Kao EducAttARS

7/28/2019 Kao EducAttARS

1/28

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2003. 29:41742doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019

Copyright c 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reservedFirst published online as a Review in Advance on June 4, 2003

RACIAL AND ETHNIC STRATIFICATION INEDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTAINMENT

GraceKao1andJennifer S.Thompson21Department of Sociology and Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia 19104-6299; email: [email protected] Statistics Service Institute, American Institutes for Research, Washington,

District of Columbia 20006; email: [email protected]

Key Words immigrants, adolescents, aspirations

s Abstract Understanding racial, ethnic, and immigrant variation in educationalachievement andattainment is more important than ever as theU.S. population becomesincreasingly diverse. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, 34% of all youth aged1519 were from minority groups; it estimates that by 2025, this will increase to 46%(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In addition, approximately one in five school-age childrenreside in an immigrant family (Zhou 1997, Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco 2001).

We provide an overview of recent empirical research on racial, ethnic, and immigrantdifferences in educational achievement and attainment, and we examine some cur-rent theories that attempt to explain these differences. We explore group differences ingrades, testscores, course taking, and tracking,especially throughoutsecondaryschool-ing, and then discuss variation in high school completion, transitions to college, andcollege completion. We also summarize key theoretical explanations used to explainpersistent differences net of variation in socioeconomic status, which focus on familyand cultural beliefs that stem from minority group and class experiences. Overall, thereare many signs of optimism. Racial and ethnic gaps in educational achievement andattainment have narrowed over the past three decades by every measure available tosocial scientists. Educational aspirations are universally high for all racial and ethnicgroups as most adolescents expect to go to college. However, substantial gaps remain,especially between less advantaged groups such as African Americans, Hispanics, andNative Americans and more advantaged groups such as whites and Asian Americans.The racial and ethnic hierarchy in educational achievement is apparent across varyingmeasures of the academic experience.

INTRODUCTION

In this review, we provide an overview of recent empirical research on racial, eth-

nic, and immigrant differences in educational achievement and attainment, and

we examine some current theories that attempt to explain these differences. The

link between academic performance, educational attainment, and eventual labor

market outcomes is well known and extensively documented (Coleman 1961,

b

yHARVARDUNIVERSITYon

07/27/07.Forpersonaluseonly.


2/28

418 KAO THOMPSON

Jencks 1972). Moreover, we know that some of the relative disadvantages and

advantages faced by racial and ethnic minorities can be traced to their differen-

tial educational achievement and attainment (Jencks 1972). Understanding race,

ethnic, and immigrant variation in educational achievement and attainment ismore important than ever as the U.S. population becomes increasingly diverse.

Because minority populations are younger than their white counterparts, the in-

creasing diversity in the general population is even more apparent among youth.

The Census Bureau estimates that in 2000, 34% of all youth aged 1519 were

from minority groups; it estimates that by 2025, this will increase to 46% (U.S.

Census Bureau 2000). Similarly, approximately one in five school-age children

currently comes from an immigrant family (Zhou 1997, Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-

Orozco 2001). For both Asian and Hispanic youth, understanding patterns of

education among immigrants is especially vital. Approximately 50% of todaysHispanic youth are immigrants or children of immigrants; for Asian Americans,

this proportion is closer to 90% (Zhou 1997). This proportion is especially high

in urban school districts; for instance, in New York City, approximately 48%

of children in school are children of immigrant parents (Suarez-Orozco &

Suarez-Orozco 2001).

Our review proceeds as follows: First, we provide a short overview of key the-

oretical frameworks used to explain racial and ethnic differences in achievement.

Second, we examine group differences in grades, test scores, educational aspi-

rations, course taking, and tracking, especially throughout secondary schooling.Then we examine differences in high school completion, transitions to college, and

college completion. Because parental socioeconomic background has a profound

influence on educational achievement and attainment, we focus on race, ethnic,

and immigrant group differences before and after taking into account differences

in socioeconomic background. Finally, we review common themes and promi-

nent theories that are used to account for these differences; although we do not

offer an evaluation of these theories, we state some explanations that are more or

less consistent with the findings that have persisted throughout myriad empirical

analyses.We do not focus on the beginning school transition, as Entwisle & Alexander

(1993) completed an excellent review of that literature, nor do we focus on the

effects of the organization of schools on achievement outcomes (see Hallinan 1988,

Arum 2000 for excellent reviews), although we do examine tracking. Moreover, we

do not examine how race, ethnicity, and immigrant status affect youth in other areas

of life (see Lichter 1997 for a review on poverty among children; see Zhou 1997

for a review on immigrant children). Also, we do not examine the general literature

on childhood and adolescent development, as superb reviews of these literatures

were completed by Corsaro & Eder (1990) and Dornbusch (1989), respectively.We also do not fully explore the notion of social capital, which was thoughtfully

reviewed by Portes (1998). There is relatively little research on how social capital

differentially affects the educational achievement and attainment of race, ethnic,

and immigrant groups.

b




3/28

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND EDUCATION 419

THEORETICAL OVERVIEW

The achievement gap between blacks and whites is longstanding and has re-

ceived considerable empirical attention and theoretical discussion (Jencks 1972,Miller 1995, Jencks & Phillips 1998). Much of the discussion of subsequent eth-

nic groups academic achievement (for instance, Jews, Southern Italians, Greeks,

and more recently, Hispanics and Asian Americans) follow similar types of ar-

guments. Although the debates are complex, most contemporary theories about

why ethnic groups differ in their educational achievement fall into two general

categories. The first is about how cultural orientations of certain ethnic groups

promote/discourage academic achievement, and the second is about how the struc-

tural position of ethnic groups affects the childrens (parent, peer, and school)

environments.The first argument credits ethnic group differences in cultural orientation, most

specifically differences in orientation toward schooling (McClelland et al. 1953,

Rosen 1959, Lewis 1966, Ogbu 1974, Caplan et al. 1991). Some of these arguments

can be traced to Webers The Protestant Ethic (1976), where an ethnic-religious

group was credited for having a cultural orientation conducive to the develop-

ment of capitalism. Ethnic groups have cultural orientations, which can benefit or

hurt their odds of economic (and in our case, educational) success relative to other

groups. Following McClellands (McClelland et al. 1953) laboratory studies of the

achievement motive, where he and his colleagues theorized that individuals havevarying degrees of the achievement motive and that those with higher achieve-

ment motives perform better in achievement tests, Rosen (1959) argued for ethnic

group differences in their orientation toward achievement. Rosen (1959) argued

that Jews, Greeks, and Protestants shared greater motivation toward achievement;

hence this explained their higher socioeconomic mobility. In contrast, Rosen found

that blacks, Southern Italians, and French Canadians scored lower on items that

measured their achievement motivation and vocational aspirations. It is important

to note that minority status does not imply poor outcomes.

The second argument traces the structural position of ethnic groups, creditingeither their time of arrival, the skills migrants brought with them at their time of

arrival, the needs of the local economy, or the fit between their skills and their abil-

ity to fill certain economic niches (or some combination thereof) (see Steinberg

1989, Lieberson 1980, Wilson 1980 for examples). Again, because parental social

class has a considerable influence on a childs educational outcome, structural

arguments fault or credit differences in achievement and attainment on parental

socioeconomic status (SES), which is associated with parental participation, qual-

ity of instruction, school peers, teachers, and other influences (see Sewell & Shah

1968, Sewell et al. 1969, Murnane et al. 1980, Baker & Stevenson 1986, Astone &McLanahan 1991, Bankston & Caldas 1998). In other words, class differences are

manifested through varying parental practices and schooling opportunities, which

in turn favor more advantaged students. We come back to these arguments in our

overview of empirical findings.

b




4/28

420 KAO THOMPSON

Of course, some theoretical discussions fall in between, often crediting and

faulting cultural orientations to ethnic groups economic positions or experiences

in society (Lewis 1966, Ogbu 1974, Willis 1977, MacLeod 1995, Sue & Okazaki

1990, Steele & Aronson 1995, Steele 1997). We expand on these explanations later,as most contemporary arguments about ethnic group differences in achievement

fall along the intersection of cultural orientation and structural position.

A third, but much less frequent, line of reasoning credits genetic differences

between racial groups in their innate intelligence (Jensen 1969, Herrnstein &

Murray 1994), but most sociologists today dismiss these arguments both for their

inherently racist overtones and for the lack of empirical data to support such

claims. Very simply, no gene has been identified as affecting test scores. What

is more striking is that great improvements in IQ and achievement scores within

racial groups and the shrinking gaps between groups have occurred in just a fewdecades; hence genetic differences cannot account for these considerable changes

in a brief time span (Jencks & Phillips 1998).

TEST SCORES

The test scores of blacks have lagged behind those of whites in vocabulary, read-

ing, and math for the past 30 years, although this gap is shrinking. The National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been testing 17 year olds since

1971; from 1971 to 1996, the black-white reading gap shrank by almost one halfand the math gap by almost one third (Jencks & Phillips 1998). Specifically, Miller

(1995) documents that among 17 year olds, blacks scored an average of 239 points

as opposed to 291 points among whites on the NAEP reading tests in 1971; by

1990, blacks scored an average of 267 as opposed to 297 for whites (out of a

possible 500 points total). On NAEP math tests in 1973, blacks scored an average

of 270, whereas whites scored 310; by 1990, blacks average score was 289 com-

pared with 310 for whites (Miller 1995, table 3.5, p. 53). Although parental SES

accounts for some of the black-white test gap, it does not account for all of it (see,

e.g., Kao et al. 1996).

Similarly, for Hispanics, the average NAEP math score for 17 year olds in

1973 was 277 (as opposed to 310 for whites); in 1990, the average score among

Hispanics was 284 compared with 310 for whites (Miller 1995, table 3.5, p. 53).

Due to their small population size in the 1970s, similar trend data are not available

for Asian Americans, but their recent scores suggest that they perform at levels

comparable or above that of whites. Data from the 1990 NAEP Mathematics

Assessment Tests show that among twelfth graders, Asians scored an average of

315 points compared with 301 points for whites, 270 for blacks, 278 for Hispanics,

and 290 for Native Americans (Miller 1995, table 3.8, p. 58). Racial and ethnic

differentiation is most apparent at the highest achievement levels; 13% of Asians

performed at level of 350 points or higher, whereas only 6% of whites, less than

1% of blacks, 1% of Hispanics, and less than 1% of Native Americans did so.

Using standardized reading and math tests administered to a national sample of

b




5/28


eighth graders, Kao et al. (1996) found that parental background characteristics

accounted for differences between Asians and whites, but not between Hispanics

and whites, nor between blacks and whites.

Racial and ethnic variation in SAT scores are even more striking, although theyfollow a similar pattern. The average SAT math score in 1990 was 491 for whites,

528 for Asians, 385 for blacks, 429 for Mexican Americans, and 437 for Native

Americans (Miller 1995, table 3.9, p. 61). Again, racial and ethnic differentiation

is most noticeable at the higher range of scores. For instance, 34% of Asians

compared with 20% of whites, 3% of blacks, 7% of Mexican Americans, and 9%

of Native Americans scored above a 600 on the SAT math section. On the SAT

verbal section in 1990, whites scored an average of 442, compared with 410 for

Asians, 352 for blacks, 380 for Mexican Americans, and 388 for Native Americans.

Eight percent of whites, 10% of Asians, 2% of blacks, 3% of Mexican Americans,and 3% of Native Americans scored above 600 on the SAT verbal section in 1990

(Miller 1995, table 3.9, p. 61).

Overall, researchers have treated achievement test scores as an indicator, to

varying degrees, of a combination of innate ability (intelligence) and learned in-

formation. The underlying assumption is that achievement test scores, however

imperfect, measure some degree of ability or intelligence. Hence, when racial and

ethnic differences persist after taking parental socioeconomic background into ac-

count, sociologists often fault unmeasured differences in quality of schooling or

other unmeasured differences. Because recent studies suggest that the achieve-ment gap (at least for whites and blacks) begins at an early age (Dreeben &

Gamoran 1986), increasingly researchers look at the growth in achievement test

scores among a cohort of students as a way to examine how parents, schools, and

peers affect changes in test scores (see, for example, Keith & Page 1985, Guo

1998, Stevenson et al. 1994). Although change in test scores is, conceptually, a

more precise measure, it is the absolute scores that affect attainment and eventual

labor market outcomes.

GRADES

Another indicator of academic performance is grades. Although some researchers

fault grades (especially self-reported grades) as being an imprecise measure that

is affected by variation in biases of teachers and students as well as the quality

of schools and the relative difficulty of particular classes, grades are an important

outcome because students and parents regularly monitor student performances via

grades (DiMaggio 1982, Fehrman et al. 1987, Farkas et al. 1990, Valenzuela &

Dornbusch 1994, Fuligni 1997, Kao 1995, Kao et al. 1996). Grades are positively

correlated with achievement tests, but they are more sensitive to student input,

such as hours spent on homework and time watching television (see Fehrman

et al. 1987, Rumbaut 1990, Kao et al. 1996, Fuligni 1997, Rumbaut, unpublished

manuscript). Moreover, they are a more concrete measure of student orientation

toward schooling than abstract attitudes or educational aspirations because most

b




6/28

422 KAO THOMPSON

students embrace proschooling attitudes and report extremely high educational

aspirations in survey questionnaires (Alexander & Cook 1979). Moreover, grades

signal to students, rightly or wrongly, their odds of success in school, which may

affect their odds of attaining higher education (Fehrman et al. 1987).Racial and ethnic variation in grades parallel that of test scores; however, varia-

tions in grades are more likely to be accounted for by parental background and stu-

dent characteristics and behavior. Like achievement test scores, grades are highly

correlated with parental SES. In some studies, parental SES accounts for much, if

not all, of the variation. For example, in an earlier paper using a nationally represen-

tative sample of eighth graders from the National Education Longitudinal Study of

1988 (NELS), Kao et al. (1996) found that Asians had the highest GPA (3.24) ver-

sus 2.96 for whites, 2.74 for Hispanics, and 2.73 for blacks. After taking parental

education, income, household status, immigrant status, and prior experiences atschool into account, the mean GPA of Hispanics was no longer significantly differ-

ent, whereas the mean GPA of Asians was still moderately significantly different

from that of whites. The mean GPA of blacks, on the other hand, remained statisti-

cally significantly lower than that of whites. It is likely that more precise measures

of parental education would have better captured the extent to which Hispanic

youth are disadvantaged because the lowest parental educational category was

less than high school. Hence, more-detailed parental SES measures may have

completely accounted for group differences between Hispanics and whites.

EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS

Although educational aspirations were an important predictor of eventual educa-

tion and occupational status, their position in recent social science literature is more

problematic. Starting with the early studies of status attainment, researchers argued

that educational aspirations were a good indicator of students plans for the future

(Sewell et al. 1969, 1970; Campbell 1983). Hence, they provided an important clue

to a students eventual educational and occupational attainment. More recently, the

concept of educational aspirations has been more controversial. Although few re-

searchers would cast doubt on the claim that high aspirations are an important

precursor to high attainment, it is unclear that modern survey instruments actually

capture the difference between students who are seriously and actively thinking

about college and those who simply report lofty goals (Alexander & Cook 1979,

Jencks et al. 1983, Kao & Tienda 1998). Moreover, some argue that aspirations are

simply a report of students likelihood of attending college and not a motivating

factor per se (Alexander & Cook 1979, Jencks et al. 1983). However, most youth

report extremely high educational aspirations, with most surveys reporting that the

vast majority of youth expect to complete college. Moreover, Asian, black, and

Hispanic youth all report much higher aspirations than would be expected given

their SES (Kao & Tienda 1998). The problem of almost uniformly high educational

aspirations among youth (but much lower subsequent attainment) has been well

documented by others, such as Hansons Lost Talent(1994, 1996), and Schneider

b




7/28


& Stevensons The Ambitious Generation: Americas Teenagers, Motivated but

Directionless (1999). Although aspirations are correlated with grades, test scores,

and eventual attainment, it is unclear what having high educational aspirations

actually implies for todays youth.

TRACKING AND COURSE TAKING IN HIGH SCHOOL

Students are stratified within schools according to ability groups or tracks. Nu-

merous studies have shown that poor children and racial and ethnic minorities

are disproportionately placed in low-ability groups early in their educational ca-

reers and in non-college-bound groupings in junior high and high school (Joseph

1998, Slavin & Braddock 1993, Oakes 1985). Likewise, research shows that low-

income and minority students participate at higher rates in vocational curricula andat lower rates in academic curricula than do affluent and white students (Oakes &

Guiton 1995, Ekstrom et al. 1988, Oakes 1985). Recent statistics from the Digest

of Education Statistics (National Center for Education Statistics 1997) report the

following patterns: the percentage of high school seniors who reported being in the

college preparatory or academic track were 46% of whites, 36% of blacks, 31%

of Hispanics, 51% of Asians, and 23% of Native Americans. Those reporting in

the general track were 43% of whites, 49% of blacks, 56% of Hispanics, 40% of

Asians, and 61% of Native Americans. Finally, the percentages of each race/ethnic

group reporting to be in the vocational track were 11% of whites, 15% of blacks,13% of Hispanics, 9% of Asians, and 17% of Native Americans (National Center

for Education Statistics 1997). These statistics show that half of Asians and almost

half of whites report being in the highest track. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native

Americans are more likely to be in the general track, and they also have the high-

est numbers in the lowest track (vocational). Similarly, another study found that

nonblacks were almost three times more likely than blacks to be in the honors or

advanced track in English and math (Kubitschek & Hallinan 1996). Thus, patterns

of racial and ethnic disadvantage in tracking continue.

There is mixed evidence on whether these racial and ethnic effects on track

placement remain once controls, such as ability, are added to analytic models

(Oakes et al. 1992). An older study found race effects disappear (blacks versus

nonblacks) once test scores, academic orientation, course selection, and grades

were controlled for (Alexander & Cook 1982). However, a more recent study

found that once academic achievement was controlled, racial and ethnic differences

decreased but did not disappear (Hallinan 1994). School track placements may also

be influenced by students measured English-language ability, so that, for instance,

otherwise talented and capable Mexican-origin students are placed in remedial or

vocational tracks (Donato et al. 1991).

The effects of track placement have also been extensively studied. Because

racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately in lower tracks, the effects of

tracks will lead to differential outcomes. The general conclusion on the effects of

tracks is that tracking and ability groups have a negative effect on the achievement

b




8/28

424 KAO THOMPSON

of lower track students, a negligible effect on students in the middle groups, and a

weak-to-modest positive effect on students in the high tracks (Hallinan 1988,

Oakes 1985, Eder & Felmee 1984, Sorensen & Hallinan 1986, Alexander &

McDill 1976, Hauser & Featherman 1976, Heyns 1974). Further disadvantagesfor the lower tracks include the development of negative attitudes and behaviors

related to learning (Hallinan 1988). On the other hand, placement in the college

preparatory track in high school produces positive effects such as high academic

achievement (grades, test scores), measures of motivation, and educational aspi-

rations and attainment, even after controlling for family background and ability

differences (Rosenbaum 1976, Alexander et al. 1978, Hauser & Featherman 1976,

Alexander & Cook 1982). Similarly, research has shown that upper-track students

obtain higher grades, are more likely to complete college, have more positive self-

concepts, and have lower rates of misconduct and truancy, even after controllingfor home background variables (Ansalone 2001).

Just as there are racial and ethnic differences in student track and ability group

placement, there are also differences in the courses students take in high school.

Of course, patterns of course taking are related to placement in specific tracks.

The Digest of Education Statistics (National Center for Education Statistics 1997)

examined the average number of Carnegie units earned in various subjects and

found that Asian students had the highest number in math, science, and foreign

language. The Carnegie unit represents one credit for the completion of a 1-year

course (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). Native Americans had thelowest total units in math and foreign language, whereas blacks had the lowest

in science. Blacks and Native Americans had the highest vocational education

units, whereas Asians had the lowest. The Digest (National Center for Education

Statistics 1997) also reported the percentages of high school graduates earning

various combinations of credits in different subjects. The highest level (4-English,

3-science, 3-math, 0.5-computer science, 2-foreign language) was earned by 27%

of whites, 20% of blacks, 28% of Hispanics, 36% of Asians, and 13% of Native

Americans. Other statistics find similar patterns. Miller (1995) found that blacks

and Hispanics lagged substantially behind whites in enrollment of all math andscience courses except Algebra I and Biology in 1982 and 1987. However, from

the 1980s to the 1990s, both black and white high school graduates were following

a more rigorous curriculum. Yet, black high school graduates were still less likely

than white graduates to take advanced science and math courses or study a foreign

language (U.S. Department of Education 1995, Epps 1995). Mare (1995) also

found an increase over time in the total number of courses and basic academic

courses taken, especially among blacks and Hispanics.

Even within tracks, racial and ethnic differences in course taking persist. Within

the vocational area, low-income and minority students disproportionately takeclasses related to low-skill jobs, whereas white and affluent students more of-

ten take courses that teach general skills or include considerable academic con-

tent (Oakes 1983). On the academic side of the curriculum, low-income and

non-Asian minority students disproportionately take low-level and remedial

b




9/28


courses, whereas whites and Asians tend to dominate enrollments in advanced

and honors courses (Braddock 1990, Oakes 1990).

One reason for the differential course taking in high school is that different

schools offer different courses. Low-income, urban schools do not offer the samerange and level of courses as their more affluent suburban counterparts. Urban

schools are less likely to offer advanced courses or gifted and talented programs

(Garibaldi 1998). Predominantly white and wealthy schools offer more high-ability

classestwo to three times as many advanced placement courses per student as

low-income, predominantly minority schoolsand a larger share of their students

take these advanced classes (Orfield et al. 1996). In addition, differences in course

participation are due to educators perceptions about race and class differences in

academic motivations and abilities. Students and parents also make choices about

course taking (Oakes & Guiton 1995).Both tracking and course taking have effects on educational outcomes. Gamoran

(1987) found that tracking and course taking together accounted for substantively

significant differences in student achievement. Thus, racial and ethnic differences

in the tracks students are placed in, and the courses they take in high school, can

lead to further differentiation in educational achievement and attainment.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Whereas educational performance is crucial for eventual success in higher educa-tion, educational attainment is key in affecting eventual labor market outcomes. In

general, Asians have the highest probability of school progression at each level of

schooling, followed by whites, blacks and Hispanics, and Native Americans (Mare

1995). For all groups except Asians, family background explains a large proportion

of the differences in educational attainment between white and nonwhite ethnic-

racial groups. In many cases, family background explains one half to two thirds

of the difference (Mare & Winship 1988). However, remaining group differences

suggest that other factors affect the collective performance of each group. Immi-

gration policy also plays a role, as requirements of family reunification and occu-pational qualifications have resulted in the need for formal credentials, and account

for the high educational levels among some Asian immigrant groups (Portes &

Rumbaut 1996). The sections below review racial and ethnic differences in edu-

cational attainment at the high school and college levels.

HIGH SCHOOL:DROPOUTSAND COMPLETION

DroppingOut

Dropping out of school is not evenly distributed racially, economically, or geo-

graphically (McLaren 1988). Researchers have noted that blacks, and especially

Hispanics and Native Americans, are significantly more likely than white or other

minority students to drop out of school (Velez 1989, Warren 1996, Teachman

b




10/28

426 KAO THOMPSON

et al. 1996, White & Kaufman 1997). For instance, researchers analyzing High

School and Beyond (HS&B) data, which is a nationally representative sample of

high school sophomores and seniors in 1980, found that Asians had the lowest

percentage of drop outs (14%), followed by non-Hispanic whites (17%). NativeAmericans had the highest level (29%) followed by Mexican Americans (28%) and

Puerto Ricans (26%). Slightly less than one quarter (24%) of blacks dropped out

of high school (White & Kaufman 1997). More recent statistics (National Center

for Education Statistics 1997) found that among persons 1624 years old in 1996,

7% of non-Hispanic whites, 13% of non-Hispanic blacks, and 29% of Hispanics

were high school drop outs. However, these figures include youth who were not

educated in the United States, thus underestimating the educational outcomes of

Hispanics in the U.S. educational system.

For Mexican Americans, who make up more than 75% of all Hispanics in theUnited States, this categorization is especially problematic because the average

educational attainment of Mexicans who migrate is very low. Combining those who

are educated in the United States with those who are educated in Mexico, many

who have left school in Mexico and then migrated to the United States to work

underestimate the educational attainment of Mexicans who receive their education

in the United States. Again, after controllingfor differences in parental background,

some researchers have found Hispanics to have higher odds of graduating from

high school (Hauser & Anderson 1991).

Once factors such as generation, language, and social capital are controlled for,ethnicity does not appear to have much impact on dropping out (White & Kaufman

1997). However, when students performance and expectations as sophomores are

taken out of the analytic model, ethnicity increases in importance. This indicates

that there are substantial ethnic differences in school performance and expectations

that lead to differences in dropping out of high school (White & Kaufman 1997).

Others find that the greater likelihood of blacks to drop out can be explained by

the relative lack of financial, human, and social capital (Teachman et al. 1996).

Researchers have also examined the factors that predict dropping out of school

for various racial and ethnic groups. Using HS&B data, White & Kaufman (1997)found that immigrants are more likely to drop out than are native-born persons

of native parentage, and that this is especially true of recent immigrants. The

authors found that social capital is also very important in reducing the likelihood

of dropping out, and that it can buffer negative effects associated with foreign

birth and low socioeconomic origins. This runs somewhat counter to research using

more recent data and larger samples of Asian Americans (see Kao & Tienda 1995),

which suggest that the effects of immigrant status may vary substantially by ethnic

group and by period effects. Moreover, recent research by Louie (2001) suggest

that there are significant socioeconomic differences within immigrant ethnics, andthis affects their ability to transform uniformly high parental aspirations.

Rumberger (1995) notes some differences between groups. He found that SES

predicted drop-out rates for Hispanics and whites, but not blacks. Misbehavior,

changing schools, and low grades all increased the odds of dropping out for blacks

b




11/28


and whites, but not Hispanics. High school absenteeism predicted dropping out

for all groups. Students who attend low-SES schools as well as schools that are

predominantly black or Hispanic also experience higher drop-out rates, although

for minority students, the effect of attending a predominantly black school islargely accounted for by the low mean SES of these schools (Mayer 1991). Velez

(1989) examined the differences in drop-out predictors among Hispanics. Cutting

classes, suspensions, dating, being older, and being female increased the odds of

Chicano students dropping out. Others find that large families, Spanish-language

dominance, foreign birth, urban environment, and lower-quality schools lessen

the likelihood that the Mexican-American student will stay in school (Fligstein &

Fernandez 1985). However, bilingualism has positive or neutral effects on edu-

cational achievement (Fernandez & Nielsen 1986, Mouw & Xie 1999). Among

Cuban students, suspensions increased the odds of dropping out, but having disci-plinary problems at school, high SES, and having two parents at home substantially

decreased them. For Puerto Rican students, cutting classes, suspension, being older,

and being female increased the odds, but having two parents at home decreased

them. For non-Hispanic whites, dating, being older, and being female increased the

odds of dropping out (Velez 1989). Immigration also had different effects. Cuban

students who were relatively new arrivals in the United States were less likely to

drop out, whereas their Puerto Rican and Chicano counterparts were more likely

to drop out. Family background (high SES) reduced the odds that all students

would drop out, although the effects of SES were particularly strong in the caseof Cubans (Velez 1989).

HighSchool Completion

The flip side of dropping out of high school is, of course, graduating from high

school. All racial and ethnic groups have increased their average rates of school

continuation and levels of educational attainment over time (Mare 1995). In 1990,

among adults 25 years and older, approximately 78% of whites, 63% of blacks,

50% of Hispanics, 78% of Asians, and 66% of Native Americans or Alaskan Na-tives had a high school diploma (National Center for Education Statistics 1997).

This figure obscures those who were educated in the United States versus those

who were not. Among most groups, a majority of members graduate from high

school. When groups are further broken down into subgroups and by immigrant

status, more variation is evident (Mare & Winship 1988, Mare 1995). For exam-

ple, in 1980 (persons aged 2635), among foreign-born Mexican Americans, only

29% of men and 27% of women had graduated high school. Native-born Mex-

ican Americans also had relatively low rates of graduation (68% for men, 64%

for women). Puerto Rican rates were even lower (54% for men, 53% for women).Groups with the highest high school graduation rates were native-born Japanese

Americans (98% of men and women), native-born Chinese Americans (97% of

men and 96% of women), foreign-born Japanese Americans (96% of men and 92%

of women), and native and foreign-born Asian Indians (men have slightly higher

b




12/28

428 KAO THOMPSON

rates at 90%94% versus women, 78%87%). However, even among Asian Amer-

icans, much variation exists as Japanese, Chinese, and Asian Indians have much

higher graduation rates than Laotians, Hmong, and Vietnamese (Miller 1995).

In general, Asian Americans have higher educational attainment levels than Pa-cific Islanders. Among Hispanics, Cubans have the highest high school graduation

rates, followed by Central/South Americans, Puerto Ricans, and, lastly, Mexican

Americans (Miller 1995).

As in the research on dropping out of high school, researchers have simi-

larly examined the predictors of completing high school. One area of interest has

been the effects of family structure and other family background characteristics.

Wojtkiewicz (1993) found that years spent in mother-only or stepparent families

had a negative effect on high school graduation; however, a race difference was

found, where mother-stepfather families were not negative for black students. Thiseffect of family structure on high school completion would have differential effects

because blacks have the highest degree of experience with nonintact families, fol-

lowed by Hispanics and whites (Wojtkiewicz 1993, Krein & Beller 1988). Duncan

(1994), however, found that female family headship had a positive association with

school completion for black females. Warren (1996) found that a great deal of the

observed gap between whites and Mexican immigrant adolescents in the odds of

completing high school and nearly all of the gap between whites and Chicano

adolescents can be attributed to group differences in family background (parents

education and occupation, family structure, siblings). However, even after numer-ous controls, Mexican-origin students are still less likely to complete twelfth grade,

suggesting that issues such as discrimination, school segregation, or differences

in aspirations play significant roles in creating and maintaining inequalities in ed-

ucational attainment (Warren 1996). Wojtkiewicz (1993) also found that although

family structure mattered (parental structure, number of siblings), family SES had

a stronger effect on educational attainment. The effects do vary by group, how-

ever. For example, background variables may be more powerful predictors of high

school completion among whites than Mexican Americans (Fligstein & Fernandez

1985). Generation also differentially affects high school completion. For Hispan-ics, high school completion rates increase with each generation, whereas for whites

and Asians, they increase from the immigrant to second generation only, with little

difference between the second generation and the native born of native parentage

(Rong & Grant 1992). However, White & Glick (2000), using HS&B, found that

immigrant youth who arrived as adolescents were more likely to persevere through

high school, compared with both native-born and immigrant youth who arrived at

an earlier age, despite having lower levels of parental SES and social capital.

COLLEGE TRANSITION

Although in recent years most high school seniors plan to go to college right

after high school (in 1992, 77% of whites, 75% of blacks and Hispanics, 83% of

Asians, and 66% of Native Americans), much fewer actually make the transition

b




13/28


to college (National Center for Education Statistics 1997). College enrollment

of blacks and Hispanics has increased over time, although these improvements

slowed in the 1980s (Baker & Velez 1996). The enrollment rates of 1824 year

olds in institutions of higher education in 1996 show racial and ethnic variation.Forty-five percent of non-Hispanic whites, 36% of non-Hispanic blacks, and 35%

of Hispanics were enrolled (enrollment as a percent of high school graduates)

in postsecondary institutions in 1996 (National Center for Education Statistics

1997). Rates of college attendance for Asian groups are extremely high; except for

Vietnamese, the rates of persons aged 2635 in 1980 with some college are close to

or above 50% and in many cases as high as 7080% (Mare & Winship 1988). Some

of the highest rates are among foreign-born Asians. Non-Hispanic blacks had rates

of 33%34% (depending on gender), non-Hispanic whites were 44%54%, and

Native Americans had lower rates of 30%36%. Among Hispanics, Cubans hadhigher rates than Mexican Americans and the foreign born were worse off than the

native born. Lowest overall rates were among foreign-born Mexican women; only

11% completed some college. Persistence in college also varied by group. Peng

(1988) found that 86% of Asian Americans versus 64% of whites were found in

some kind of higher education program 2 years after high school graduation. For

those who entered a 4-year university, 86% of Asians stayed the following year

compared with 75% of whites, 71% of blacks, and 66% of Hispanics.

Hauser & Anderson (1991) found that the chances of college entry declined

among blacks from the 1970s to the 1980s, and that this change could not beattributed to changing aspirations. In 1984, the odds that a black high school

graduate would enter the first year of college within a year were less than half

of the corresponding odds for a white high school graduate. Blacks are still less

likely than whites to make an immediate transition from high school to college

(U.S. Department of Education 1995). The decline in black college enrollments

has been attributed in part to decreases in the amount and form of financial aid

(Hauser 1992). During the 1970s, black high school graduates were more likely to

enter college than were white high school graduates with the same family income.

However, after 1980, differences in family income could no longer account forblacks lower odds of enrollment in college (Hauser & Anderson 1991). Older

studies have also found that once background and aptitude are taken into account,

traditionally disadvantaged minorities had equal or greater chances of attending

college (Mare & Winship 1988, Rumberger 1982, Thomas et al. 1979). Further-

more, for students with similar levels of academic aptitude, lower-class minority

students had higher rates of college attendance than did lower-class white students

(Alexander et al. 1987). Hallinan & Williams (1990) found that blacks had higher

aspirations than whites but were less likely to be attending college 2 years after

high school graduation. However, once SES and other variables were taken into ac-count, blacks had higher aspirations and higher outcomes (although the latter was

not statistically significant). Interestingly, both black and white students who had

cross-race friendships had higher educational aspirations and outcomes than did

those with same-race friendships. This indicates a peer effect, although cross-race

b




14/28

430 KAO THOMPSON

friendships are rare (Hallinan & Williams 1990). The low college attendance rates

of Hispanics, especially Mexican Americans, are due to low high school gradua-

tion rates. When only the population of high school graduates is considered, some

find that Mexican Americans attend college at a higher rate than whites (Fligstein& Fernandez 1985).

Racial and ethnic groups vary in the kind of postsecondary institutions they

attend. However, SES matters more than race and ethnicity for entry into selec-

tive institutions (Hearn 1991). Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately

represented in community colleges, which have poorer outcomes than other post-

secondary schools (Brint & Karabel 1989, Dougherty 1994). The concentration

is especially true of Hispanics (Lee & Frank 1990). In 1992, approximately 57%

of Hispanics in higher education were enrolled in 2-year colleges, compared with

39% of all students (U.S. Department of Education 1994). There is some evidencethat students of color have become more concentrated over time in the 2-year sec-

tor than whites (Karen 2002). In addition, minorities were somewhat more likely

than whites to attend school part-time (Rumberger 1982). Blacks were less likely

to attend selective institutions, net of social background factors, such as parents

education and income, and number of siblings (Karen 2002, Hearn 1991). The

effect was reduced but still remained when academic controls, such as test scores,

grades, expectations, and activities were added to the analytic model. Hispanics

(controlling for various factors) attended schools that were as selective as the

schools whites attended (Karen 2002). There appears to be some leveling off inthe past couple of decades in the movement of minorities into top-tier institutions

(Karen 1991).

COLLEGE COMPLETION

Persistence through college and earning a bachelors degree are important markers

that influence future labor market outcomes. Between the transition from some

college to the attainment of the bachelors degree, some racial and ethnic differ-

ences grew between 1980 and 1990 (Mare 1995). Progression probabilities grew

for Asians and whites, whereas other groups remained unchanged. Mare (1995)

explained this process where inequality in education attainment moves from ear-

lier to later stages of schooling as average levels of attainment increase for all

groups. In other words, inequalities persist or even increase at the postsecondary

level as groups become more equal at lower levels of education. Recent statistics

show that of persons aged 25 and older in 1990, 22% of whites, 11% of blacks, 9%

of Hispanics, 37% of Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 9% of Native Americans

or Alaskan Natives had earned a bachelors degree or higher (National Center for

Education Statistics 1997). Asians are the most likely to complete college (exceed-

ing the national average), followed by whites, blacks and Hispanics, and Native

Americans. Variation exists within racial and ethnic groups. For instance, 26% of

Japanese, 37% of Chinese, and 52% of Asian Indians had completed 4 or more

years of college in 1980 (persons aged 2529), whereas only 6% of Laotians, 3%

b




15/28


of Hmong, 13% of Vietnamese, 10% of Native Hawaiians, 11% of Melanesians,

and 7% of Samoans did the same. Among Hispanics (aged 25 and over) in 1990,

20% of Cubans, 16% of Central/South Americans, 10% of Puerto Ricans, and 5%

of Mexican Americans had completed 4 or more years of college.Greater proportions of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans than whites

drop out of college (Kalsner 1991). Camburn (1990) found that whites are con-

siderably more likely than blacks and Hispanics to obtain bachelors degrees even

when SES and college plans are controlled for. He found that on average, whites

are about twice as likely as minorities to finish college (his sample included high

school graduates in large metropolitan areas). High-SES students and those from

high schools with higher percentages of white students were more likely to finish

college (Camburn 1990). Controlling for high school grades and test scores negated

the effect of race, indicating that racial differences in college completion may bedue to differences in academic preparation (Camburn 1990). Others have similarly

seen race effects disappear in multivariate analyses (Velez 1985, Donovan 1984).

In addition, blacks take longer than whites to complete college (U.S. Department

of Education 1995). Just as some minority students attended less-selective schools,

black and Hispanic students obtain their degrees at somewhat less prestigious in-

stitutions than do whites, whereas Asian Americans are found in somewhat more

prestigious universities (Jacobs 1996).

EXPLANATIONSFORSECONDARY SCHOOLACHIEVEMENT DIFFERENCES

Importanceof Parental SocioeconomicStatus

Parental education and family income is probably the best predictor of even-

tual academic outcomes among youth. These differences are substantial across

race, ethnic, and immigrant groups, and help to explain a substantial proportion

(although not all) of the variation in educational outcomes of youth. Hispanics

(especially Mexican Americans, who make up the majority of the Hispanic popu-

lation) are most disadvantaged in terms of parental education levels. After taking

parental SES into account, most Hispanics perform at levels comparable to whites

in statistical analyses (Kao et al. 1996, Warren 1996). Warren (1996) found that

background differences accounted for most of the differences between native-born

Mexican Americans and whites. Thus, although the lower academic achievement

of Hispanics is problematic, their levels of achievement are comparable to that of

whites from similar SES backgrounds.

Asian American youth are extremely advantaged in terms of parental educa-

tion levels. This advantage explains some of the relatively high performance and

attainment of Asian American youth, but not all. In fact, several researchers have

found that parental education usually does not explain any of the variation in grades

within the Asian American population (Caplan et al. 1991, Kao 1995). In addi-

tion, there is considerable heterogeneity among Asian American ethnic groups

b




16/28

432 KAO THOMPSON

(Kao 1995, Blair & Qian 1998). For instance, Kao (1995), using data from the

National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), found that 81% of all

South Asian youth had at least one parent with a college degree. In contrast, only

20% of Southeast Asian youth had at least one parent with a college degree. (Thepercentage of white youth with one college-educated parent was 35%.)

What gets missed when we use the large panethnic labels such as Asian and

Hispanic is the great diversity of social class differences by immigrant groups. This

difference is crucial as the vast majority of Asian American as well as a substantial

portion of Hispanic parents are foreign born. So, whereas many Asian immigrants

arrive in the United States with high levels of educational attainment and job skills,

some Asian ethnic groups are extremely disadvantaged. For instance, only 25.5%

of Mexican immigrants aged 25 and over in 1990 had a high school diploma, and

only 3.5% had a college degree. These figures stand in stark contrast to those ofAsian ethnic groups64.9% of Indian immigrants aged 25 and over graduated

from college, and 87.2% graduated from high school; 62.2% of Taiwanese immi-

grants graduated from college, and 91.6% graduated from high school; 43% of

Filipinos graduated from college, and 82.% graduated from high school; 34.4% of

Koreans graduated from college, and 80.1% graduated from high school, and so

forth (figures from table 4 in Portes & Rumbaut 1996).

Although there is some rationale for the broad characterization of Asian Amer-

icans as a model minority group, it is misleading and damaging to ethnic groups

that are extremely disadvantaged but happen to be classified under the rubric ofAsian Americans. The term itself implies that minorities cannot have any posi-

tive characteristics but that the model minority should be used as an example to

all other minorities. Moreover, it suggests that the United States provides equal

opportunities for all, because some minority groups have made it. For example,

only 35% of Cambodian foreign-born adults (aged 25 or over) have a high school

diploma, and only 5% have a 4-year college degree; similarly, 37% of foreign-born

Laotians have a high school diploma, and only 4.6% have a 4-year college degree

(figures from Table 4 in Portes & Rumbaut 1996).

BeyondParental SocioeconomicStatus

More recently, researchers have taken parental SES effects on academic achieve-

ment as a given, and have added more complex measures of changing SES over

time (Roscigno 1998, 2000). What motivates current debates is how to describe

the remaining racial and ethnic variation in academic outcomes net of these ef-

fects. Some researchers rely on other structural characteristics such as the quality

of schools, peers, and neighbors; these characteristics, although correlated with

parental SES, vary by ethnic group membership. In fact, some of the later statusattainment researchers examined these differences. Alwin & Otto (1977) examined

school SES and school ability levels and found that they did not affect college plans

and occupational aspirations but that they may affect other intervening characteris-

tics, such as curriculum placement of students and the college plans of their peers.

b




17/28


While a discussion of these studies is beyond the scope of this review, the average

effects of school quality of individual performance is rather modest (Thornton &

Eckland 1980, Hoffer et al. 1985, Keith & Page 1985, Bryk et al. 1993, Arum

2000).Other studies look toward social capital of particular ethnic groups. For instance,

Caplan and his colleagues (1991) argued that the high academic performance of

Southeast Asian children from refugee families has to do with children tutoring

each other on their homework. This was an effective way for older siblings to

review school materials and for younger children to learn. Others have argued that

perhaps the advantage of some Asian American groups comes from group-specific

social capital, such as policing by other same-ethnic parents, which may prevent

delinquent behavior (see Zhou & Bankston 1998). Similarly, one could argue that

some Asian American groups (Chinese and Koreans, in particular) are advantagedfrom the many cram schools that offer advanced after-school training, or that

South Asian youth are advantaged from their parental networks of mostly upper-

middle-class friends. This is an important area that warrants further research.

Finally, most of the understanding of the academic success of Asian Americans

points to their positive cultural beliefs about the benefits of education. Although

cultural deprivation models are out of favor among social scientists in explaining

the lower performance of blacks, cultural models are popular for explaining the

relatively higher performance of Asians (see Spencer 1990, Spencer et al. 1991,

Caplan et al. 1991). Caplan and associates (1991) argue that Southeast Asians havea cultural understanding that prioritizes self-reliance and achievement. Fuligni

(1997, 1998) found that immigrant youth (including Asians) were more likely to

believe in education. Schneider & Lee (1990) argued that Asian youth felt a greater

obligation to their immigrant parents and believed that it was their responsibility

to the family to do well in school. Sue & Okazaki (1990) cite a number of studies

that found Asian Americans to be more likely than whites to believe in the value

of education for future socioeconomic mobility. Sue & Okazaki (1990) argued

that anticipated discrimination leads Asian Americans to overperform in school.

Interestingly, Ogbu (1991) argued that anticipated discrimination causes blacks towithdraw from academic activities.

Despite the lower academic performance of Hispanics and their disadvantaged

parental SES characteristics, they share some commonalities with Asian Ameri-

cans. Valenzuela & Dornbusch (1994) argued that familism, or the valuation of

close ties to family members, is an important form of social capital and was asso-

ciated with higher academic achievement. Although it is outside the scope of this

paper, there is a growing literature that argues that newer immigrant groups perform

better in school because they are more likely to respect authority (Suarez-Orozco

& Suarez-Orozco 1995), see their lives in the United States as an opportunityfor advancement, and come from families that are optimistic about their eventual

attainment (Kao & Tienda 1995; see Zhou 1997 for an excellent review). Suarez-

Orozco & Suarez-Orozco (1995) take their clue from McClellands studies of the

achievement motivation and find that Mexican American youth born in Mexico

b




18/28

434 KAO THOMPSON

have higher achievement motivations than their native-born Mexican American or

white counterparts.

Perhaps the most influential theorist of minority school performance is anthro-

pologist Ogbu (1974, 1991). He has argued that African American youth developan oppositional identity relative to whites. In other words, because the group iden-

tity of blacks focuses on their collective experiences of discrimination, they define

themselves in opposition to the dominant group (whites). Thus, they develop dis-

tinct cultural and language norms to maintain their group identity (Gibson & Ogbu

1991). Their parents past experiences with discrimination makes them distrust the

dominant society, and makes them less likely to believe that schooling leads to

socioeconomic mobility. Elsewhere, Fordham & Ogbu (1986) argued that notions

of acting black and acting white become identified in opposition to one an-

other. Hence, because acting white includes doing well in school, acting blacknecessarily implies not doing well in school (Fordham & Ogbu 1986).

Another line of rationale, most notably posed by psychologist Steele (1997,

Steele & Aronson 1995), is that stereotypes can shape how minorities perform in

testing situations. For instance, he argues that in areas where groups are negatively

stereotyped, the threat of that stereotype can dampen their test performance. Under

experimental conditions where the stereotype is removed, these groups perform

better than under the threat of negative stereotypes (Steele & Aronson 1995, Steele

1997). Most of the empirical work has been conducted on blacks versus whites or

women versus men in various experimental conditions.Recent attention to other minority groups has complicated these theoretical

explanations. Gibson & Ogbu (1991) published a volume that examined ethnic

differences in academic performance in comparative contexts, which led Ogbu

to revise his theoretical model. Although blacks and some Hispanic groups fit

his notion of involuntary minorities whose past experiences with discrimination

makes them dubious of the fact that education leads to socioeconomic mobility

for them, most Asian groups fit his notion of voluntary minorities who migrated

to the United States (or other locales) by choice and are more likely to compare

their current positions to their peers in their home country. Voluntary minoritiesare more likely to believe that they will be rewarded for their investments in ed-

ucation. Although this typology is seductive, it leads to considerable confusion

given the growing diversity of immigrants to the United States The confusion was

even apparent in Ogbus own book (Gibson & Ogbu 1991), which at times treated

refugees as voluntary migrants and at other times as involuntary migrants. Simi-

larly, in direct opposition to Ogbus argument, many others have found that black

youth have extremely high educational aspirations (Hauser & Anderson 1991, Kao

& Tienda 1998, Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey 1998). Mickelson (1990) argued

that black youth may have abstract attitudes that are congruent with achievementbut that their concrete attitudes regarding whether educational success will bring

them socioeconomic mobility match more closely with Ogbus notion of an op-

positional identity. She argues that although blacks are just as likely as whites

to have positive abstract attitudes toward schooling, they are less likely to have

b




19/28


positive concrete attitudes, which explains their lower achievement scores. Her

study, however, does not resolve the issue of causalityit may be that lower-

achieving youth are more likely to hold negative concrete attitudes about school-

ing and not vice versa. More recently, Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey (1998) usedNELS to examine the key elements of Ogbus oppositional culture explanation and

found that empirical analyses did not support Ogbus theory.

Whereas Ogbu focuses on the mode of entry for immigrant groups, others have

focused on the communities to which immigrants move. More recently, Portes,

Zhou, and Rumbaut (Portes & Zhou 1993, Portes & Rumbaut 1996, Zhou 1997,

Zhou & Bankston 1998) have argued for the concept of segmented assimilation in

understanding differential outcomes of immigrant groups. They argue that because

immigrants attempt to assimilate into their local communities, what assimilation

means for immigrants varies a great deal. If the local majority population areinner-city African Americans, as was the case for Zhou & Bankstons (1998) study

of Vietnamese American youth, then assimilation had a very negative implication

to the educational and delinquent outcomes of youth. In contrast, if immigrants

hope to assimilate to a high-SES suburban community, then that desire should lead

to positive educational outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there are many signs of optimism. Racial and ethnic gaps in educationalachievement and attainment have narrowed over the past 3 decades by every mea-

sure available to social scientists. Educational aspirations are universally high for

all racial and ethnic groups (Hauser & Anderson 1991, Kao & Tienda 1998, Goyette

& Xie 1999) as most adolescents expect to go to college. However, substantial gaps

remain, especially between less-advantaged groups such as African Americans,

Hispanics, and Native Americans and more advantaged groups such as whites and

Asian Americans. The racial and ethnic hierarchy in educational achievement is

apparent across varying measures of the academic experience.

However, there is less consistency in what factors account for racial, ethnic,and immigrant differences in achievement and attainment (Gottfredson 1981).

There is some evidence that whereas racial and ethnic gaps at the lowest levels

have improved, some racial and ethnic patterns are more apparent at the highest

levels of achievement. For instance, although black and Hispanic students are more

likely to attend college than ever before, they are more likely than whites or Asians

to attend a community college than a 4-year institution. Even among those who

attend a 4-year college, they are more likely to attend less-prestigious institutions

than whites or Asians (although this difference disappears for Hispanics once

background characteristics are taken into account) (Karen 2002).The broad racial comparisons obscure considerable heterogeneity within the

panethnic groups. High-achieving Asian American groups, such as South Asians,

Chinese, and Koreans outperform whites on a number of measures, but

low-achieving Asian American groups, such as Cambodians and Laotians, have

b




20/28

436 KAO THOMPSON

outcomes comparable to African Americans. Similarly, Hispanics, Cubans, and

to a slightly less extent South and Central Americans have much higher educa-

tional outcomes than Mexicans. Immigrants add to the complexity of the minority

population of the United States, contributing youth from both high- and low-SESbackgrounds. Some evidence suggests that immigrant children outperform their

same-ethnic counterparts with comparable parental backgrounds (Rumbaut 1990;

Gibson & Ogbu 1991; Kao & Tienda 1995; Suarez-Orozco 1989; Zhou 1997; R.G.

Rumbaut, unpublished manuscript; Goyette & Xie 1999). However, others find that

immigrant children have poorer school outcomes than their native-born counter-

parts (of native-born parents) (White & Kaufman 1997). In terms of absolute levels

of achievement, recent immigrants often lag behind native-born minorities in their

educational attainment.

Given the greater cultural heterogeneity of students in the United States, re-searchers need to consider that a single model of achievement may not suffice

(see Cooper 1990). Immigrant and minority families may work differently in

translating aspirations into achievement and attainment. Although parental SES

accounts for a substantial portion of the racial and ethnic gaps in achievement and

attainment, there is clearly a place for explanations that do not rely solely on social

class. Finally, researchers might consider how immigrants and minority families

and youth contribute to our knowledge of how individuals succeed in light of great

obstacles. Most of our studies consider minority and immigrant status as liabilities

to overcome, but it is likely that there are benefits to minority and immigrant groupmembership.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge support from the Spencer Foundation through a

Spencer Small Grant awarded to the principal author. We thank Kim Goyette and

Emily Hannum for their helpful comments.

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org

LITERATURECITED

Ainsworth-Darnell JM, Downey DB. 1998. As-

sessing the oppositional culture explanation

for racial/ethnic differences in school perfor-

mance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:53653

Alexander KL, Cook MA. 1979. The motiva-

tional relevance of educational plans: ques-

tioning the conventional wisdom. Soc. Psy-

chol. Q. 42:20213

Alexander KL, Cook MA. 1982. Curricula and

coursework: a surprise ending to a familiar

story. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:62640

Alexander KL, Cook MA, McDill EL. 1978.

Curriculum tracking and educational strati-

fication: some further evidence. Am. Sociol.

Rev. 43:4766

Alexander KL, McDill EL. 1976. Selection and

allocation within schools: some causes and

consequence of curriculum placement. Am.

Sociol. Rev. 41:4766

Alexander KL, Pallas AM, Holupka S. 1987.

Consistency and change in educational strat-

ification: recent trends regarding social

b




21/28


background and college access. In Research

in Social Stratification and Mobility, ed. RV

Robinson, pp. 16185. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Alwin DF, Otto LB. 1977. High school context

effects on aspirations. Sociol. Educ. 50:259

73

Ansalone G. 2001. Schooling, tracking, and in-

equality. J. Child. Poverty 7:3347

Arum R. 2000. Schools and communities: eco-

logical and institutional dimensions. Annu.

Rev. Sociol. 26:395418

Astone NM, McLanahan SS. 1991. Family

structure, parental practices and high school

completion. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:30920Baker DP, Stevenson DL. 1986. Mothers

strategies for childrens school achievement:

managing the transition to high school. So-

ciol. Educ. 59:15666

Baker TL, Velez W. 1996. Access to and op-

portunity in postsecondary education in the

United States: a review. Sociol. Educ. 69:82

101

Bankston CL III, Caldas SJ. 1998. Family

structure, schoolmates, and racial inequali-ties in school achievement.J. Marriage Fam.

60:71523

Blair SL, Qian Z. 1998. Family and Asian stu-

dents educational performance: a consider-

ation of diversity.J. Family Issues 19:35574

Braddock JH. 1990. Tracking: Implications for

Student Race-Ethnic Subgroups. Tech. Rep.

No. 1, Cent. Res. Eff. Sch. Disadv. Stud., Bal-

timore, MD

Brint S, Karabel J. 1989. The Diverted Dream:Community College and the Promise of Edu-

cational Opportunity in America. New York:

Oxford Univ. Press

Bryk AS, Lee VE, Holland PB. 1993. Catholic

Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Camburn EM. 1990. College completion

among students from high schools located

in large metropolitan areas. Am. J. Educ.

98:55169

Campbell RT. 1983. Status attainment research:

end of the beginning or beginning of the end?

Sociol. Educ. 56:4762

Caplan N, Choy MH, Whitmore JK. 1991. Chil-

dren of the Boat People: A Study of Educa-

tional Success. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press

Coleman JS. 1961. The Adolescent Society: The

Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on

Education. New York: Free Press

Cooper AM. 1990. Fallacy of a single model for

school achievement: considerations for eth-

nicity. Sociol. Perspect. 33:15984

Corsaro WA, Eder D. 1990. Childrens peer cul-

tures. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 16:197220

DiMaggio P. 1982. Cultural capital and school

success: the impact of status culture partici-

pation on the grades of U.S. high school stu-

dents. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:189201Donato R, Menchaca M, Valencia RR. 1991.

Segregation, desegregation, and integration

of Chicano students:problems and prospects.

In Chicano School Failure and Success: Re-

search and Policy Agendas for the 1990s,

ed. RR Valencia, pp. 2763. London: Falmer

Press

Donovan R. 1984. Path analysis of a theoreti-

cal model of persistence in higher education

among low-income black youth. Res. High.Educ. 21:24352

Dornbusch SM. 1989. The sociology of adoles-

cence. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 15:23359

Dougherty KJ. 1994. The Contradictory Col-

lege: The Conflicting Origins, Impacts and

Futures of the Community College. Albany:

State Univ. NY Press

Dreeben R, Gamoran A. 1986. Race, instruc-

tion, and learning. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:660

69Duncan GJ. 1994. Families and neighbors as

sources of disadvantage in the schooling de-

cisions of white and black adolescents. Am.

J. Educ. 103:2053

Eder D, Felmiee D. 1984. The development of

attention norms in ability groups. In The So-

cial Context of Instruction: Group Organi-

zation and Group Processes, ed. L Peterson,

LC Wilkinson, MT Hallinan, pp. 189208.

New York: Academic Press

Ekstrom RB, Goertz ME, Rock DA. 1988. Ed-

ucation and American Youth. Philadelphia:

Falmer Press

Entwisle DR, Alexander KL. 1993. Entry into

b




22/28

438 KAO THOMPSON

school: the beginning school transition and

educational stratification in the United States.

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 19:40123

Epps EG. 1995. Race, class, and educational

opportunity: trends in the sociology of edu-

cation. Sociol. Forum. 10(4):593608

Farkas G, Grobe RP, Sheehan D, Shuan Y.

1990. Cultural resources and school success:

gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within

an urban school district. Am. Sociol. Rev.

55:12742

Fehrman P, Keith TZ, Reimers TM. 1987.

Home influence on school learning: direct

and indirect effects of parental involve-ment on high school grades. J. Educ. Res.

80(6):33037

Fernandez RM, Nielsen F. 1986. Bilingualism

and Hispanic scholastic achievement: some

baseline results. Soc. Sci. Res. 15:4370

Fligstein N, Fernandez RM. 1985. Educa-

tional transitions of whites and Mexican-

Americans. In Hispanics in the U.S. Econ-

omy, ed. GJ Borjas, M Tienda, pp. 161192.

Orlando: AcademicFordham S, Ogbu JU. 1986. Black students

school success: coping with the burden of

acting white. Urban Rev. 18:176206

Fuligni AJ. 1997. The academic achievement

of adolescents from immigrant families: the

roles of family background, attitudes, and be-

havior. Child Dev. 68:35163

Fuligni AJ. 1998. Adolescents from immigrant

families. In Studying Minority Adolescents:

Conceptual, Methodological, and Theoreti-cal Issues, ed. VC McLoyd, L Steinberg, pp.

12743. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum

Gamoran A. 1987. The stratification of high

school learning opportunities. Sociol. Educ.

60:13555

Garibaldi AM. 1998. Four decades of pro-

cess . . . anddecline: an assessment of African

American educational attainment. J. Negro

Educ. 66(2):10520

Gibson MA, Ogbu JU. 1991. Minority Sta-

tus and Schooling: A Comparative Study of

Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities. New

York: Garland

Gottfredson DC. 1981. Black-white differences

in the educational attainment process: what

have we learned?Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:54257

Goyette K, Xie Y. 1999. Educational expec-

tations of Asian American youths: determi-

nants and ethnic differences. Sociol. Educ.

72:2236

Guo G. 1998. The timing of the influences of

cumulative poverty on childrens cognitive

ability and achievement. Soc. Forces 77:257

88

Hallinan MT. 1988. Equality of educational op-

portunity. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:24968

Hallinan MT. 1994. Tracking: from theory to

practice. Sociol. Educ. 67(2):7984Hallinan MT, Williams RA. 1990. Students

characteristics and the peer-influence pro-

cess. Sociol. Educ. 63:12232

Hanson SL. 1994. Lost talent: unrealized edu-

cational aspirations and expectations among

U.S. youths. Sociol. Educ. 67(3):15983

Hanson SL. 1996. Lost Talent: Women in the

Sciences. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press

Hauser RM. 1992. The decline in college en-

try among African-Americans: findings insearch of an explanation. In Prejudice, Poli-

tics, and Race in America Today, eds. P Sni-

derman, P Tetlock, E Carmines, pp. 271306.

Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press

Hauser RM, Anderson DK. 1991. Post-high

school plans and aspirations of black and

white high school seniors: 197686. Sociol.

Educ. 64:26377

Hauser RM, Featherman DL. 1976. Equality

of schooling: trends and prospects. Sociol.Educ. 49:99120

Hearn JC. 1991. Academic and nonacademic

influences on the college destinationsof 1980

high school graduates. Sociol. Educ. 64:158

71

Herrnstein RJ, Murray C. 1994. The Bell Curve:

Intelligence and Class Structure in American

Life. New York: Free Press

Heyns B. 1974. Social selection and strat-

ification within schools. Am. J. Sociol.

79(6):143451

Hoffer T, Greeley AM, Coleman JS. 1985.

Achievement growth in public and Catholic

schools. Sociol. Educ. 58:7497

b




23/28


24/28

440 KAO THOMPSON

Miller LS. 1995. An American Imperative: Ac-

celerating Minority Educational Advance-

ment. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press

Mouw T, Xie Y. 1999. Bilingualism and the

academic achievement of first- and second-

generation Asian Americans: accommoda-

tion with or without assimilation? Am. So-

ciol. Rev. 64:23252

Murnane RJ, Maynard RA, Ohls JC. 1980.

Home resources and childrens achievement.

Rev. Econ. Stat. 63(3):36976

Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat. 1997.Digest of Educaion

Statistics. U.S. Dep. Educ.: Off. Educ. Res.

Improv.Oakes J. 1983. Limiting opportunity: student

race and curricular differences in secondary

vocational education. Am. J. Educ. 91:801

20

Oakes J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools

Structure Inequality. New Haven: Yale Univ.

Press

Oakes J. 1990. Multiplying Inequalities: The

Effects of Race, Social Class, and Ability

Grouping on Opportunities to Learn Mathe-matics and Science. Santa Monica: RAND

Oakes J, Gamoran A, Page RN. 1992. Curricu-

lum differentiation: opportunities, outcomes,

and meanings. In Handbook on Research

in Curriculum, ed. P Jackson, pp. 570608.

New York: Macillan.

Oakes J, Guiton G. 1995. Matchmaking: the

dynamics of high school tracking decisions.

Am. Educ. Research J. 32:333

Ogbu JU. 1974. The Next Generation; anEthnography of Education in an Urban

Neighborhood. New York: Academic

Ogbu JU. 1991. Immigrant and involuntary mi-

norities in comparative perspective. In Mi-

nority Status and Schooling, ed. MA Gibson,

JU Ogbu, pp. 333. New York: Garland

Orfield G, Eaton SE, Jones ER. 1996. Disman-

tling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of

Brown v. Board of Education. New York:

New Press

Peng S. 1988.Attainment status of Asian Amer-

icans in higher education. Paper presented at

Natl. Assoc. Asian Pacific Am. Educ. Con-

fer., Denver, Colo.

Portes A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and

application in modern sociology. Annu. Rev.

Sociol. 24(1)124

Portes A, Rumbaut R. 1996. Immigrant Amer-

ica: A Portrait. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

Press

Portes A, Zhou M. 1993. The new second gen-

eration: segmented assimilation and its vari-

ants. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 530:74

96

Rong XL, Grant L. 1992. Ethnicity, generation,

and school attainment of Asians, Hispanics,

and non-Hispanic whites. Sociol. Q. 33:625

36Roscigno VJ. 1998. Race and reproduction

of educational disadvantage. Soc. Forces.

76:103360

Roscigno VJ. 2000. Family/school inequal-

ity and African-American/Hispanic achieve-

ment. Soc. Problems 47(2):26690

Rosen BC. 1959. Race, ethnicity, and the

achievement syndrome. Am. Sociol. Rev.

24:4760

Rosenbaum JE. 1976. Making Inequality: TheHidden Curriculum of High School Tracking.

New York: Wiley

Rumbaut RG. 1990. Immigrant students in Cal-

ifornia public schools: a summary of current

knowledge. Center Res. Effective Sch. Dis-

adv. Stud. Rep. Assoc. Pap. Am. Sociol. As-

soc. 11:130

Rumberger RW. 1982. Recent high school

and college experiences of youth: variations

by race, sex, and social class. Youth Soc.13(4):44970

Rumberger RW. 1995. Dropping out of middle

school: a multilevel analysis of students and

schools. Am. Educ. Res. J. 32:583625

Schneider B, Stevenson D. 1999. The Ambi-

tious Generation: Americas Teenagers, Mo-

tivated but Directionless. New Haven: Yale

Univ. Press

Schneider B, Lee Y. 1990. A model for aca-

demic success: the school and home envi-

ronment of East Asian students. Anthropol.

Educ. Q. 21:35877

Sewell WH, Haller AO, Ohlendrof GW. 1970.

The educational and early occupational

b




25/28


attainment process: replication and revision.

Am. Sociol. Rev. 35:101427

Sewell WH, Haller AO, Portes A. 1969. The ed-

ucational and early occupational attainment

process. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34:8292

Sewell WH, Shah VP. 1968. Social class,

parental encouragement, and educational as-

pirations. Am. J. Sociol. 73:55972

Slavin RE, Braddock JH III. 1993. Ability

grouping: on the wrong track. Coll. Board

Rev. 168:1117

Sorenson AB, Hallinan MT. 1986. Effects

of ability grouping on growth in academic

achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 23:51942

Spencer MB. 1990. Development of minority

children: an introduction. Child Dev. 61:267

69

Spencer MB, Swanson DP, Cunningham MC.

1991. Ethnicity, ethnic identity, and compe-

tence formation: adolescent transition and

cultural transformation. J. Negro Educ. 60:

36787

Steele CM. 1997. A threat in the air: how stereo-types shape intellectual identity and perfor-

mance. Am. Psychol. 52:61329

Steele CM, Aronson J. 1995. Stereotype threat

and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans.J. Psychol. Soc. Psychol.

69:797811

Steinberg S. 1989. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Eth-

nicity, and Class in America. Boston: Beacon

Stevenson DL, Schiller KS, Schneider B. 1994.

Sequences of opportunities for learning. So-ciol. Educ. 67:18498

Suarez-Orozco MM. 1989. Central Amer-

ican Refugees and U.S. High Schools:

A Psychosocial Study of Motivation and

Achievement. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.

Press

Suarez-Orozco C, Suarez-Orozco MM. 1995.

Transformations: Immigration, Family Life,

and Achievement Motivation Among Latino

Adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.

Press

Suarez-Orozco C, Suarez-Orozco MM. 2001.

Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Univ. Press

Sue S, Okazaki S. 1990. Asian-American

educational achievements: a phenomenon

in search of an explanation. Am. Psychol.

45:91320

Teachman JD, Paasch K, Carver K. 1996. So-

cial capital and dropping out of school early.

J. Marriage Fam. 58:77383

Thomas GE, Alexander KL, Eckland BK. 1979.

Access to higher education: the importance

of race, sex, social class, and academic cre-

dentials. School Rev. 87:13356

Thornton CH, Eckland B. 1980. High school

contextual effects for black and white stu-

dents: a research note. Sociol. Educ. 53:24752

US Census Bureau. 2000. http://www.census.

gov/population/www/projections/popproj.

html

US Dep. Educ. 1994. The Condition of Edu-

cation. Washington, DC: Natl. Cent. Educ.

Stat.

US Dep. Educ. 1995. Findings from the Con-

dition of Education 1994: The Educational

Progress of Black Students. No. 2. Washing-ton, DC: Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat., Off. Educ.

Res. Improv.

Valenzuela A, Dornbusch S. 1994. Familism

and social capital in the academic achieve-

ment of Mexican origin and Anglo adoles-

cents. Soc. Science Q. 75:1836

Velez W. 1985. Finishing college: the ef-

fects of college type. Sociol. Educ. 58:191

200

Velez W. 1989. High school attrition amongHispanic and non-Hispanic white youths. So-


Warren JR. 1996. Educational inequality

among white and Mexican-origin adoles-

cents in the American Southwest: 1990. So-


Weber M. 1976. The Protestant Ethic and the

Spirit of Capitalism. Transl. T Parsons. New

York: Scribners

White MJ, Glick J. 2000. Generation, social

captial and the routes out of high school. So-

ciol. Forum. 15(4):67191

White MJ, Kaufmann G. 1997. Language

usage, social capital, and school completion

b




26/28

442 KAO THOMPSON

among immigrants and native born ethnic

groups. Soc. Science Q. 78:38598

Willis P. 1977. Learning to Labor: How Work-

ing Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New

York: Columbia Univ. Press

Wilson WJ. 1980. The Declining Signifi-

cance of Race: Blacks and Changing Amer-

ican Institutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

Press

Wojtkiewicz RA. 1993. Duration in parental

structures and high school graduation. So-

ciol. Perspect. 36:393414

Zhou M. 1997. Growing up American: the chal-

lenge confronting immigrant children and

children of immigrants. Annu. Rev. Sociol.

23:6395

Zhou M

Documents

Kao EducAttARS