2017).

The final finding on academic performance is that although students with interrupted schooling faced postmigration family and school challenges, these factors did not explain their lower levels of academic achievement and attainment. Indeed, students with interrupted schooling were generally lower-income, had fewer parental education resources, and attended schools with more economically, linguistically, and racially/ethnically disadvantaged student populations. However, these challenges were often shared by many immigrant groups, and thus did not explain differences in educational achievement and attainment. Instead, the results highlight how all children of immigrants are hindered at school by familial and school economic disadvantages (Perreira et al., 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009).

The Influence of Interrupted Schooling for Primary- and Secondary-Grade-Age Arrivals

Finally, the results indicate the importance of age at migration, namely, that the consequences of interrupted schooling are greatest for secondary-grade-age arrivals and that secondary-grade-age arrivals, no matter their premigration schooling, face unique educational challenges. For primary-grade-age arrivals with interrupted schooling, the results suggest that by 10th grade, they may be able to catch up academically in some areas; achievement levels in reading and math did not differ between primary-grade-age arrivals with interrupted and continuous schooling. However, students with interrupted schooling were more likely to drop out of high school, which suggests that even for primary-grade-age arrivals, interrupted schooling can have long-term consequences.

For secondary-grade-age arrivals, the results suggest the challenges are greater and often extend to continuously schooled youth, thus highlighting the unique challenges of later-arrival English language learners. Secondary-grade-age arrivals with interrupted schooling achieved the least in math of any student group; however, the reading and attainment disadvantages these students faced similarly affected secondary-grade-age arrivals with continuous schooling. Secondary-grade-age arrivals with either interrupted or continuous schooling achieved the least in reading and were among the student groups most likely to drop out of high school. Yet both groups of secondary-grade-age arrivals demonstrated high levels of school engagement. Taken together, these results highlight the urgency and complexity of helping all secondary-grade-age-arrival students: These students are highly motivated but heavily influenced by a tangle of premigration and postmigration challenges that they are often unable to overcome within the shortened time period they have in U.S. schools (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2017). The reading results, in particular, highlight that all later-arrival English language learners struggle to meet language and literacy demands. For these students, the added time and complexity of acquiring academic English language proficiency may hinder school performance (Bunch, 2013; Conger, 2009; Richardson Bruna, 2009; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

This article finds that there is a sizable share of foreign-born students with interrupted schooling in U.S. schools and that these students face unique academic challenges. However, the nature of interrupted schooling is complex, and data limitations remain. First, this study was only able to assess the influence of interrupted schooling, that is, missed years of schooling; and not the influence of limited schooling, that is, gaps in academic preparation and content knowledge due to poor school quality. As a result, this study may underestimate the consequences of arriving in the United States with educational gaps, since even continuously schooled students from resource-poor areas may arrive in the United States with significant gaps in academic preparation (Browder, 2014; Custodio, 2011; Lukes, 2015).

Second, this study was not able to account for revolving migration patterns, that is, moving back and forth between the United States and country of origin (Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001; Rendall & Torr, 2008). If students with interrupted schooling have simply moved back to their country of origin, this could explain their lower rates of attainment. However, because sample attrition rates were low and similar across key student groups (see Note 9), this phenomenon could not completely account for the observed attainment differences. Nonetheless, the limited evidence available suggests that immigrant students’ transnational mobility complicates the schooling process and that more research is needed to determine how schools can support the complex migration patterns of immigrant students (Sánchez & Machado-Casas, 2009).

Third, though this study profiles the overall academic performance of students with interrupted schooling, it is not able to identify the full set of sociopsychological factors that impact this performance. In particular, this study is not able to examine the full schooling experiences of these youth. Like other English language learners, students with interrupted schooling may be hindered by low track placement, limited exposure to age- and grade-appropriate curriculum, and a subtractive schooling process that devalues their abilities and linguistic heritage (Callahan, 2005; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2017; Valdés, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999). These challenges may in fact be greater for students with interrupted schooling and require further investigation (Menken, 2013). Future research should also examine the interconnections between these schooling experiences and the academic performance and engagement of students with interrupted schooling. The current study suggests that school engagement may be a protective factor for students with interrupted schooling, but because school engagement may be culturally subjective further investigation is needed.

Lastly, because this study only provides a descriptive assessment, future research should develop models to examine the cause-effect relationships of the various interrelated connections identified here. Specifically, future research should begin to decipher the causal relationship between interrupted schooling, age of arrival, and English language ability. Because relationships between these variables likely differ across sending countries, future models will have to take country of origin into account, something that is not possible with the ELS:2002 data. This is an important area for future research, given that the quality and equivalency of premigration schooling vary significantly across countries and even among areas within countries.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

For educators and policymakers, this study profiles the academic performance, strengths, and challenges of students with interrupted schooling. Using a broader lifespan perspective, this study demonstrates that students with interrupted schooling face cumulative academic disadvantages due to missed years of schooling, an early-life risk factor with long-term implications. Though highly motivated, these students, like other disadvantaged immigrant newcomers, have limited economic, familial, and social resources with which to navigate and succeed in a culturally foreign school system (S. J. Lee, 1996; Lukes, 2015; Ngo & Lee, 2007; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). And these students must do so while not only learning English but also making up significant gaps in academic content knowledge. This study shows that foreign-born students with interrupted schooling are, in short, distinct from their immigrant peers and will require different educational supports.

Though this study does not identify which policies and support programs are effective—a challenge that has been noted by educators (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000)—other research has identified promising practices for working with students with interrupted schooling. These include newcomer schools, summer or after-school bridge programs, and night programs (DeCapua & Marshall, 2010; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Wright & Li, 2008). Despite these promising practices, more research is needed to identify effective and cost-efficient solutions that enable students with interrupted schooling to overcome the multiple educational barriers they face; this is particularly important for students living in states and schools with limited capacity (Murray et al., 2007; Richardson Bruna, 2009). To be successful, programs must build on the cultural and linguistic strengths of these immigrant newcomers, provide rigorous and culturally responsive curricula, and buffer students from external economic and social challenges (DeCapua & Marshall, 2010; DeCapua et al., 2009). Importantly, this study reveals that students with interrupted schooling are highly engaged at school, but without intervention, that engagement may not be enough to ensure their success.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, DS_10.3102_0002831218761026 – The Academic Adaptation of Immigrant Students with Interrupted Schooling

Supplemental Material, DS_10.3102_0002831218761026 for The Academic Adaptation of Immigrant Students with Interrupted Schooling by Stephanie Potochnick in American Educational Research Journal

Footnotes

Notes

Stephanie Potochnick is an assistant professor of public affairs and public health at the Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri, 229 Middlebush Hall, Columbia, MO 65211-6100; e-mail: potochnicks@missouri.edu . She is an interdisciplinary policy scholar with expertise in the social demography of immigrant families and how programs and policies promote the education and health of immigrant children and families.

References

Advocates for Children of New York. (2010). Students with interrupted formal education: A challenge for the New York City Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/

Arenson

K. W.

(2000, March 12). Scaling the barriers of literacy and language. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Bartlett

(2008). Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education, 18(3), 215–231.

Bozick

Malchiodi

Miller

(2016). Pre-migration school quality, time spent in the United States, and the math achievement of immigrant high school students. Demography, 53(5), 1477–1498.

Bradley

C. L.

Renzulli

L. A.

(2011). The complexity of non-completion: Being pushed or pulled to drop out of high school. Social Forces, 90(2), 521–545.

Browder

C. T.

(2014). English learners with limited or interrupted formal education: Risk and resilience in educational outcomes (Doctoral diss.). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Gradworks (3637307).

Bunch

G. C.

(2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341.

Callahan

R. M.

(2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.

Conger

(2009). Testing, time limits, and English learners: Does age of school entry affect how quickly students can learn English? Social Science Research, 38(2), 383–396.

10.

Crosnoe

Turley

(2011). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The Future of Children, 21(1), 129–152.

11.

Cummins

(1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.

12.

Cummins

(2000). Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to critiques of the conversational/academic language distinction. In English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 54–83). Retrieved from http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/converacademlangdisti.html

13.

Custodio

(2011). How to design and implement a newcomer program. Boston, MA: Pearson.

14.

DeCapua

Marshall

H.W.

(2010). Serving ELLs with limited or interrupted education: Intervention that works. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 49–70.

15.

DeCapua

Smathers

Tang

(2009). Students with limited or interrupted schooling: A guide for educators. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

16.

Fall

Roberts

(2012). High school dropouts: Interactions between social context, self-perceptions, school engagement, and student dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 787–798.

17.

Faltis

Coulter

(2008). Teaching English learners and immigrant students in secondary schools. Columbus, OH: Pearson.

18.

Faltis

Valdés

(2016). Preparing teachers to teach in and advocate for linguistically diverse classrooms: A vade mecum for teacher educators of the Handbook of research on teaching. In Gitomer

D. H.

Bell

C. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). Washington, DC: SAGE/American Educational Research Association.

19.

Feliciano

(2005). Educational selectivity in US immigration: How do immigrants compare to those left behind? Demography, 42(1), 131–152.

20.

Feliciano

(2006). Beyond the family: The influence of premigration group status on the educational expectations of immigrants’ children. Sociology of Education, 79(4), 281–303.

21.

Fleischman

H. L.

Hopstock

P. J.

(1993). Descriptive study of services to limited English proficient students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

22.

Freeman

Y. S.

Freeman

D. E.

Mercuri

(2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

23.

Fry

(2005). The higher dropout rate of foreign-born teens: The role of schooling abroad. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

24.

Gándara

Rumberger

(2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750–782.

25.

Garcia

(1999). Educating Latino high school students with little formal schooling. In Faltis

C. J.

Wolfe

(Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

26.

Garcia-Coll

Marks

(Eds.). (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

27.

Gindling

T. H.

Poggio

S. Z.

(2010). The effect of family separation and reunification on the educational success of immigrant children in the United States. Baltimore: University of Maryland Baltimore County Press.

28.

Glick

J. E.

(2010). Connecting complex processes: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 498–515.

29.

Glick

J. E.

White

M. J.

(2003). The academic trajectories of immigrant youths: Analysis within and across cohorts. Demography, 40(4), 759–783.

30.

Glick

J. E.

Yabiku

S. T.

(2016). Migrant children and migrants’ children: Nativity differences in school enrollment in Mexico and the United States. Demographic Research, 35, 201.

31.

Graham

J. W.

(2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.

32.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

Elder

G. H.

(2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 318–340.

33.

Kanno

Cromley

J. G.

(2013). English language learners’ access to and attainment in postsecondary education. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 89–121.

34.

Kao

Tienda

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

35.

Lee

K. J.

Carlin

J. B.

(2010). Multiple imputation for missing data: fully conditional specification versus multivariate normal imputation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 171(5), 624–632.

36.

Lee

S. J.

(1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

37.

Levels

Dronkers

Kraaykamp

(2008). Immigrant children’s educational achievement in Western countries: Origin, destination, and community effects on mathematical performance. American Sociological Review, 73(5), 835–853.

38.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2012). Grade placement chart. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from: http://home.lausd.net/

39.

Lukes

(2015). Latino immigrant youth and interrupted schooling: Dropouts, dreamers and alternative pathways to college. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

40.

Maas

C. J.

Hox

(2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58(2), 127–137.

41.

MacSwan

(2000). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of linguistic minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 3–45.

42.

McDonnell

L. M.

Hill

P. T.

(1993). Newcomers in American schools: Meeting the educational needs of immigrant youth. Westport, CT: Rand.

43.

Menken

(2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46(4), 438–476.

44.

Murray

Batalova

Fix

(2007). Educating the children of immigrants. In Fix

(Ed.), Securing the future: US immigrant integration policy (pp. 125–152). Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

45.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

46.

New York State Department of Education. (2009). Diverse learners on the road to success: The performance of New York City’s English language learners. New York, NY: Office of English Language Learners.

47.

Ngo

Lee

S. J.

(2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of Southeast Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 415–453.

48.

Oropesa

R. S.

Landale

(2009). Why do immigrant youths who never enroll in U.S. schools matter? School enrollment among Mexicans and non-Hispanic Whites. Sociology of Education, 82(240), 240–266.

49.

Padilla

A. M.

Gonzalez

(2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/English language instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 727–742.

50.

Passel

J. S.

(2011). Demography of immigrant youth: Past, present, and future. The Future of Children, 21(1), 19–41.

51.

Perreira

K. M.

Harris

K. M

Lee

(2006). Making it in America: High school completion by immigrant and native youth. Demography, 43(3), 511–536.

52.

Poggio

S. Z.

Gindling

T. H.

(2010). Promoting the educational success of Latin American immigrant children separated from parents during migration. In Epstein

G. S.

Gang

I. N.

(Eds.), Migration and culture (pp. 517–541). Chapel Hill, NC: Emerald Group.

53.

Pong

S. L.

Landale

N. S.

(2012). Academic achievement of legal immigrants’ children: The roles of parents’ pre-and post-migration characteristics in origin-group differences. Child Development, 83(5), 1543–1559.

54.

Portes

Fernández-Kelly

(2008). No margin for error: Educational and occupational achievement among disadvantaged children of immigrants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620, 12–36.

55.

Portes

Rivas

(2011). The adaptation of migrant children. The Future of Children, 21(1), 219–246.

56.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

57.

Rendall

M. S.

Torr

B. M.

(2008). Emigration and schooling among second-generation Mexican-American children. International Migration Review, 42(3), 729–738.

58.

Richardson Bruna

. (2009). “You’re magmatic now”: Language play, linguistic biliteracy, and the science crossing of adolescent Mexican newcomer youth. In Richardson Bruna

Gomez

(Eds.), The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science (pp. 167–189). New York, NY: Routledge.

59.

Ruiz-de-Velasco

Fix

(2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

60.

Rumberger

R. W.

Lim

S. A.

(2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project Report.

61.

Sánchez

Machado-Casas

(2009). At the intersection of transnationalism, Latina/o immigrants, and education. High School Journal, 92(4), 3–15.

62.

Stiefel

Schwartz

A. E.

Conger

(2010). Age of entry and the high school performance of immigrant youth. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 303–314.

63.

Suárez-Orozco

(2001). Afterward: Understanding and serving the children of immigrants. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 579–589.

64.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

Todorova

(2009). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

65.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

Darbes

Dias

S. I.

Sutin

(2011). Migrations and schooling. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 311–328.

66.

Thomas

Collier

(2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Washington DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

67.

Valdés

(2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

68.

Valenzuela

(1999). Subtractive schooling: Issues of caring in education of US-Mexican youth. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

69.

Wasserstein

R. L.

Lazar

N. A.

(2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 129–33.

70.

World Bank. (2015). Official entrance age to primary education. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES?page=2

71.

Wright

W. E.

(2008). High stakes math tests: How No Child Left Behind leaves newcomer English language learners behind. Lang Policy, 7, 237–266.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB