lllllllllllllll’l‘llllllll illllllilll

3 1293 01050 0019

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A CRITIQUE OF JOHN OGBU'S MINORITY TYPOLOGY
presented by
Shelley'L- Brown

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree inSoQiologL

 

AMQM" Z 59“ a
Major professor

Date Jam—1.044336.

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

me: u RETURN sex to roman this chockoui from your mom.

TO AVOID FINES mum on or Moro dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAn Minn-tin Action/Equal Opportunity Ira-titular.
W

m1

A CRITIQUE or JOHN OGBU’S MINORITY TYPOLOGY
By

Shelley L. Brown

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1996

ABSTRACT
A CRITIQUE OF JOHN OGBU’S MINORITY TYPOLOGY
By

Shelley L. Brown

Although credited for providing a more in-depth understanding of the
historical circumstances and complex processes affecting minority student
performance and immigrant adaption, John Ogbu’s minority typology is
criticized for underestimating the diversifying effect of class on the lives of
people of color in the United States. Using data from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study, this paper attempts to expand Ogbu’s theory
by examining the role that socioeconomic class plays in shaping aspirations,
influencing success strategies, and predicting academic outcomes among
minority populations. However, findings suggest that, although positive
relationships do exist between socioeconomic class and each of these three

variables, Ogbu’s minority typology remains a better predictor.

To my mother and father, Albert and Delores Brown, for their unconditional
love and support.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... vii

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 1

OGBU’S PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................... 2
The Role of Institutionalized Discrimination .......................................... 2
Immigrant Minorities .............................................................................. 4
Involuntary Minorities ............................................................................. 5
Adaptive Responses .................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ....................................................................... 9
Cultural Deficiency .................................................................................. 9
Structural Theories ................................................................................. 10
Expanding the Idea of Innovation ......................................................... 14
Applying the Theories ............................................................................ 15

CHAPTER 3

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 4

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ............................................................. 21

CHAPTER 5

OPERATIONALIZATION OF TERMS ........................................................... 22
Socioeconomic Class .............................................................................. 22
Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................ 23

iv

Constructive and Deconstructive Innovation ........................................ 23

Academic Outcomes ............................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF DATA ...................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 31
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 35
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Correlation Matrix: Socioeconomic Class and Self-Efficacy ............. 38

Table 2 - Correlation Matrix: Socioeconomic Class and Innovative Response
Type ................................................................................................... 39

Table 3 - Correlation Matrix: Socioeconomic Class and Academic Outcome. 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l - Ogbu’s Theoretical Model .................................................................. 3
Figure 2 - Merton’s Theory of Structural Strain .............................................. 11
Figure 3 - Proposed Theoretical Model ............................................................ 20

INTRODUCTION

Education is a valuable asset in today’s high-tech, global economy. It
plays a crucial role in offering opportunities for individual mobility while at the
same time legitimating structural inequalities. Consequently, it is important to
develop and maintain strategies that allow all students to maximize their
educational potential and to identify social and economic circumstances that
perpetuate existing disparities by encouraging academic success or failure. If
armed with such information, educators and policy makers might be better
able to understand and, as a result, better able to address the needs of the
many diverse populations that they serve. Emphasizing structural as opposed
to cultural explanations for significant differences in the academic performance
of immigrant versus involuntary minority groups, this study attempts to
provide a more in-depth understanding by comparing the effect of mode of
incorporation and economic class on aspirations, success strategies, and

educational achievement.

Chapter 1

OGBU’S PERSPECTIVE

The Role of Institutionalized Discrimination:

Ogbu faults structural inequality in both the economic and educational
systems for contributing to many problems that minority students face in
school (see Figure 1 on the following page). According to Ogbu (19785),
there is a reciprocal relationship between the opportunities open to a group in
American society and the pattern of linguistic, cognitive, motivational, and
other school-related skills they develop. By not allowing minorities entry into
the labor force and advancement according to their educational qualifications
and ability and by denying them adequate rewards for their education in terms
of wages, American society discourages minority youth from investing time and
effort into the pursuit of education and maximization of their educational
accomplishments (Ogbu, 1987:318). Because schools operate according to the
norms of American society and according to the norms of the communities in
which they exist, Ogbu (1987:319) suggests that they also contribute to the
academic problems of minority children, intentionally or unintentionally, by
denigrating minorities and their culture.

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure l Ogbu’s Theoretical Model
Source: Ogbu, 1983

 

4

However, Gibson and Ogbu (1991 :8) claim that there are two historical
forces which shape the different cultural models of minority groups who are
relatively successful or unsuccessful in school. One is the group’s initial terms
of incorporation into the society in which they presently exist; and the other is
the pattern of adaptive responses that the group has made subsequent to
discriminatory treatment inflicted by members of the dominant group.
Immigrant Minorities:

Immigrant minorities are groups who move to the United States more or
less voluntarily in search of increased economic opportunity, better overall
well-being, and/or greater political freedom. Within the United States, the
Chinese, Cubans, Filipinos, Japanese, and Koreans constitute immigrant
minorities (Ogbu, 1978, 1983, and 1987). Because they retain the sense of
peoplehood they had prior to emigration, immigrant minorities are
characterized by what Ogbu (1978 and 1987) calls “primary cultural systems”.
Comparing their current conditions of existence in the host society with the
standard endured by peers “back home”, immigrant minorities develop
favorable perceptions of the opportunity structure in the United States,
viewing discrimination as a temporary response to their “guest” status,
linguistic accents, or lack of an American education. Consequently, immigrant

minorities view education as the avenue to economic success and upward

mobility.
Involuntary Minorities:

Involuntary minorities are groups brought into their present society
through slavery, conquest, or colonization. Within the United States, African
Americans, Native Americans, Hawaiians, and Alaskans, Puerto Ricans, and
Mexican Americans constitute involuntary minorities (Ogbu, 1978, 1983, and
1987). Because their original cultural identity is destroyed and/or degraded
during the incorporation process, Ogbu (1978, 1983, and 1987) says that
involuntary minorities are characterized by “secondary cultural systems” under
which they create a new cultural identity in response to the unjust treatment
inflicted upon them by members of dominant group. Through historical
experience, involuntary groups learn that discrimination is permanent and
institutionalized. By comparing their status with that of members of the
dominant group, involuntary minorities also realize that the rules for
advancement do not work as well for them as they do for members of the
dominant group. Involuntary minorities discover that it requires more than
education, individual effort, and hard work to overcome the barriers against

them in the opportunity structure.

Adaptive Responses:

Unlike involuntary minorities, immigrant minorities do not view
cultural differences between themselves and the dominant group as markers of
identity to be maintained. Instead, Ogbu (1987) and Gibson and Ogbu
(1991) find that within immigrant communities cultural differences are seen as
barriers to be overcome in order to achieve long range goals of future
employment. Because they employ an “additive” method of cultural adaption,
immigrant minorities do not interpret the incorporation of dominant cultural
features as threatening to their own culture, language, or identity but as a
necessary requirement for social adjustment and successful academic
performance.

Through gossip and related techniques, immigrant parents and
communities promote good work habits and perseverance, communicating to
children nonambivalent, instrumental messages about education.
Consequently, immigrant children develop and maintain serious academic
attitudes, value making good grades, follow school rules and standard practices,
and invest a good deal of time and effort in their schoolwork They often
select courses requiring less use of language and avoid fields of study that
prepare them for jobs where there is a job ceiling or discrimination against

their group.

7

Involuntary minorities, on the other hand, practice “cultural inversion”
as an adaptive response to oppression (Ogbu, 1978, 1983, and 1987; Gibson
and Ogbu, 1991). Through the process of cultural inversion, involuntary
minorities define certain forms of behavior, events, symbols, and meanings as
inappropriate for them, because they are identified with members of the
dominant group and regard other, often oppositional, forms of behavior,
events, symbols, and meanings as appropriate for them, because they are not
associated with the dominant group. As a result of this oppositional or
“subtractive” method of cultural adaption, involuntary minorities do not
interpret the acquisition of academic learning and skills associated with the
dominant culture as an additional set of skills to be drawn upon when
appropriate but rather as an indication of subservience.

Among the adaptive strategies employed by involuntary minority
parents and communities are passive confrontation with the schools; verbal
encouragement but nonteaching involvement with children’s education; a weak
control of children’s use of time; a weak socialization of children to develop
good academic work habits and perseverance at academic tasks; and a weak
sanction of academic instrumental behavior and academic responsibility. As a
consequence, involuntary minority youth do not develop or maintain good

academic work habits and attitudes. Instead, they tend to have a norm of

8

minimum effort, spend limited time on academic tasks, and avoid taking
difficult or “White” courses. According to Ogbu (1987), involuntary minority
youth tend to be satisfied with average grades and submit easily to peer
pressures that take them away from their schoolwork. They resist following
school rules and standard practices and distrust school authorities with whom
they are frequently in conflict.

Plagued by truancy, delinquency, and high drop-out rates, involuntary
minority youth often change the rules for economic advancement (Ogbu,
1978). Having rejected the educational expectations of both the schools and
the society, many young people in this group direct their time and energy into
nonacademic, less socially acceptable areas as a means of getting ahead. The

street economy is one popular alternative.

Chapter 2

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Ogbu’s minority typology is based upon two general theoretical models,
the first focuses upon cultural deficiency, and the second centers on structural
opportunity.

Cultural Deficiency:

Like many deficiency theorists (see Blauner, 1972; Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck, 1961; Moynihan, 1965; Solomon, 1988; Sowell, 1981), Ogbu’s
explanations for racial subordination often focus on pathological cultural
characteristics thought to be inherited from the past and reproduced from one
generation to the next. Because cultural differences between immigrant and
involuntary minorities are treated as cultural deficiencies and assumed to be
the reason that involuntary minorities are disproportionately found in
subordinate positions, Ogbu and others sharing this perspective seem to
criticize less successful groups for not modeling the behavior of immigrant

minorities. Arguing that the attitudes and values held by members of

10

involuntary minority groups often prevent them from successfully competing in
society, cultural deficiency theorists claim that involuntary minority
communities adopt cultural identities that are characterized by complex webs
of deviant behavioral patterns. Consequently, involuntary minorities are
judged to be more permissive in raising their children, less verbal, more
fatalistic, less apt to defer gratification, and less likely to be interested in formal
education than members of immigrant minority groups. Unlike many
deficiency theorists, Ogbu points out that many of these practices are
adaptations to oppressive structural conditions.

Structural Theories:

Arguing that racism is an institutionalized component of all major
sectors of society, structural theorists (see Carrier, 1986; Cloward, 1968;
Oakes, 1985; Persell and Cookson, 1990; Woodson, 1992) claim that the
criminal justice, economic, health care, and/or formal educational systems
interact to regulate members of minority groups to subordinate positions
within the social and economic power structure where the opportunities left
open to them are drastically limited. Focusing on the response patterns
adopted by minority group members in reaction to limited opportunity, the
theory on which Ogbu’s minority typology is most closely based is Merton’s

(1968) theory of structural strain which is summarized in Figure 2.

ll

imam Got News

 

Reteaflsm — '-

 

 

 

Ritualism - +
Rebellion + l— +/—
Comm + +

 

 

 

 

 

Innovation + —

 

Figure l Merton’s Theory of Structural Strain

12

Merton’s theory of structural strain is based upon three factors: (1)
culturally valued goals defined as legitimate for all members of society, (2)
norms that specify the legitimate means of achieving these goals, and (3) the
actual number of legitimate opportunities available to people to achieve the
culturally valued goals. According to Merton, structural strain occurs when the
valued goals have no clear boundaries; when people are unsure whether the
legitimate means that society provides will lead to the valued goals; or when
legitimate opportunities for meeting the goals are closed to a significant
portion of the population. Because Ogbu (1978, 1983, and 1987) states that
they are often denied access to quality education, which is the socially accepted
means of achieving the goal of upward mobility, and because their level of
occupational advancement and financial reward is unjustly limited, even in
cases where a quality education has been obtained, minority groups suffer
structural strain.

Although it is the individual’s job to choose a path that leads to success,
Merton claims that people respond to structural strain in five identifiable ways,
each involving some combination of acceptance and rejection of the valued
goals and means. First, retreatism involves the rejection of both cultural goals

and the means of achieving those goals. Unable to achieve success through

13

either legitimate or illegitimate means, retreatists resign from society. The
retreatist not only rejects education as a means to advancement, but he or she
abandons all nonacademic avenues as well.

The second response, ritualism, involves the rejection of cultural goals
but rigid adherence to the legitimate means of achieving those goals. Although
the ritualist plays by society’s rules, he or she does not expect hard work to pay
off in the form of financial success. Passively accepting his or her ascribed
social status, the ritualist does not seriously pursue the goal of upward
mobility.

Rebellion, the third response, involves the full or partial rejection of
both goals and means and the introduction of a new set of goals and means.
According to Merton, rebellion provides for the potential formation of deviant
subgroups, such as delinquent youth gangs.

The fourth response, conformity, entails the acceptance of the cultural
goals and the pursuit of those goals through legitimate means. Assuming that
if they follow the rules they will be justly rewarded, conforrnists do not
acknowledge the potential effect of economic inequality.

Finally, innovation involves the acceptance of the cultural goals but
rejection of the legitimate means to obtaining those goals. An innovator

desires upward mobility but does not necessarily view education as the means

14

to achieving success.
Expanding the Idea of Innovation:

Although Merton’s (1968) description of innovation involves complete
rejection of the culturally valued means of achieving success, Ogbu (1987),
Gibson (1988 and 1995), and Gibson and Ogbu (1991) point out that
innovation does not necessarily entail total rejection of the legitimate means.
There are both constructive and deconstructive forms of innovation.

Recognizing the additional barriers that they must overcome in order to
achieve culturally valued goals, deconstructive innovators continue to pursue
economic success and upward mobility but choose unproductive, even
destructive, methods of countering these obstacles. Unintentionally
exacerbating existing problems and inequalities, deconstructive innovators
often reject positive aspects of the dominant culture that may have been
beneficial to members of their group. Because it discourages serious scholarly
effort and respect for school authority, the subtractive or oppositional mode of
cultural adaption employed by involuntary minorities is considered a
deconstructive form of innovation. However, the additive method of
innovation practiced by immigrant minorities does encourage academic
excellence and is, therefore, considered a constructive form of innovation.

After evaluating all possible alternatives, constructive innovators, unlike

15

deconstructive innovators, choose more productive, socially acceptable
methods of countering the effects of institutionalized discrimination in their
pursuit of culturally valued goals. Selectively incorporating positive aspects of
the dominant culture that may be beneficial to members of their group,
constructive innovators encourage “accommodation without assimilation”.
Consequently, education remains instrumental in their pursuit of economic
success and upward mobility.

Applying the Theories:

Despite their high drop out rates which imply that involuntary
minorities, like retreatists, reject education as a means of achieving upward
mobility, and the lack of motivation they hold in common with ritualists,
Ogbu (1978 and 1983) suggests that, unlike either retreatists or ritualists,
most involuntary minorities do accept the cultural goal of social and economic
advancement, although many attempt to achieve it through socially
unacceptable, nonacademic avenues. Consequently, very few from either
minority group may be accurately classified as retreatists or ritualists.

As for more rebellious forms of reaction, Merton (1968) claims that
such extreme patterns of response are confined only to small portions of the
population. Although Ogbu (1978 and 1983) suggests that involuntary groups

exhibit the greatest potential for rebellion, especially disorganized forms such

16

as riots, this response is least frequently used.

Finally, adhering strictly to the rules and underestimating the
pervasiveness of racial discrimination, Ogbu’s description of immigrant
minorities suggests that they tend to be conforrnists. However, Boddy (1970),
Fong (1994), Miyamoto (1984), and Takagi (1992) document both subtle and
blatant forms of racial discrimination that have historically plagued immigrant
communities and continue, presently, to limit their life chances. According to
Omi and Winant (1991) and Min (1996), common experiences of racial
oppression, such as these, tend to intensify group identity and cohesion.
Consequently, for many immigrant minorities who choose to remain in the
US. over an extended period of time conformity may be only a temporary
response decreasing in appeal as members of immigrant minority groups
become more “racialized”.

Because most accept the cultural goals of upward mobility and economic
success but disagree as to the most appropriate means of achieving these
common goals, the great majority of involuntary and immigrant minority
youth tend to be innovators, with the former group being more apt to employ
deconstructive forms of innovation and the latter group gravitating toward
more constructive forms of innovation. For this reason, neither retreatism,

ritualism, rebellion, nor conformity will be further discussed in this study.

Chapter 3

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

One of the reasons cited by Ogbu (1978:8) for his conscious omission of
class within the African-American community is his belief that, “Regardless of
their class position, Blacks tend to perceive of their opportunities for social
mobility as much more limited than is the case for the general population.”
Because Ogbu fails to consider class variables among any of the other
involuntary minority groups, this belief appears to be generalizable. In
addition, Ogbu also assumes that, regardless of their class position, immigrant
minorities hold equally favorable perceptions of the U. S. opportunity structure
and are equally optimistic about their ability to achieve upward mobility
through legitimate means.

However, as Gibson and Ogbu (1991:371) admit,

The cultural models and educational strategies of minority

communities are in a constant process of renegotiation. Mobility

strategies change as the societal context changes and as the

minority group’s situation within a given society itself changes.

Both role expectations and folk theories of success are modified
over time.

17

18

Although US. society continues to be plagued by structural inequality
and unequal power relations, the occupations above the job ceiling of which
Ogbu (1978) speaks include “clerical, sales, and kindred workers, professionals,
technicians, managers, officials, proprietors, and skilled craftsmen and
foremen”; and involuntary group members have, recently, made considerable
advances in many of these areas, thereby penetrating this job ceiling. Has the
rise of the middle class in Black and other involuntary minority communities
served to diversify theories, beliefs, and experiences (Frazier, 1962; Fanon,
1967; Benjamin, 1991)?

Because of the many motivational factors that fuel migration, Pedraza
(1996), Rumbaut (1996), and Portes and Rumbaut (1990), also, note
significant differences in socioeconomic class among laborers, professionals,
entrepreneurs, refugees, and asylees within immigrant communities. Because
migration is often characterized by an inverse relationship between date of
departure and social class of the immigrants, particularly among refugees, class
disparities within immigrant communities may widen in the future. Will these
increases in class disparity influence the role expectations and mobility
strategies employed by immigrant minorities? If so, in what ways? Ogbu fails
to address questions such as these.

According to findings introduced by Deosaran (1978); Evans (1990 and

 

19

1993); Gecas and Schwalbe (1983); Gecas, Schwalbe, and Staples (1984) and
Hughes and Demo (1989), a positive relationship exists between
socioeconomic class and self-efficacy (or one’s self-perceived ability to achieve
intended goals through legitimate means). If this finding holds true, then
minority students from more privileged class backgrounds should express
higher degrees of self-efficacy. Because students with higher degrees of self-
efficacy are, by definition, more certain of their ability to achieve intended
goals through legitimate, socially acceptable means, minorities from more
privileged class backgrounds should, also, be more willing to accept education
as the means to obtaining economic success. Consequently, minorities from
privileged class backgrounds should be more inclined to adopt constructive
forms of innovation which produce higher academic outcomes, irrespective of
their group’s mode of incorporation. On the other hand, minority youth from
less privileged class backgrounds should experience lower degrees of self-
efficacy. Believing that they will not be able to succeed through legitimate
means, minorities from less privileged class backgrounds will be more likely to
adopt deconstructive forms of innovation which tend to result in lower
academic outcomes, regardless of their group’s method of entry.

These predictions are based upon three major assumptions which are

illustrated in Figure 3:

20

Assumptionfln:

There are positive relationships between socioeconomic class and
(a) self-efficacy; (b) innovative response type, with constructive
innovation being the more highly rated type of response; and (c)
academic outcome.

When socioeconomic class is held constant, significant
proportions of variance in academic outcome are explained

independently by (a) self-efficacy and (b) innovative response
type.

W

When socioeconomic class is held constant, the amount of

variance in academic outcome explained by a minority group’s
mode of incorporation decreases.

HI Hit “m“ I... ca: HI

lHl WI+ l
”I l

Law low Low

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 Proposed Theoretical Model

 

Chapter 4

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

Data for this study was taken from the National Educational
Longitudinal Study (NELS). Beginning in 1988 with a cohort of 25,000
eighth graders attending 1,000 public and private schools across the nation,
the NELS was designed to provide data about critical transitions experienced
by students as they leave eighth grade school settings, progress through high
school (or dropout), enter and leave postsecondary institutions, and enter the
work force. The 1988 eighth grade cohort has been followed at two-year
intervals, and the data for this study was collected during the second follow-up
which took place in 1992, when most sample members were entering the
second semester of their senior year. Because this study focuses on minority
students, all cases listed as “non-Hispanic White” have been eliminated from
consideration leaving a total sample size of 7,164 cases including 4,626
involuntary minorities, 1,214 immigrant minorities, and 1,324 minorities of

unknown origin.

21

Chapter 5

OPERATIONALIZATION OF TERMS

Socioeconomic Class:

In order to evaluate the influence of socioeconomic class background on
the response patterns of students from both minority groups two indicators,
f2pared and f25eslq, are used. F2pared measures the educational level of the
respondent’s parent(s) , and f23es 1 q indicates the respondent’s socioeconomic
quartile. F2 ses l q is a string variable constructed by dividing another variable,
f2sesl , into four quartiles based on the weighted marginal distribution.

F25esl , a continuous variable with a mean of 16.89 and standard deviation of
37.87, was created using base year parent questionnaire data. When available
the following parent data were used: father’s education level, mother’s
education level, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, and family income.
Finally, occupational data were recoded using the Duncan’s Socioeconomic

Index.

22

23

Self-Efficacy:

The data set contains three items, f2567a, f2$67b, and f2s43, which
indicate the respondent’s self-perceived chances of succeeding through
legitimate, socially acceptable means. F2367a indicates the respondent’s
chances of graduating from high school, f2$67b indicates his or her chances of
graduating from college, and f2$43 reflects how far in school the respondent
thinks that he or she will get. Positive relationships between socioeconomic
class variables (f2pared and f25eslq) and each of the three indicators of self-
efficacy (f2s43, f2s67b, and f2$67a) confirm assumption 1(a).

Constructive and Deconstructive Innovation:

Constructive and deconstructive forms of innovation are measured by
five item indicators including f259b, f2$9d, f2s25f2, f2$34a, and hsprgrn. Item
f2$9b indicates how often the respondent cuts classes; item f2$9d indicates
how often he or she gets into trouble for breaking school rules; item f2s25f2
indicates the amount of time that the respondent spends on homework; item
f2s34a indicates the amount of time that he or she spends playing video
games; and item hsprgrn indicates whether the respondent is enrolled in a
college preparatory program. Because constructive and deconstructive
innovation are two sides to the same coin, high scores for items indicating one

type of innovation translate into low scores for the same items indicating the

24

other. In this case, constructive innovation is indicated by high scores for
items f2$25f2 and hsprgm and low scores for items f2$9b, f2s9d, and f2$34a.
This response pattern is reversed in deconstructive innovators. Positive
relationships between socioeconomic class variables (f2pared and f2$eslq) and
constructive forms of innovation (f2325f2 and hsprgm), in addition to negative
relationships between socioeconomic class variables (f2pared and f2seslq) and
deconstructive types of innovation (f239b, f259d, and f2334a) confirm
assumption 1(b).
Academic Outcomes:

The three items indicating academic outcome are grade point average
(gpa), notdrop, and f22xcomp. Gpa is a continuous variable with a mean of
2.50 and a standard deviation of .89. Although it is based upon a 4.00 scale,
gpa consists of scores ranging in value from 0.00 to 5 .00, with scores above
4.00 indicating extra credit granted to respondents enrolled in honors or
exceptionally difficult courses. Notdrop indicates whether or not the
respondent continues to be enrolled in school. Finally, f22xcomp is a
continuous variable with a mean of 47.30 and standard deviation of 10.22.
These values represent standardized test composites combining cognitive test
scores achieved in mathematics and reading comprehension. The math test on

which this variable is partially based contained items such as word problems,

25

graphs, equations, quantitative comparisons, and geometric figures. Some
questions could be answered by simple application of skills or knowledge,
others required the student to demonstrate a more advanced level of
comprehension and problem solving. The test of reading comprehension
contained four to five short reading passages, with three to five questions about
the content of each. Questions encompassed understanding the meaning of
words in context, identifying figures of speech, interpreting the author’s
perspective, and evaluating the passage as a whole. Positive relationships
between variables indicating socioeconomic class (f2pared and f2ses 1 q) and
items (gpa, f22xcomp, and notdrop) indicating academic outcome confirm

assumption 1(c). See Appendix A for further clarification.

Chapter 6

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Data in this study is analyzed using frequencies, correlation matrices,
comparison of means, and multiple regression. Measures of association include
Kendaull’s Tau-b, eta, and chi square, and all relationships are significant

below a probability level of .05.

Assumptignflne

There are positive relationships between socioeconomic class and

(a) self-efficacy; (b) innovative response type, with constructive

innovation being the more highly rated type of response; and (c)

academic outcome.

Although data in Table 1 (see Appendix B) suggest that all six
relationships are weak---the strongest, 11, = .298, between f23eslq and f2$67b
and the weakest, Tb = .045, between f23eslq and f2543-«assumption 1(a) is
confirmed by positive correlations between socioeconomic class variables and
each of the three indicators of self-efficacy. All correlations including

indicators of self-efficacy are significant below p = .001.

As predicted by assumption 1(b) and indicated by data in Table 2 (see

26

27

Appendix C), significant positive correlations between socioeconomic class
variables and those indicating constructive forms of innovation do exist,
although most are very weak Because constructive and deconstructive
innovation are two sides to the same coin, in order to confirm this assumption
completely, negative correlations should exist between socioeconomic class
variables and those indicating deconstructive forms of innovation. However,
Table 2 indicates that although all specified correlations are negative, as
predicted, f2534a is the only indicator of deconstructive innovation that is
significantly related to both socioeconomic class variables at probability levels
less than .001. While f259d is significantly associated only with f2pared at a
probability level less than .05.

Finally, data presented in Table 3 (see Appendix D) indicate that
correlations between socioeconomic class variables and indicators of academic
outcome appear to be stronger than correlations between socioeconomic class
variables and those in either of the other two categories. Assumption 1(c) is
confirmed by the six positive correlations in Table 3 which range in value from
Tb = .215, between f25eslq and notdrop, to Tb = .440, between f25eslq and

f22xcomp. In this instance all relationships are significant below p = .001.

When socioeconomic class is held constant, significant
proportions of variance in academic outcome are explained

independently by (a) self-efficacy and (b) innovative response

28

type.

Because the first regression equation (see Appendix E) indicates that
f2$43, f2567a, and f2$67b (all indicators of self-efficacy) and f2$9b, f2$9d,
f2s25f2, f2$34a, and hsprgm (all indicators of innovative response type) each
explain very low, although significant, proportions of variance in gpa while
controlling for socioeconomic class, both sections of assumption two are
confirmed regarding this particular indicator of academic outcome. However,
regression equations explaining the other two indicators of academic outcome
offer less support.

In the regression equation where y = f22xcomp, one indicator of self-
efficacy (f2343) and two indicators of innovative response type (f239b and
f259d) drop out of the equation. Only f2$67a, f2$67b, f2325f2, and f2$34a
continue to explain significant proportions of variance in f22xcomp when
socioeconomic class is held constant. Nevertheless, when combined these few
variables provide greater predictive power than do those listed in the first
equation, even though a greater number of variables are included in the
former. Based upon the value of R square, the second equation explains 5.86
percent more variance in f22xcomp than the first equation explains in gpa. In
addition, T-values corresponding to variables in the regression equation where

y = f22xcomp are all significant below p = .001 , while none of the variables in

29

the equation where y = gpa have T-values that remain significant at such a low
level of probability.

The regression equation offering the least support for assumption two,
however, is the one in which y = notdrop. In this final equation, all indicators
of innovative response type and all but one indicator of self-efficacy fail to
explain significant proportions of variance in notdrop when socioeconomic
class is held constant Only one variable, f2367a, remains in the equation.
Explaining only 1.04 percent of the variance in notdrop, the predictive power
of this equation is very weak

Wance in academic outcome explained by a

minority group’s mode of incorporation decreases when

socioeconomic class is held constant.

Because all variables indicating socioeconomic class and mode of
incorporation are excluded from the third regression equation, neither class
factors nor method of entry appear to be significant predictors of a minority
student’s decision to withdraw from or remain in school. Consequently,
comparisons between the two were impossible in this case.

Based upon data presented in the first two regression equations which
suggest that academic outcome is positively influenced by immigrant status

while involuntary status has the opposite effect, a minority group’s mode of

incorporation explains more variance in both gpa and f22xcomp than all but

30

one other variable in both equations, even when controlling for socioeconomic
class. Although socioeconomic class variables, especially f2pared, are
significant predictors of gpa and f22xcomp when mode of incorporation is held
constant, socioeconomic class factors fail to explain much of the variance in
these forms of academic outcome among minority group members who have
entered the US. voluntarily and those upon whom entry into the US. has

been forced Therefore, assumption three remains unconfirmed.

 

Chapter 7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

These findings suggest that, although several variables in the proposed
theoretical model significantly explain small proportions of variance in
academic outcome, especially gpa and composite test scores, there is something
about being an immigrant as opposed to an involuntary minority that even
outweighs the influence ‘of increasing economic opportunity in explaining
differences in academic success. There are many possible explanations for this
trend.

Often possessing both social and cultural capital at the time of arrival,
immigrant minorities have benefited from a greater number of resources.
Unlike involuntary populations which represent a random selection, immigrant
minorities are self-selected for the success struggle before ever reaching these
shores. This distinction alone, may account for differences in level of
motivation. In addition, immigration laws’ preferences for families, after years

of denying families, helped establish network and support communities which

31

32

promoted the persistence of primary cultural systems along with any
psychological comforts that these systems may provide. Preference to those
with skills made finding jobs easier, and a shift in immigration from rural to
urban immigrants who were more educated and to a greater degree
professional, changed the trajectory of this population as a whole. Despite
little economic capital, their trade or entrepreneurial skills, the social capital of
existing networks available from earlier immigrants, and the small size of many
immigrant populations enabled them to take advantage of market niches and
assume “middleman minority” positions.

Involuntary minorities can be seen as “immigrants” only arriving to the
United States upon being freed from slavery or having gained independence
from colonial rule and exploitation, at which point they faced economic and
structural conditions unlike those encountered by more recent immigrant
minority groups. Because factors such as basis for group conflict, resources
upon arrival, structure of the economy at arrival, and size of the group interact,
relegating minority groups to unequal positions within the “racial caste
system,” involuntary minorities were often placed at a greater disadvantage
from the very start. Because American society was historically organized
around racist principles, racial harmony depends upon an elaborate system of

controls to insure compliance. Immigrant groups are less threatening,

 

33

therefore, the need to control involuntary minorities has been greater for the
dominant group.

Deprived of individual freedoms and denied education during the
colonial period, involuntary minorities had neither economic nor cultural
capital. With only agricultural backgrounds, involuntary minority groups
lacked the skills required to take part in an industrial economy. As a result,
they were locked into “quasi serfdom” (Sowell, 1981:183). Because of the
large size of many involuntary minority populations and historical group
conflicts with the dominant white class, market niches and “middleman
minority” positions were unavailable to involuntary groups.

Only with World War I, with immigration halted, were involuntary
groups able to gain some industrial jobs mostly in menial, unskilled positions;
and only after World War 11, through riots and the Civil Rights Movement did
major gains allow for the true growth of the middle class in involuntary
minority communities. Because the historical legacy of slavery, conquest, and
colonization has left an enduring imprint not only on the dominant group’s
view of involuntary minorities but on the psyche of the involuntary group as
well, “chains and images of psychological oppression” discourage many from
acting in their own best interests despite recent increases in economic and

educational opportunity (Akbar, 1984; Fanon, 1967; Woodson, 1992).

34

Lacking a foundation of capital on which to build upon, the only choice
left for involuntary groups has been to conform, which is inhibited by
structural as well as racial barriers, or to form an “oppositional identity.”
Education’s role in only offering assimilation to involuntary minorities in
exchange for conformity often forces them to give up their identities and
disassociate themselves from their communities (Fanon, 1967; Fordham, 1990 H

and 1996; Fordharn and Ogbu, 1986; Frazier, 1962; Woodson, 1992). This is

 

an unfair price that many are apparently unwilling to pay.

In order to insure that the involuntary minority community, previously
excluded from education, is made more relevant to education, while education
is at the same time made more relevant to the involuntary minority
community, a transformation needs to take place so that what is learned gets
transmitted back to the community (Hare and Hare, 1991). Education must
be given back to the people, and the increase in community control brought
about through the establishment of independent, charter schools represents

one possible solution.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

f2pared

f2ses l q

f259b

f2$9d

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL
LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Parent’s highest level of education
didn’t finish high school
high school graduate or GED
high school, some college
college graduate

MA. or equal

Ph.D., M.D., other

@Mutxwwv—

Socioeconomic quartile
1 quartile 1 low
2 quartile 2
3 quartile 3
4 quartile 4 high

How many times did R cut or skipped classes
never

1-2 times

3-6 times

7-9 times

10- 15 times

over 15 times

UlrhUONr-‘O

How many times got into trouble
never

1-2 times

3-6 times

7-9 times

10-15 times

over 15 times

MuhUONi-‘O

35

36

f2325f2 Total time spent on homework out of school [per week]
0 none
1 less than 1 hour
2 1-3 hours
3 4-6 hours
4 7-9 hours
5 10- 12 hours
6 1 3-15 hours
7 16-20 hours
8 over 20 hours

f2$34a Hours on weekdays R plays video games
none

less than 1 hour

1-3 hours

4-6 hours

7-9 hours

10- l 2 hours

13- 1 5 hours

16-20 hours

over 20 hours

CDVOUIéWNi-‘O

f2s43 How far in school R thinks he or she will get
less than high school

high school only

less than 2 years of school
more than 2 years of school
trade school degree

less than 2 years of college
more than 2 years of college
finish college

M.A. or equal

Ph.D., M.D., other

OOQDNONUIAWNH

p—n

f2367a Chances that R will graduate from high school
very low

low

fifty-fifty

high

very high

LII-DAWN»—

37

f2567b Chances that R will go to college
very low

low

fifty-fifty

high

very high

UIJEUJNH

hsprgm“ The high school program in which R is currently enrolled
0 no college prep
1 college prep

notdrop“ R’s dropout status

0 dropped out
1 did not drop out

‘ indicates recoded variable

APPENDIX B

 

APPENDIX B

Table 1

Correlation Matrix: Socioeconomic Class and Self-Efficacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iZsesiq

.9449

.905

.1555 .1515

IZSDII .000 .000
.2799 .2979

128571! .000 mg

 

38

 

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Table 2
Correlation Matrix: Socioeconomic Class and Innovative Response Type

 

129:qu

.1500
.000

 

 

 

.317? .3090
hum .000 .000

 

 

 

-.0175 -.0050
1259“ .237 .725
.0340 -.01 as

'29“ .010 .239

 

.0507 am
1293" .000 .000

 

 

 

 

 

39

APPENDIX D

 

APPENDIX D

Table 3
Correlation Matrix: Socioeconomic Class and Academic Outcome

.inarcd 1251:qu

 

 

 

 

.3403 .3242
99' .000 .000
.4315 .4400

'ZZXB°""' .000 .000

 

.2331 .2153
“0“"0P .000 .000

 

 

 

 

 

4o

APPENDIX E

 

APPENDIX E

REGRESSION EQUATIONS

 

Equation Number 1 Dependent Variable: GPA GRADE POINT AVERAGE
R SQUARE .36245

ADJUSTED R SQUARE .35808

GPA = .918447 + (.223501)IMMIG - (.149503)1NVOL +
(.036653)F2PARED + (.038468)F2$25F2 - (.047929)F2$34A +
(.006840)F2S43 + (.l9506l)F2$67A + (.066473)F2S67B -
(.044500)F2S9B - (.073973)F2$9D + (.052853)F2$ESIQ +
(.067981)F25EX + (.327630)HSPRGM

 

 

 

 

Equation Number 2 Dependent Variable: F22XCOMP STD TEST COMP
R SQUARE .42101

ADJUSTED R SQUARE .41796

F22XCOMP = 29.067628 + (2.359649)1MMIG - (1.933035)INVOL +

(.882716)F2PARED + (.658061)F2$25F2 - (.617664)F2S34A +
(1.979942)F2567A + (.847757)F2$67B + (l.276780)F2$ESlQ-
(1.023912)F2SEX -i- (5.084597)HSPRGM

 

 

 

Equation Number 3 Dependent Variable: NOTDROP DROP OUT STATUS
R SQUARE .01091

ADIUSTED R SQUARE .01039

NOTDROP = .949854 + (.009856)F2$67A

 

41

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akbar, Na’im
1984 Chains and Images if Psychological Slavery. Jersey City, New Jersey:
New Mind Productions.

Alba, Richard
1995 “The Assimilation of Immigrant Groups: Concept, Theory, and
Evidence.” a paper to be presented at the Conference on “Becoming
American/America Becoming: International Migration to the United
States,” January 18-21, 1996, sponsored by the Social Science
Research Council.

Benjamin, Lois
1991 The Black Elite: Facing the Color Line in the Twilight 9" the Twentieth
Century. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Blauner, Robert
1972 Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Bossy, E. Manchester
1970 Japanese in America. San Francisco: R. and E. Research Associates,

Inc.

Carrier, James G.
1986 Learning Disabiligr: Social Class and the Construction of Inequaligz in
American Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Castile, George Pierre
1981 “Issues in the Analysis of Enduring Cultural Systems.” Pp. xv-xxii in
George Pierre Castile and Gilbert Kushner (eds) Persistent Peoples,
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona of Arizona Press.

Chan, Sucheng and Ling-chi Wang
1991 “Racism and the Model Minority: Asian-Americans in Higher
Education.” Pp. 43-67 in Philip G. Altbach and Kofi Lomotey (eds.)
The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education, Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.

42

43

Cloward, Richard A.
1968 “Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behavior.” Pp. 156-178
in James F. Short, Jr. (Ed.) Gang Delinquengr and Delinquent
Subcultures. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Conner, John W.
1977 Acculturation and the Retention of an Ethnic Identigr in Three Generations
qr [apanese Americans. San Francisco: R and E. Research Associates,
Inc.

Deosaran, Ramesh A.
1978 “Social Class and Academic Guidance: A Social-Psychological
Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 10:239-247.

Du Bois, W. E. B.
1982 The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Penguin Books.

Epstein, Erwin
1972 “Social Class, Ethnicity, and Academic Achievement: A Cross-
Cultural Approach.” [ournal of Negro Education 41 :202-2 15.

Evans, Geoffrey
1990 “Causal Explanation, Social Class, and Perceived Efficacy.”
Dissertation Abstracts International 50:3079-A.

1993 “Cognitive Models of Class Structure and Explanations of Social
Outcomes.” European Iournal of Social Psychology 23:445-464.

Fanon, Frantz
1967 Black Skin, I/Vhite Masks. New Yorle Grove Weidenfeld.

Figueroa, Peter
1991 Education and the Social Construction (f ‘Race’. New York: Routledge.

Fong, Timothy P.
1994 The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remaking IfMontergr Park,
California. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

 

44

Fordham, Signithia
1990 “Racelessness as a Factor in Black Students’ School Success:
Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory?” Pp. 232-262 in Nitza M.
Hidalgo, Ceasar L. McDowell, and Emilie V. Siddle (eds.) Facing
Racism in Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
Educational Review.

1996 Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Raw, Identigl, and Success at Capital High.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fordham, Signithia and John Ogbu
1986 “Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the Burden of ‘Acting
White.’” The Urban Review 18: 176-206.

Frazier, E. Franklin
1962 The Black Bourgeoisie. New Yorlc Collier Books.

Gecas, Viktor and Michael L. Schwalbe
1983 “Beyond the Looking-Glass Self: Social Structure and Efficacy-Based
Self-Esteem.” Social Psychology Quarterly 46:77-88.

Gecas, Viktor, Michael L. Schwalbe, and Clifford L. Staples
1984 “Occupational Conditions, and Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem.”
Sociological Perspectives 27:85- 109.

Gibson, Margaret A.
1988 Accommodation without Assimilation: Sikh Immigrants in an American
High School. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

1995 “Additive Acculturation as a Strategy for School Improvement.” Pp.
77-105 in Ruben G. Rumbaut and Wayne A Cornelius California’s
Immigrant Children, San Diego: University of California Press.

Gibson, Margaret A. and John U. Ogbu
1991 Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study Of Immigrant and
Involuntaol Minorities. New York- Garland Publishing, Inc.

45

Hare, Nathan and Julia Hare
1991 The Hare Plan: To Overhaul the Public Schools and Educate Every Black
Man, Woman and Child. San Francisco, California: The Black Think
Tank

Heam, James C.
1990 “Pathways to Attendance at the Elite Colleges.” Pp. 121-145 in Paul
William Kingston and Lionel S. Lewis (eds.) The High-Status Track:
Studies of Elite Schools and Stratification, Albany, New York: State
University of New York Press.

Hing, Bill Ong
1995 “A Nation of Immigrants, A History of Nativism.” an unpublished
paper presented at Harvard University, Law School.

Hughes, Michael and David H. Demo
1989 “Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal
Efficacy.” American [ournal If Sociology 95: 132-159.

Kim-Goh
1995 “Serving Asian American Children in School: An Ecological
Perspective.” Pp. 145-161 in Stanley William Rothstein (ed.) Class,
Culture, and Race in American Schools, Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press.

Kingston, Paul William and Lionel S. Lewis
1990 “Undergraduates at Elite Institutions: The Best, the Brightest, and
the Richest.” Pp. 105-120 in Paul William Kingston and Lionel S.
Lewis (eds) The High-Status Track: Studies of Elite Schools and
Stratification, Albany, New Yorlc State University of New York
Press.

Kluckhohn, Florence Rockwood and Fred L. Strodtbeck
1961 Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson,
and Company.

46

Light, Ivan H.
1974 “Kenjin and Kinsmen.” Pp. 283-297 in Rudolph Gomez, Clement
Cottingharn, Jr., Russell Endo, and Kathleen Jackson (eds.) The
Social Reality of Ethnic America, Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C.
Heath and Company.

Merton, Robert K.
1968 Social Theory and Social Structure. New Yorle The Free Press.

Milner, Murray
1972 The Illusion q‘Equaligr: The Eflbct If Education on Opportunity,

Inequaligl, and Social Conflict. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., Publishers.

Miller, Walter
1968 “Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.”
Pp. 135-155 in James F. Short, Jr. (Ed.) Gang Delinquengz and
Delinquent Subcultures. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Min, Pyong Gap
1996 “The Entrepreneurial Adaption of Korean Immigrants.” Pp. 302-314
in Silvia Pedraza and Ruben G. Rumbaut (eds.) Origins and
Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Miyamoto, S. Frank
1984 Social Solidarigr among the [apanese in Seattle. Seattle: University of
Washington, Press.

Modell, John
1977 The Economics and Politics of Racial Accommodation: The [apanese of Los
Angeles, 1 900-1 942. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Moone, Janet R
1981 “Persistence with Change: A Property of Sociocultural Dynamics.”
Pp. 228-242 in George Pierre Castile and Gilbert Kushner (eds.)
Persistent People, Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

47

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick
1965 The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, DC:
US. Department of Labor.

Oakes, Jeannie
1985 Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven,
Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Ogbu, John U.
1978 Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural
Perspective New Yorlc Academic Press.

1983 “Minority Status and Schooling in Plural Societies.” Comparative
Education Review 27:168-190.

1987 “Variability in Minority School Performance.” Anthropology and
Education Quarterly 18:312-334.

1988 “Class Stratification, Racial Stratification, and Schooling.” Pp. 163-
182 in Lois Weis (ed.) Class, Raae, and Gender in American Education,
Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Okimoto, Daniel
1974 “The Intolerance of Success.” Pp. 298-306 in Rudolph Gomez,
Clement Cottingharn, Jr., Russell Endo, and Kathleen Jackson
(eds.)The Social Reality of EthnicAmerica, Lexington, Massachusetts:
D. C. Heath and Company.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant
1991 Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the I 980s. New
York: Routledge.

O’Reilly, Robert P.
1970 “Racial and Social Class Isolation in the Schools: Summary Report.”
a report to the Board of Regents of the University of the State of
New York

48

Pedraza, Silvia
1996 “Cuba’s Refugees: Manifold Migrations.” Pp. 263-279 in Silvia
Pedraza and Ruben G. Rumbaut (eds.) Origins and Destinies:
Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Persell, Caroline Hodges and Peter W. Cookson, Jr.
1990 “Chartering and Bartering: Elite Education and Social
Reproduction.” Pp. 25-49 in Paul William Kingston and Lionel S.
Lewis (eds.) The High-Status Track: Studies of Elite Schools and
Stratification, Albany, New Yorlc State University of New York Press.

Portes, Alejandro
1995 “Segmented Assimilation among New Immigrant Youth: A
Conceptual Framework” Pp. 71-76 in Ruben G. Rumaut and
Wayne A. Cornelius California’s Immigrant Children, San Diego:
University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut
1990 Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press.

Rist, Ray C.
1970 “Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy in Ghetto Education.” Harvard Educational Review
40:41 1-450.

Rumbaut, Ruben G.

1996 “The Crucible within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented
Assimilation among Children of Immigrants.” Pp. 1 19-170 in
Alejandro Portes (ed.) The New Second Generation, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.

Solomon, R. Patrick
1988 “Black Cultural Forms in Schools: A Gross National Comparison.”
Pp. 249-265 in Lois Weis (ed.) Class, Race, and Gender in American
Education, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Sowell, Thomas
1981 Ethnic America: A History. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.

49

Spener, David
1990 “Transitional Bilingual Education and the Socialization of
Immigrants.” Pp. 189-209 in Nitza M. Hidalgo, Ceasar L.
McDowell, and Emilie V. Siddle (eds.) Facing Racism in Education,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Educational Review.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M.
1989 Central American Refugees and U. S. High Schools: A Psychological Study
of Motivation and Achievement. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M. and Carola E. Suarez-Orozco
1995 “The Cultural Patterning of Achievement Motivation: A
Comparison of Mexican, Mexican Immigrant, Mexican American,
and Non-Latino White American Students.” Pp. 161-190 in Ruben
G. Rumaut and Wayne A. Cornelius California’s Immigrant Children,
San Diego: University of California Press.

Takagi, Dana Y.
1992 The Retreat From Race: Asian-American Admissions and Racial Politics.
New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Thomas, R Murray
1965 Social Difi'erences in the Classroom: Social-Class, Ethnic, and Religious
Problems. New York- David McKay Company, Inc.

Tuan, Mia
1995 “Korean and Russian Students in a Los Angeles High School:
Exploring the Alternative Strategies of Two High-Achieving
Groups.” Pp. 107-130 in Ruben G. Rumaut and Wayne A.
Cornelius Califomia’s Immigrant Children, San Diego: University of
California Press.

Woodson, Carter G.
1992 The Mis-Education If the Negro. Hampton, Virginia: United Brothers
and Sisters Communications Systems.