School Adjustment among Low-Income Latino Adolescents: Building upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

by

Jessica Dalesandro Mindnich

B.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1999 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2003

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Education

in the

Graduate Division

of the

University of California, Berkeley

Committee in charge:

Professor Susan D. Holloway, Chair Professor Elliot Turiel

Professor Kaiping Peng

Fall 2007

School Adjustment among Low-Income Latino Adolescents: Building upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

Copyright © 2007

by

Jessica Dalesandro Mindnich

1

ABSTRACT

School Adjustment among Low-Income Latino Adolescents: Building upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

by

Jessica Dalesandro Mindnich

Doctor of Philosophy in Education

University of California, Berkeley

Professor Susan D. Holloway, Chair

The underachievement of Latino students is a persistent and pervasive problem

plaguing both researchers and educators alike. And as the number of Latino students

continues to rise, there is an increased urgency with which researchers and educators are

attempting to address the Latino achievement gap. The present study utilizes the Cultural-

Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance articulated by John Ogbu (e.g. 1974)

to explore variation in Latino student achievement. More specifically this study builds

upon his notion of community forces and explores the ways in which student beliefs in

the utility of education and the centrality of the family, perceptions of parental

aspirations, student aspirations, students relationships with school personnel, and student

academic behavior contribute to a model of Latino student achievement. In addition to

utilizing Ogbu’s theory of minority school performance, the present study expands upon

this theoretical framework by including student gender, generational status, and maternal

educational attainment in an effort to more fully explain variation in Latino student

achievement. Thus, the resulting model of Latino student achievement presented within

the current study included measures of student demographics (gender, generational status,

2

and maternal educational attainment), student beliefs (utility of education, centrality of

the family, perceptions of parental aspirations, and student aspirations), student

relationships with school personnel, and student academic behavior (time spent on

homework).

The model of Latino student achievement put forth within the present study was

used to analyze data from 198 low-income, urban Latino ninth graders. Contrary to

expectations, results indicated that student background characteristics, including gender,

generational status, and maternal education did not contribute to differences in Latino

student achievement. A hierarchical regression analysis conducted to test the conceptual

model presented within this study yielded a statistically significant model which

explained 12% of the variance in Latino student achievement. Students’ aspirations for

their future educational attainment and student academic behavior (the amount of time

students reportedly spent on homework) significantly contributed to the overall model.

This finding lends support to Ogbu’s (e.g. Ogbu & Simons, 1998) claim that students

who are academically successful employ educational strategies that couple high

aspirations and strong verbal endorsements of education with adaptive behavioral

strategies that yield positive results within educational settings.

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ III

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... IV

FIGURE 1: OGBU'S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE 9 .... IV

FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 27 IV

FIGURE 3: OPERATIONALIZING COMMUNITY FORCES WITHIN THE PRESENT STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 30 IV

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP ............................................................................................................................... 1 ACADEMIC UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO STUDENTS ................................................................................ 2 DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS ............................................................................................. 3 LATINOS IN CALIFORNIA ............................................................................................................................... 3 THE PRESENT STUDY .................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH .................. 6 CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ...................................................... 6

Integration of Minority Groups into American Society ......................................................................... 7 The System ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Community Forces ............................................................................................................................... 10

Frame of educational comparison................................................................................................................... 11 Instrumental value of school credentials ......................................................................................................... 12 Relationships within the system ....................................................................................................................... 13 Expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling .............................................................................................. 14 Educational strategies ..................................................................................................................................... 15

OGBU’S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY APPLIED TO LATINO SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ............................. 16 Transitioning from Voluntary to Involuntary Minority ........................................................................ 17 Differentiating among Latino Students ................................................................................................ 18 Challenges of Adapting the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance to Latino Achievement ......................................................................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUAL MODEL WITHIN THE PRESENT STUDY .............. 25 Instrumental Value of School Credentials ........................................................................................... 30 Relationships within the System ........................................................................................................... 31 Expressive/Symbolic Beliefs about Schooling ...................................................................................... 33

Familism beliefs .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Student perceptions of parental aspirations for educational attainment ......................................................... 37

Educational Strategies Utilized by Students ........................................................................................ 41 Time spent on homework ................................................................................................................................. 43 Student aspirations for their future educational attainment ............................................................................ 44

CONTRIBUTING TO OGBU’S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE .......... 46 Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance: Maternal Education ............................................................................................................................................................. 51 Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance: Student Gender .... 52

SUMMARIZING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY ............................................................................. 54 CHAPTER IV: METHODS .............................................................................................. 56

LEARNING BELIEFS STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 56 Participants.......................................................................................................................................... 56

II

Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 57 Variables .............................................................................................................................................. 59

Maternal education ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Gender............................................................................................................................................................. 59 Generational status ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Utility of education .......................................................................................................................................... 60 Familism ......................................................................................................................................................... 61 Student perceptions of parental aspirations .................................................................................................... 61 Student aspirations .......................................................................................................................................... 61 Relationships with school personnel ............................................................................................................... 62 Time spent doing homework ............................................................................................................................ 62 Grade point average ....................................................................................................................................... 62 Student achievement level ............................................................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER V: RESULTS ................................................................................................. 64 DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 64

Reliability Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 65 Grade point average ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Utility of education .......................................................................................................................................... 66 Familism ......................................................................................................................................................... 67 Relationships with school personnel ............................................................................................................... 70

THE ROLE OF GENDER, MATERNAL EDUCATION, AND GENERATIONAL STATUS IN DIFFERENTIAL PATTERNS OF LATINO STUDENT BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACHIEVEMENT .............................................. 71

Gender Differences .............................................................................................................................. 71 Maternal Education ............................................................................................................................. 73 Generational Status ............................................................................................................................. 74

EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG STUDENT BELIEF, RELATIONSHIP, BEHAVIOR, AND ACHIEVEMENT VARIABLES ................................................................................................................................................. 79

Relations among Model Variables ....................................................................................................... 85 UTILIZING HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION TO TEST THE MODEL OF LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ............... 88

CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 93 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY .......................................................................................................... 93

Gender Differences .............................................................................................................................. 93 Maternal Education ............................................................................................................................. 94 Generational Status ............................................................................................................................. 95 Student Beliefs ..................................................................................................................................... 98

Utility of education .......................................................................................................................................... 99 Familism ......................................................................................................................................................... 99 Perceptions of parental aspirations .............................................................................................................. 100 Student aspirations ........................................................................................................................................ 101

Relationships with School Personnel ................................................................................................. 102 Academic Behavior ............................................................................................................................ 105

THE CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE APPLIED TO LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 107 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 108 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................... 111

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 114

III

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING STUDENT GRADES……………………………………………………………………

66

TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING STUDENT BELIEFS IN THE UTILITY OF EDUCATION.……………………………………….

67

TABLE 3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING STUDENT FAMILISM BELIEFS……………………………………………………………………..

69

TABLE 4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING RELATIONSHIPS WITH SCHOOL PERSONNEL…………………………………………………….

70

TABLE 5 DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO MALE AND LATINA STUDENTS……...

72

TABLE 6 DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS WHOSE MOTHERS HAVE NO OR SOME COLLEGE………………………………………………………….

74

TABLE 7 DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACHIEVEMENT OF FIRST-, SECOND-, AND THIRD-GENERATION LATINO AMERICANS……………….…………………………………...

76

TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG FIRST-, SECOND-, AND THIRD GENERATION LATINO AMERICANS………

77

TABLE 9 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE FAMILISM BELIEFS OF FIRST-, SECOND-, AND THIRD-GENERATION LATINO AMERICANS………

78

TABLE 10 DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACHIEVMENT OF LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS………………………………………………….

80

IV

TABLE 11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS….

81

TABLE 12 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE PARENTAL ASPIRATIONS AMONG LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING, BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS…………………………………………………………………

82

TABLE 13 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE STUDENT ASPIRATIONS OF LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS…………………………………………………………………

83

TABLE 14 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE SPENT ON HOMEWORK FOR LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS…………………………………………………………………

84

TABLE 15 CORRELATIONS AMONG BELIEF VARIABLE……….……………… 85

TABLE 16 CORRELATIONS AMONG BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND BEHAVIOR VARIABLES………………………………………….........

86

TABLE 17 CORRELATIONS AMONG BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIOR, AND ACHIEVEMENT VARIABLES…………………………………….

88

TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR VARIABLES PREDICTING LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.….

91

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: OGBU'S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ......... 9

FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT .......................................... 26

FIGURE 3: OPERATIONALIZING COMMUNITY FORCES WITHIN THE PRESENT STUDY ...................... 29

V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As a first generation college student, the completion of this dissertation has

special meaning to me and my family. While this is a moment of tremendous pride, it is

also a time of reflection and gratitude. My scholastic endeavors have been supported by

many people along the way, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge

their support and encouragement.

I come from a long line of strong women, and I would be remiss if I failed to

mention them here. I would like to thank my grandmother, Jessie Magallanez, who at an

early age inspired me and instilled in me a social consciousness that continues to guide

me; my mother, Patricia Dalesandro, who always said you can do anything you put your

mind to and made me believe it; and my sister, Maia Aguirre, who has provided me with

endless emotional support. And I could never forget my loving husband, Chris, and my

beautiful daughters, Alexandra and Emma, who have continuously supported me despite

the numerous sacrifices they have been asked to make on my behalf.

I have had many wonderful mentors along the way. I would like to thank

everyone at the McNair Scholar’s Program and the American Psychological

Association’s Minority Fellowship Program. They provided me with a home away from

home, a place where I was always accepted and cared for. I would also like to thank

Diana Baumrind. Her belief in me was truly inspirational.

I would like to thank my fellow graduate students—Mandy Arendtsz, who

continued to push me even when I thought I could go no further, Dana Weiss, whose

constant optimism and can-do attitude was contagious, Sawako Suzuki, whom I admire

VI

greatly and consider one of the most gifted researchers I have had the pleasure of

knowing, and Yoko Yamamoto who helped me acclimate to life as a graduate student.

And finally, I must thank my committee, Susan Holloway, Elliot Turiel, and Kaiping

Peng. Their support and encouragement made this scholarship possible. I am especially

grateful to Susan Holloway who has spent the past six years diligently mentoring me

while supporting my intellectual development.

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The Achievement Gap

The disparity in academic achievement that exists between minority and White

students is a phenomenon frequently referred to as the achievement gap. The

pervasiveness of this phenomenon has garnered the attention of social science researchers

who are struggling to develop a framework from which to understand why Black, Latino,

and most recently, Southeast Asian students underachieve at disproportionate levels when

compared to White and Asian students. And while researchers have documented that the

disparity in achievement is partially due to unequal schooling and social inequality (Fine,

1991; Oakes, 1985), these factors alone do not fully explain this phenomenon. When

researchers control for socioeconomic status, ethnically-based differences in academic

achievement persist (as cited in Ogbu, 2003: Anton, 1980; College Board, 1999; Hu,

1997; Oliver, Rodriguez, & Mickelson, 1985; Slade, 1982; Stern, 1986). To this end,

Reaching for the Top: A report of the National Task Force on Minority High

Achievement (1999) states:

Socioeconomic status is generally one of the most powerful predictors of students’ academic achievement. Students from low-income homes, or who have parents with little formal education, are more likely to be low achievers and much less likely to be high achievers than students from high-income families, or who have parents with bachelors or advanced degrees. …But this is only part of the education and class story for minorities. Going back to the 1960’s, there is an extensive body of research showing that Black, Hispanic, and Native American students at virtually all socioeconomic levels do not perform nearly as well on standardized tests as their White and Asian counterparts.

As is illustrated in the quote above, the achievement gap is not fully accounted for by

students’ socioeconomic status. Thus, researchers have continued to explore the factors

underlying the consistent and pervasive underachievement of minority students.

2

Academic Underachievement of Latino Students

By the age of 24, only 64% of Latinos have obtained a high school or general

education degree, while 84% of Blacks and 92% of Whites have completed secondary

education (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). Across measures Latino students are consistently

underachieving in school (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). For example, 13% of Latino students

are retained at one point in their educational career. This is compared to 9% of Whites

and 7% of Asians. High retention rates have larger implications for students’ educational

attainment as it is believed that grade repetition sets children on an academic trajectory

that leads to failure within and withdrawal from the educational system (Cairns, Cairns,

& Neckerman, 1989). Collectively, these findings portray a grim outlook for Latino

students within the U.S. educational system and highlight the need to further understand

the factors underlying the underachievement of Latinos.

In an effort to understand this phenomenon, researchers have explored the match

between the home of Latino families and the expectations of educational institutions. For

many Latino families, the mismatch between the cultural and social capital possessed by

Latino families and the cultural and social capital valued within educational institutions

places Latino families at a disadvantage within the system, as these families are often

viewed through a lens of deficiency (Delgado-Gaitan, 1994; Valdés, 1996). Moreover

due to a lack of familiarity with the expectations and processes of the U.S. educational

system, an inability to speak English, and illiteracy in both English and Spanish, many

immigrant Latino families are unable to effectively communicate with schools in an

effort to manager their children’s education (e.g. Valdés, 1996). Consequently, students

of these families are particularly vulnerable to academic failure as the U.S. educational

3

system is one that expects families to advocate on behalf of and manage their children’s

career (Baker & Stevenson, 1986). Moreover, as students become active within their own

educational experience, many Latino students begin to recognize the subtractive process

of assimilation that occurs within school settings. In doing so, a significant number of

Latino students begin to rebuff this assimilation thereby alienating themselves from the

schooling process and setting themselves up for academic failure (Matute-Bianchi, 1991).

Demographic Shifts in American Schools

The urgency with which educators and researchers are now addressing the

achievement gap, stems, in part, from the demographic shift that is currently taking place

in American schools. In 1972, 22.2% of public school students enrolled in grades K-12

were ethnic minorities. By 2000, that number had increased to 38.7%. In the 500 largest

school districts in the country, the number of Latino and African American students

jumped to 52% (Young, 2002). And while the enrollment of African American students

has remained fairly consistent during this time, 14.8% to 16.6%, the enrollment of Latino

students nearly tripled, from 6% in 1972 to 16.6% in 2000 (Llagas & Snyder, 2003).

Moreover, all indications suggest that this trend will continue as recent projections

indicate that Latinos will represent 1 in 4 Americans by the year 2050 (García Coll &

Pachter, 2002; Harwood, Leyendecker, Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002).

Latinos in California

According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (December, 1998),

California has the world’s seventh largest economy. If this prosperity is to continue,

California must be able to produce an educated workforce. To this end a report by the

Public Policy Institute of California (2007) notes:

4

California’s labor market has changed dramatically over the past two decades because of the rising demand for highly educated workers. Although economic projections for California indicate a continuation of this trend, projections of educational attainment for the future population strongly suggest a mismatch between the level of skills the population is likely to possess and the level of skills that will be needed to meet economic projections (Johnson & Reed, p. 1).

Given that one in three Californians are Latino (United States Census, 2000), addressing

the academic underachievement of Latino students must become a priority if we are to

sustain California’s economic prosperity.

A recent report by the Civil Rights Project (2005) underscored the pervasiveness

of Latino underachievement within California’s schools. Across the state, the graduation

rate for Latinos is 60.3%. Because this is an average, it masks two underlying

phenomenon that contribute to Latino student achievement. The first of these is a gender-

based difference in educational attainment. Latino males are more vulnerable to high

school drop out. Currently, almost 1 in two Latino males fail to graduate from high

school. In addition, Latino underachievement is exacerbated within urban school districts.

For example, within Los Angeles Unified, the largest school district in California, only

39.1% of Latino students graduate from high school. The graduation rate for Latino

students in San Francisco Unified is 55.9%. Moreover, across the state, only 10% of

Latinos attend high schools with graduation rates of 90% or higher, suggesting that the

underachievement of Latinos is perpetuated, in part, by California’s school system. This

report suggests that Latino students are concentrated within low-income, urban schools

plagued with too few resources to adequately address the many learning barriers that

exist within such educational settings.

5

The Present Study

With consideration of the rapid growth of the Latino population (García Coll &

Pachter, 2002; Harwood, et. al., 2002) and the persistent and pervasive underachievement

of Latino students (Buriel, 2003; Buriel, 1987; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995; Harwood,

et. al., 2002; Valdés, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999), the present study seeks to explore the

school adjustment patterns of low-income, urban Latino youth. In doing so, this study

acknowledges that the term Latino encompasses a diverse group of people differing in

their socioeconomic status, their country of origin, the primary language spoken within

the home, their immigration history and generational status. However, because Latinos

share some cultural values and often have a similar experience as minorities within the

United States, the present study will utilize this term in the belief that there is a benefit to

conceptualizing Latinos as a group of similar persons (Harwood, et. al., 2002; Valdés,

2005).

In the interest of adding depth to our understanding of Latino student

achievement, the present study explores and expands upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological

Theory of Minority School Performance. While this framework has adequately addressed

the academic underachievement of African American students within U.S. schools, its

application to the study of Latino students has been more problematic. This study seeks

to add to this theoretical framework though the operationalization of Ogbu’s constructs

and an exploration of the ways in which gender, generational status, and maternal

educational attainment contribute to differential patterns of achievement among Latino

students.

6

Chapter II: Review of Related Literature and Research

Since this study of Latino academic achievement expands upon Ogbu’s (1974,

1978, 1987, 1991, 1994, 2003) Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School

Performance, this chapter provides an overview of the theory. After reviewing the main

concepts of Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance, this

chapter reviews the literature which has utilized this framework to investigate Latino

student achievement.

Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance Researchers have established that socioeconomic status and quality of schooling

are factors that effect student achievement; however, these factors alone do not fully

explain the achievement gap that exists between White and minority students (College

Board, 1999; Fine, 1991; Irving, 2002; Oakes, 1985). Nor do they explain why some

minority groups consistently underachieve in school while other minority groups are able

to succeed academically and thus prosper economically. Seeking to explain differential

patterns within minority academic achievement, some researchers have adopted Ogbu’s

Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance.

Central to Ogbu’s approach is the socio-historical context within which minority

groups were first integrated into American society. In order to understand differences in

minority school performance, Ogbu argues that one must have knowledge of the minority

group’s initial entry into American society. Did members of this minority group

originally come to the United States of their own volition or were they unwillingly

incorporated into American society? Moreover, when the minority group was

incorporated into American society, how were members of this group treated by White

7

Americans? Based upon their initial incorporation into American society, Ogbu classifies

minority groups as voluntary and involuntary minorities.

Integration of Minority Groups into American Society

It is a willingness to become part of American society that distinguishes voluntary

from involuntary minorities. While voluntary minorities came to this country of their own

volition and in search of a better life, involuntary minorities were forcibly and

unwillingly incorporated into American society through conquest, colonization, or

enslavement. Accordingly, these early experiences shape the development of the minority

group’s folklore and the adjustment strategies that the group develops and utilizes as they

are integrated into American society. As a result of minority groups early experiences of

integration into American society, voluntary minorities have an optimistic view of the

opportunities that are available to them as they “moved to the United States because they

expected better opportunities (better jobs, more political or religious freedom) than they

had in their homeland” (Ogbu & Simons, p. 158, 1998). Their optimism and early

treatment within American society allows voluntary minorities to develop adjustment

strategies that help them cultivate the cultural and linguistic skills needed to thrive within

the United States. In developing and utilizing these adjustment strategies, voluntary

minorities are able to adapt to and excel within American institutions like the American

educational system.

In contrast, involuntary minorities were forcibly incorporated into American

society by White people. Therefore involuntary minorities lack the same optimism that

emerges during a voluntary integration into American society and instead involuntary

minorities develop their adjustment strategies amidst a distrust of mainstream American

8

society. Consequently, involuntary minorities develop adjustment strategies and group

folklore that exacerbate differences between their own cultural identity and that of their

oppressors. While the adaptation of such adjustment strategies may serve to protect the

psychological well-being of the group, the creation of an oppositional cultural identity

that rebuffs participation in American institutions is maladaptive in that it inhibits the

group’s access to traditional pathways of upward mobility and instead serves to

perpetuate involuntary minorities’ exclusion from mainstream society. This is particularly

problematic in the wake of historical changes to laws and practices that have traditionally

excluded involuntary minority groups because while discrimination within American

institutions still exists, there are no longer the same barriers to mainstream avenues of

success. For example, while Blacks and Latinos may be disproportionately represented

within low-income, urban schools, there is no longer a law prohibiting them from

attending the same schools as White students. Still involuntary minority groups utilize the

adjustment strategies that were developed during a time of heightened exclusion.

9

Figure 1: Ogbu's Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School

Performance

The System Community Forces

Level 1: General Treatment within Society & Local

Community

Level 2: Treatment within Educational

Institutions

Educational policies and practices

Treatment within the school and classroom

Rewards for academic

achievement (e.g. wages)

Frame of comparison for educational

system

Educational strategies utilized by

students

Expressive/ symbolic beliefs

about schooling

Relationships within the system

Instrumental value of school credentials

10

The System

According to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School

Performance, the school adjustment and academic performance of students is shaped by

two sets of factors. (See figure 1.) The first set of factors is known as “the system.” The

system operates at the macro level and refers to the ways in which a society and its

institutions treat or have treated minority groups. According to the theory of minority

school performance, the system functions at two levels. The general treatment of

minorities both within society and within local communities is represented within the first

level of the system while the second level of the system focuses more specifically upon

the environment in which minority children are being educated. Consequently, the second

level of the system considers the degree to which institutional factors shape the academic

performance of minority students. These institutional factors include educational policies

and practices, the treatment of minorities in the school and in the classroom, and the

rewards minorities garner as a results of their academic achievement, particularly with

regard to wages.

Community Forces

The second set of factors shaping the school adjustment and academic

performance of minority students are termed community forces because they are located

within culture of the minority group. (See figure 1.) The five community forces

established within this theoretical framework represent the beliefs and behaviors adopted

within the minority community that most directly influence the school adjustment

strategies and subsequent academic achievement of minority students and include the

frame of educational comparison used by minority students, belief in the instrumental

11

value of education, relationships established within the system, expressive or symbolic

beliefs about schooling, and the educational strategies employed by minority students.

Moreover, these community forces are indicative of a minority group’s classification into

the voluntary/involuntary continuum because community forces “arise from how

minorities themselves interpret and respond to their treatment; that is, their adaptations to

the U.S. society and to their minority status” (Ogbu, 2003, p. 45).

Frame of educational comparison

The first component of Ogbu’s community forces is the frame of educational

comparison that students use to assess the U.S. educational system. According to this

theoretical perspective, voluntary minorities compare the opportunities and benefits that

exist within the U.S. educational system to the opportunities and benefits that were

available within their country of origin. As a result of this dual frame of reference,

voluntary minorities hold the U.S. educational system in positive esteem because it

provides them with more opportunities than were available to them within their

homeland. Consequently, voluntary minorities focus on the positive aspects of their U.S.

educational experience even when they find themselves attending overcrowded and

under-resourced schools. For example, while a voluntary minority may find themselves

in a low-income, urban school they may come from a country where education was not

readily available to all children either because of proximity to the nearest school, the cost

of schooling, or tracking within the educational system. Because of their point of

reference they view their ability to attend school at no cost to their family as a

tremendous opportunity that was unavailable to them within their country of origin.

12

In contrast, involuntary minorities compare their educational opportunities and

benefits against those of White Americans. Consequently, involuntary minorities are

keenly aware of the differences between the more affluent schools within their

communities and the overcrowded, under-funded, low-performing schools in which they

are more likely to attend. As a result of their socio-historical experience of becoming

American through conquest, enslavement, or colonization, involuntary minorities are

likely to interpret inequities within the educational system as being discriminatory and

perceive those associated with the system as acting against their best interests.

Instrumental value of school credentials

The beliefs minority groups hold about the instrumental value of school

credentials represent the second component of community forces. As such, the

endorsement of school credentials as instrumental to adult success distinguishes

voluntary from involuntary minorities. Since voluntary minorities maintain an optimistic

view of their opportunities within the United States, they are eager to participate within

mainstream society and strongly believe in the opportunities available to them within this

country. Consequently, they believe that education is the pathway to upward mobility and

future economic prosperity. And since voluntary minority youth strongly endorse the

utility of education and believe in the future payoff of school credentials, they are more

likely to actively and positively participate in their schooling.

This is contrasted with involuntary minorities who have historically been denied

access to opportunities available via mainstream avenues to adult success. Consequently,

while involuntary minorities may believe that upward mobility is available through

educational pathways, they also have folklores about alternative avenues to success, such

13

as becoming an entertainer or an athlete. These students have seen “little evidence among

their own people for believing that success in adult life or upward mobility is due to

education” (Ogbu, 2003, p. 53). As a result, they are more likely to disengage from

school thus perpetuating the academic underachievement of involuntary minority youth.

Relationships within the system

The third component of the system consists of the ability to form relationships

within the educational system. Since the ability to establish relationships with school

personnel is based upon a trust of White institutions, there is a clear distinction between

the relationships between voluntary minority groups and school personnel and

involuntary minority groups and school personnel. Based upon the minority group’s

incorporation into and treatment within the American educational system, voluntary

minorities have developed a pragmatic trust of American institutions. As such, voluntary

minorities view teachers as useful experts and are able to cultivate positive relationships

with the school and school personnel believing that such relationships will assist them in

achieving their long-term goals. Consequently, voluntary minorities are able to benefit

from the social capital available to them via their relationships with school personnel.

Unlike voluntary minority groups, involuntary minority groups have experienced

a long history of racism, discrimination, and conflict with American institutions which

have led to a pervasive distrust of White institutions. Consequently, involuntary

minorities are unable to trust schools and school personnel and instead involuntary

minorities approach the school and school personnel with suspicion making it difficult for

involuntary minorities to cultivate positive relationships with school personnel. As a

result, the relationships established between involuntary minorities and school personnel

14

are often characterized by social distance or segregation, conflict, and mistrust.

According to Ogbu (2003), this distrust of the school and school personnel focuses the

attention of involuntary minorities on their treatment within the school, the ways in which

they are portrayed within the curriculum, and whether or not the school and teachers care

for them. By shifting attention away from learning and failing to build relationships with

school personnel, involuntary minorities place themselves at a disadvantage within

educational institutions as they do not cultivate the relationships needed to garner the

social capital that is available to them via relationships with school personnel.

Expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling

The forth component of community forces include minority groups’ expressive or

symbolic beliefs about schooling that have implications for one’s sense of identity,

culture, and ability. Coming to the U.S. of their own volition and maintaining an

optimistic outlook on the opportunities available to them within this country, voluntary

minorities are eager to learn English and master American cultural behaviors as they

believe doing so will serve their long-term goals and help them to achieve economic

prosperity. Consequently, voluntary minorities do not believe that becoming

Americanized, or assimilating to mainstream American society, will threaten their sense

of identity or culture. Instead, voluntary minorities create a dual identity which allows

them to navigate between their own community and mainstream institutions.

In contrast, involuntary minorities believe that their sense of identity and culture

are threatened within educational institutions because their success is contingent upon

their adoption of the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of their oppressors. Consequently,

involuntary minorities fear that:

15

...adopting to White or school ways…would mean replacing their own cultural and language identity or that it requires them to give up their cultural and language identities in order to successfully learn the school ways (Ogbu, 2003, p. 54).

Unlike voluntary minorities that perceive the adoption of White ways as an additive

process, involuntary minorities perceive schooling as a subtractive process, stripping

them of their identity and forcing them to behave in the ways of their oppressors. As a

result, involuntary minorities create an oppositional identity to White culture, thus

rebuffing the educational system because it is a White-controlled institution. So unlike

voluntary minorities, involuntary minorities are unable to take a pragmatic approach to

developing a dual identity and involuntary minorities who choose school ways are often

accused of acting White and risk alienation from their minority group. Thus for

involuntary minorities, their sense of identity and culture are directly pitted against their

school performance.

Educational strategies

And finally, the fifth component of community forces represents the educational

strategies adopted and utilized by minority students. According to Ogbu (e.g. 2003),

minority students maximize their educational benefit if there is a congruence between

their aspirations and verbal endorsements of education and their academic behavior. For

example, if a student wants to attend college they increase their chances of obtaining this

goal if they come to class prepared, participate in class discussions, and complete

homework assignments. The congruence between beliefs and behaviors is particularly

important because both voluntary and involuntary minority students tend to verbally

endorse education. However because of the mixed messages that involuntary minorities

receive about the role that education plays in adult success, their general endorsement of

16

education is undermined by an uncertainty of the payoff of their own educational

attainment. Consequently, the difference between voluntary and involuntary minority

students lies in their willingness to turn their beliefs into action that will promote and not

undermine their educational aspirations. While voluntary minorities match their behavior

to their verbal endorsements and educational aspirations, involuntary minorities are

ambivalent about the role of education in their path to adult success, thus resulting in a

mismatch between their educational aspirations and verbal endorsements of education

and their behavior. For example, a voluntary minority student is likely to engage teachers,

raise their hand in class, and attend class regularly while an involuntary minority student

is likely to be truant, disrupt the classroom, fail to complete their homework, and

demonstrate irreverence towards school personnel. As a result of their behavior,

voluntary minorities maximize their academic benefit by developing positive

relationships with school personnel, receiving instrumental support from teachers and

peers, and earning high grades. In contrast, involuntary minority students are more likely

to engage in behaviors that directly and negatively affect school performance thereby

resulting in course repetition, disciplinary sanctions, and eventual withdrawal from

educational institutions thus making it difficult for involuntary minorities to achieve their

educational goals.

Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory Applied to Latino School Performance

In developing his theory of minority school performance, John Ogbu has focused

much of his research on Black students in the United States. The work that has been done

with Latino students has yielded a complex portrait of Latino student performance. First

because Latinos have varied histories of incorporation into American society, Latinos

17

cannot collectively be categorized as a voluntary or involuntary minority group. For

example, Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) contends that early descendants from Mexico

and Puerto Rico are involuntary minorities because Mexican Americans in the Southwest

were conquered by early American settlers while Puerto Rico was colonized. However,

immigrants from Central and South America, Cuba, and Mexico are considered voluntary

minorities.

Transitioning from Voluntary to Involuntary Minority

While Ogbu does not address the complexities of Latino immigrants, he (Ogbu &

Simmons, 1998) does elaborate on the ways in which his theory applies to Mexican

immigrants and Mexican Americans. As noted above, immigrant Mexicans are

categorized as voluntary, but as children of immigrant Mexicans assimilate into

American culture they become involuntary minorities (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). This

process results from an affinity with involuntary Mexican Americans. As a result of this

affinity, voluntary Mexicans are perceived as being part of the pre-established

involuntary minority group and are thus treated as such by White Americans. Elaborating

this point, Ogbu and Simmons (1998) write:

White Americans force such immigrants to reside and work alongside the nonimmigrant [involuntary] group through residential segregation, job discrimination, and other discriminatory treatments. Under these circumstances the immigrants [voluntary] and nonimmigrants [involuntary] intermarry and there descendants grow up with nonimmigrant [involuntary] peers, tend to identify with them, and assume the same sense of peoplehood or collective identity (p. 161).

This process of assimilation similarly occurs with Black immigrants from Africa and the

Caribbean. While they may enter this country as voluntary minorities, subsequent

generations become involuntary as a result of their treatment within American society

and their affinity with African Americans. Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) argues that

18

there is one factor that distinguishes the assimilation process between Mexican

immigrants and Black immigrants. As a result of Mexican-Anglo intermarriage, Mexican

children “with enough white features can ‘pass’ and become a part of the white majority”

(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998, p. 161) thus allowing them to be perceived and treated as part

of the dominant class.

Differentiating among Latino Students

Building upon Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory of minority school performance,

Matute-Bianchi (1986) conducted an ethnographic study of minority student performance

among Japanese-American and Mexican-ancestry students. This study highlights the

challenges of categorizing Mexican-ancestry students as voluntary and involuntary

minorities. As a result of her research, Matute-Bianchi (1986) asserted that differential

patterns of achievement existed among Mexican-ancestry students. Moreover, instead of

using the voluntary and involuntary minority group classifications Matute-Bianchi (1986)

proposed that Mexican-ancestry students be grouped into the following five categories:

Mexican-immigrants, Mexican-oriented, Mexican-American, Chicano, and Cholos.

According to Matute-Bianchi (1986) students who were born in Mexico

constituted two of the five categorizations of Mexican-ancestry students. She noted that

these students could be categorized as Mexican-immigrants or Mexican-oriented

students. Mexican-immigrant students recently immigrated to the United States and

tended to be in ESL (English as a Second Language) courses. They were often described

by teachers and staff as “more courteous, more serious about their schoolwork, more

eager to please, more polite, more industrious, more well behaved, more naïve, and less

worldly than other students in school” (p. 237). And while these students were Spanish

19

speaking, their proficiency in Spanish differed significantly. Not surprisingly, Mexican-

immigrant students’ proficiency in Spanish tended to be related to their achievement—

those students with higher proficiency in Spanish were more likely to do well

academically.

Unlike Mexican-immigrant students, Mexican-oriented students had been in the

United States for at least 5 years, with most attending American schools for most or all of

their lives. Consequently, Mexican-oriented students were likely to be bilingual, speaking

Spanish with peers and in the home and speaking English with school personnel. These

students were among the highest achieving Mexican-ancestry students within the school.

Of the Mexican-ancestry students who were in the top 10 percent of their graduating

class, virtually all were categorized as Mexican-oriented.

The remaining three categorizations of Mexican-ancestry students, Mexican-

American, Chicano, and Cholo consist of U.S.-born Mexicans. Mexican-American

students were considered the most assimilated of Mexican-ancestry students. They tended

to be monolingual and those who were bilingual showed a preference for English.

Moreover, these students were among the most scholastically engaged Mexican-ancestry

students participating in student government, school activities, and mainstream clubs

while avoiding the more Mexican or Chicano clubs. Finally, Mexican-Americans were

some of the most academically successful Mexican-ancestry students.

Chicanos represented the largest segment of Mexican-ancestry students

constituting 40 to 50% of all Spanish-surname students. These students often self-

identified as Mexican or Mexicano, perhaps as a means of communicating their rejection

of mainstream American society. What distinguished Chicanos from the previously

20

discussed Mexican-ancestry students was their level of alienation from the school. Unlike

their Mexican-American peers, Chicano students were withdrawn from school activities.

These students tended not to be enrolled in college prep courses and were instead placed

into general or remedial classes. And while these students wanted to do well in school,

their verbal commitment to education was undermined by their behavior. Chicanos often

exhibited behaviors which signaled a lack of commitment to or interest in education.

They were often truant, came to class unprepared, engaged in disruptive behavior, and

failed to complete homework assignments. Moreover, they frequently referred to

academically successful Latinos as, ‘schoolboys’ or ‘schoolgirls’, noting that these

students wanted to be White.

The Cholo group made up the smallest number of Mexican-ancestry students.

And while this group was barely represented within the school community they were

among the most easily identifiable. Because of their stylistic cultural symbols Cholos

were perceived as gang members or gang sympathizers. Like Chicanos, Cholos, “have

low status in school and are disaffected, marginalized members of the school

community” (Matute-Bianchi , 1986, p. 240). In fact, Cholos were the most alienated

from the school community and were “held in low esteem by the other Mexican-ancestry

students in the school, as well as by mainstream students, who often expressed fear or

contempt of what they recognized as Cholo or Low Rider” (Matute-Bianchi , 1986, p.

240).

In later work reflecting upon this study, Matute-Bianchi (1991) tried to group

these Mexican-ancestry students into Ogbu’s voluntary and involuntary categories. She

noted that Mexican-immigrant and Mexican-oriented students could be categorized as

21

voluntary minorities. According to Matute-Bianchi (1991), maintaining a voluntary

minority perspective of the importance of schooling and the relevance of school

credentials to adult success allowed Mexican-immigrant and Mexican-oriented students

to buy into the American educational system. And since Mexican-oriented students had

acquired the linguistic and cultural skills needed to navigate American institutions they

were among the most academically successful Mexican-ancestry students.

In contrast, Chicanos and Cholos were categorized as involuntary minorities.

These American-born Mexican-ancestry students believed that they were stigmatized and

would not be treated fairly within White-controlled institutions. Moreover, these students

believed that their adult opportunities were limited and that educational credentials would

prove inconsequential to their success in adulthood. Consequently, Chicanos and Cholos

were disengaged from schooling.

According to Matute-Bianchi (1991), the students that could not be easily

categorized as voluntary or involuntary were the Mexican-American students. Unlike her

earlier portrayal of Mexican-American students as being a fairly homogenous group,

Matute-Bianchi further categorizes Mexican-American students into three subcategories.

The first subcategory represents monolingual students who have fully assimilated into

mainstream American society. Next, bicultural Mexican-American students are

categorized as “cultural switch hitters” taking on an American persona at school and a

Mexicano persona at home. The last subcategory of Mexican-American students consist

of students that do not consider themselves purely American or purely Mexican but see

themselves as some combination of the two. Describing the variation within and

complexity of Mexican-American students, Matute-Bianchi (1991) writes:

22

Some of these students are active and successful in school, but many appear to drift, to be disengaged and withdrawn from much of what the school offers. They can be found in all curriculum tracks in the school, but are more likely to be found in the general or low tracks. They are more likely to be seen and not heard. They do not really fit into any of the modal categories I have defined along the immigrant [voluntary] versus nonimmigrant [involuntary] continuum, nor do they fit any of the generalizations I have made about students in other categories (p. 242).

The heterogeneity that exists within the Latino community is highlighted within Matute-

Bianchi’s work (1986, 1991). It is this heterogeneity that has made it challenging to apply

Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance to the study of

Latino student achievement. Consequently, this theory has been criticized for its inability

to explain variations that occur within minority groups (Conchas, 2001; Kao & Tienda,

1998).

23

Challenges of Adapting the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

to Latino Achievement

To date, most of the research utilizing Ogbu’s theory has centered upon the

academic achievement of Black students within the United States. However, Black and

Latino students differ in several important ways. First, Latinos have a varied history of

incorporation into this country which is partially dependent upon their country of origin,

the era of their arrival, and the region in which they settled into the United States.

Consequently, Ogbu categorizes Mexican-Americans in the Southwest and Puerto Ricans

as involuntary minorities while Cubans, Central and South Americans, and Mexican

immigrants are categorized as voluntary minorities. In addition, as a result of

intermarriage between Latinos and Anglos, some Latinos have the option of “passing”

and are perceived and treated as White Americas. Lastly, the Latino population is

constantly revitalized by the continuous influx of Latino immigrants thus making it easier

for Latinos to maintain a cultural identity separate from their American identity (Matute-

Bianchi, 1991; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995). Collectively, these differences

add another layer of complexity to our understanding of Latino student achievement and

have given rise to a number of challenges in utilizing Ogbu’s theoretical framework to

explore Latino student achievement. Still, cultural ecologists have spent nearly three

decades exploring the factors that distinguish those minority groups that are academically

successful from those that persistently underachieve in school (e.g. Fordham & Ogbu,

1986; Gibson & Ogbu, 1991; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu 1978, 1987, 2003). And while

Ogbu’s cultural-ecological theory of minority student achievement is not without

24

challenges, it still remains the most theoretically rich perspective to date and will be used

within the present study of Latino student achievement.

25

Chapter III: Conceptual Model within the Present Study

This study of Latino academic achievement builds upon Ogbu’s (e.g. 1974, 1978,

1987, 1991, 1994, 2003) Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance.

The conceptual model utilized within this study expands upon Ogbu’s work exploring the

relationship between student achievement and community forces. More specifically, this

model explores the ways in which students’ (a) perceptions of the instrumental value of

schooling; (b) relationships within the system; (c) expressive or symbolic beliefs about

schooling; and (d) educational strategies utilized by students are related to Latino student

achievement. Additionally, this model contributes to Ogbu’s theoretical framework by

investigating the contribution of students’ demographic characteristics to differential

patterns of Latino student achievement (see figure 2).

In articulating the model of Latino student achievement presented within the

current study, this chapter ties Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School

Performance to the conceptual model guiding this investigation of differential patterns of

Latino student achievement. As such, the aim of this chapter is four-fold. First, this

chapter outlines the ways in which Ogbu’s notion of community forces are

operationalized within the present study. Next, this chapter relies upon a review of

previous research to support the logic underlying the model of Latino student

achievement presented here. Third, this chapter outlines how students’ generational

status, gender, and maternal educational attainment can expand upon Ogbu’s Theory of

Minority School Performance and contribute to a model of Latino student achievement.

And finally, this chapter concludes with a brief summary of the objectives of the current

study.

26

Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Latino Student Achievement

Beliefs: • Beliefs in the value

of education • Familism beliefs • Perceptions of

parental aspirations

• Students’ aspirations

Student Characteristics:

• Gender • Maternal

educational attainment

• Generational status

Behavior: • Time spent on

homework

Student Achievement: • Grade point

average

Relationships: • Relationships with

school personnel

27

Utilizing the Cultural-Ecological Framework within the Present Study: Operationalizing

Ogbu’s Community Forces

This study of Latino student achievement builds upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological

Theory of Minority School Performance. In moving beyond the voluntary-involuntary

paradigm to flesh out differential patterns of Latino student achievement, the present

study utilizes Ogbu’s conceptualization of community forces1 to better understand how

factors found within the Latino community might account for differences in student

achievement (see Figure 3). In particular, this study investigates how community forces

are operationalized within the Latino community and explores the ways in which

differences within these community forces enable us to better predict Latino student

achievement. In operationalizing Ogbu’s notion of community forces, this study explores

the ways in which the beliefs, relationships, and behaviors that exist within the Latino

community affect Latino school performance. Finally, in addition to the examination of

community forces, this study examines the variations that exist within the Latino

community by exploring the ways in which generational status, gender, and maternal

education contribute to Latino student achievement.

The current investigation of Latino student achievement is guided by the

following questions. Do differences in students’ demographic characteristics explain

differences in Latino student beliefs, relationships with school personnel, academic

behavior, or achievement? How are community forces related to one another? How are

community forces related to school performance? Can the present model of Latino

1 While this study centers upon Ogbu’s community forces, the first component, students’ frame of comparison for the educational system, is not captured within the present analysis. Instead this research focuses upon students’ beliefs in the instrumental value of school credentials, students’ within the system, students’ expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling, and the educational strategies utilized by students.

28

student achievement which contains student demographics, beliefs, relationships with

school personnel, and academic behavior explain differences in Latino student

achievement? In addressing these questions the present study contributes to the

expanding literature addressing Latino student underachievement. More specifically,

these questions investigate the ways in which Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of

Minority School Performance can contribute to a model of Latino student achievement.

29

Figure 3: Operationalizing Community Forces within the Present Study

Community Forces

Instrumental Value of School

Credentials

Relationships within the System

Expressive/ Symbolic Beliefs about Schooling

Educational Strategies Utilized

by Students

-Utility of education

-Relationships with school personnel

-Familism beliefs - Parental aspirations

-Time on homework

-Student aspirations

30

Instrumental Value of School Credentials

According to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School

Performance, students’ belief in the instrumental value of school credentials is one of the

five components of community forces that influence student achievement. Voluntary

minorities came to this country in search of better opportunities and subsequently believe

that their educational attainment is instrumental to their upward mobility within the

United States. As such, they endorse the importance of education and are more likely to

behave in ways that are conducive to school success. This is contrasted with involuntary

minorities whose experiences of discrimination have limited the opportunities available

to them within White-controlled institutions and have spawned folklores of alternative

avenues to success in adulthood. As a result, involuntary minorities are ambivalent about

the utility of academic credentials and are likely to focus on alternative paths to adult

success such as entertaining or playing professional sports.

According to Ogbu’s theory, students’ beliefs in the instrumental value of school

credentials should be indicative of their school performance as voluntary minorities are

more likely to endorse the utility of education while involuntary minorities are less likely

to endorse the utility of education. However, research in this area has not demonstrated a

positive relationship between Latino students’ beliefs in the utility of education and their

academic performance. In a longitudinal study of urban adolescents, Andrew Fuligni

(2001) found that, as a group, Latino students reported a stronger belief in the utility of

education than did their White peers. Nonetheless, Latino students received the lowest

grades in school suggesting that Latino students’ beliefs in the utility of education do not

directly correspond to their academic achievement (Fuligni, 1997).

31

Since Fuligni’s (1997, 2001) work was based upon group means, it overlooks

within-group variation. The present study seeks to explore this variation as it may

enhance our understanding of how Ogbu’s Theory of Minority School Performance is

operating within the Latino community. Therefore this study will explore how student

beliefs in the utility of education correspond to their academic performance. Do Latino

students who hold stronger beliefs in the utility of education have higher GPAs than

Latino students who hold weaker beliefs in the utility of education?

Relationships within the System

The relationships students are able to establish within the system are an important

component of Ogbu’s community forces. Accordingly, voluntary minorities are able to

develop pragmatic relationships with school personnel while involuntary minorities’

distrust of the system and those who are associated with it prevents them from developing

positive relationships with school personnel.

The ability to develop relationships within the system provides students with the

opportunity to benefit from the knowledge, expertise, and support of school personnel.

The benefit one gains or has access to as a result of one’s social network has been termed

“social capital.” Social capital can best be understood through the old adage “it’s not

what you know but who you know.” Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) defines social

capital as:

… the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (p. 119).

More important than the size of one’s network is the capital one has access to as a result

of network membership. Equally important is the strength of network membership. The

32

stronger the ties, the more opportunity there is to capitalize upon the resources available

by virtue of network membership.

Within the context of schooling, there are benefits that arise from the access to

social capital which arises through students’ relationships with school personnel. Goyette

and Conchas (2002) highlight the some of the ways students might benefit from school-

based social capital in the following quote:

Teachers encourage students whom they believe are talented or hard working (Conchas, 1999; Farkas et al., 1990; Mehan at al., 1996; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Principals and guidance counselors may provide information about college preparation courses, applications, and financing for students who do not have access to this information at home. Guidance counselors may take students on trips to colleges to help them make informed choices (p. 49).

As is demonstrated in the above passage, students who are able to establish positive

relationships within the school system are able to benefit from social ties with school

personnel.

Relationships with school personnel may be of particular relevance to the

achievement of Latino students. First, low educational attainment and inexperience with

U.S. schools often limit Latino parents’ knowledge of the U.S. educational system

(Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Consequently, these parents are limited in the

guidance they can provide to their children. As such, Latino students are less likely to

have access to information about the process of schooling within their homes and must

rely more heavily upon school personnel in order to obtain such information. In addition,

there may be larger cultural implications of Latino students’ relationships with school

personnel. According to Valenzuela (1999), the Mexican definition of education is

grounded in the concept of caring and asserts that all learning is based upon sustained and

33

reciprocal relationships between teachers and students. So while Latino students may be

come to school expecting to establish positive relationships with school personnel,

research has found that Latino students actually receive minimal guidance and support

from teachers, peers, and counselors (Goyette & Conchas, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).

Latino students’ inability to form relationships with school personnel is likely to be

detrimental to their academic achievement. To this end, Valenzuela (1999) writes, “when

teachers withhold social ties from Mexican American youth, they confirm this group’s

belief that schooling is impersonal, irrelevant, and lifeless” (p. 22).

When school personnel decide to form relationships with students they are in

essence deciding which students to invest in or which students are most worthy of

sponsorship (Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). This may prove to be an

obstacle for Latino students as teachers and counselors believe that as a group, Latinos

are among the least motivated and least capable students (Goyette & Conchas, 2002). As

a result of this perceived relationship between students’ ethnicity and their motivation

and ability to achieve academically, school personnel are less likely to invest in and

establish positive relationships with Latino students.

Expressive/Symbolic Beliefs about Schooling

According to the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority Student Performance, a

minority group’s symbolic response to their incorporation into American society centers

upon their understanding and interpretation of the differences between their culture and

language and that of White America. While voluntary minorities perceive their

acculturation into American society as an additive process, involuntary minorities

perceive the same process as subtractive. This is because voluntary minorities believe

34

that their mastery of White culture and language will be instrumental to their future

success while involuntary minorities believe that White culture and language is the

culture and language of their oppressors and since involuntary minorities have been

denied access to opportunities within mainstream America they do not believe that there

is any gain in mastering White culture and language. As a result of their marginal status

within society, it is important to involuntary minorities to maintain symbols of identity

that distinguish the minority group from mainstream society. In this study, two constructs

were chosen to represent Latino students’ symbolic beliefs about schooling. These

constructs include beliefs in the importance of family and perceptions of parental

aspirations for their future educational attainment.

Familism beliefs

Familism, is “a strong identification and attachment of individuals with their

families (nuclear and extended), and strong feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity

among members of the same family” (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-

Stable, 1987, p. 398). The belief in the importance and primacy of family within one’s

life is deeply embedded within the Latino community (Ruschenberg & Buriel, 1989;

Sabogal, et. al., 1987). Moreover, this belief is not diminished as Latinos acculturate to

American society. Instead of undermining the primacy of family, being of a later

generation (e.g. third generation Latino American) allows Latinos to expand their social

network to include more non-familial relationships. To this end Ruschenberg and Buriel

(1989) write, “as families of Mexican ancestry acculturate, they become increasingly

involved with social systems outside the family while the basic internal family system

35

remains essentially unchanged” (p. 232). Consequently, familism beliefs are closely tied

to Latinos sense of identity and belonging.

Because of the primacy of family within the lives of Latino students, researchers

have investigated the relationship between familism beliefs and academic adjustment

(e.g. Fuligni, 2001; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Suárez-Orozco, 1991; Suárez-Orozco

& Suárez-Orozco, 1995). In particular researchers have been interested in understanding

if and how familism beliefs affect the academic achievement of Latino students. There

are several ways in which familism beliefs have the potential to promote or impede

academic success. First, students sense of loyalty to their family can be a powerful

motivator propelling students to work hard in school and achieve academically (e.g.

Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Suárez-Orozco, 1991). This is particularly true among

students who believe that their families have made tremendous sacrifices so that they

would have the opportunity to attend school (Suárez-Orozco, 1991). Moreover, Latino

students who feel responsible for financially providing for their parents may be more

likely to view education as instrumental in obtaining the financial security needed to

provide for themselves and their parents. So while familism beliefs have the potential to

promote academic success, they also have the potential to undermine student

achievement. First, when Latino students are home, there is a tremendous pull for them to

spend time with relatives, including extended family members and this limits the amount

of time students are able to devote to scholastic endeavors within the home (e.g. Fuligni,

Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Henderson, 1997). Additionally, low-income Latino students may

feel a greater sense of obligation to enter into the workforce or increase their workforce

participation in times of familial economic crisis (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999;

36

Henderson, 1997). Unlike the previous two home-based possibilities, the final way in

which familism beliefs may impair academic adjustment is school-based. The close

familial ties possessed by Latino students are deeply ingrained in students’ sense of self.

Yet, these ties are often undervalued within schools and underutilized by teachers leaving

Latino students feeling misunderstood and marginalized (Valenzuela, 1999). As Ogbu

suggests, this is problematic because students may be more inclined to adopt an

oppositional identity within schools as they do not feel valued or understood within

educational settings.

Andrew Fuligni’s (1997; 2001; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999) work investigating

the relationship between Latino student beliefs of family obligation and school

adjustment further supports the notion that familism may both help and hinder academic

achievement. First, Latino students’ beliefs in family obligation (current assistance,

family respect, and supporting the family in the future) were strongly related to their

beliefs in the utility of education, suggesting that familial obligations fuel Latino students

desire to achieve academically (Fuligni, 2001). However, while Latino students reported

a stronger belief in the utility of education than did their Caucasian peers, they still

received the lowest grades in school when compared to other ethnic groups (Fuligni,

1997). Still other work (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999) has found a curvilinear

relationship between student beliefs in their current and future obligations to family and

their grade point averages. Those students with modest feelings of familial obligation

were performing better than those students who held strong or weak feelings of familial

obligation. This lends further support to the complex relationship between students’

familism beliefs and their academic achievement and highlights the need to further

37

investigate the relationship that exists between Latino students’ familism beliefs and their

school performance.

Student perceptions of parental aspirations for educational attainment

The role of parents in shaping students’ beliefs and behaviors of school

adjustment and academic performance is central to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of

Minority School Performance. Therefore, in addition to students’ familism beliefs this

study incorporates students’ perceptions of their parents’ aspirations for their future

educational attainment as a measure of expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling.

This construct was chosen because it is a home-based measure of the messages that

students are receiving about their education. As previously noted, voluntary and

involuntary minority parents are similar in their verbal endorsement of the importance of

an education to children’s future success. According to Ogbu (2003), it is not that

involuntary minority parents lack high expectations for their children, but rather that their

educational involvement at home and at school do not behaviorally match their expressed

expectations and that they are inconsistent in their messages about the role of education

in adult success. While voluntary minority parents support their verbal encouragement

with their involvement in and monitoring of their children’s education, involuntary

minorities are often inconsistent in the messages that they send to their children. Their

own life experiences, lack of involvement in their children’s schooling, and expressed

distrust of the school system all work to undermine the aspirations that involuntary

minority parents hold for their children’s future educational attainment. Moreover, as

children of involuntary minorities witness the ways in which discrimination within

society work to undermine parents’ educational accreditations involuntary parents’

38

efforts to endorse the utility of education are also eroded. As a result, involuntary

minority children are likely to become ambivalent about the utility of education in adult

success. In an effort to capture how such parental messages about education are

internalized by Latino students this study of Latino student achievement measures student

perceptions of parental aspirations for their future educational attainment. In doing so, the

present study hopes to understand how student are internalizing the messages they are

receiving from their parents and how this in turn affects Latino student achievement.

The investigation of the effects of parental expectations and aspirations on student

achievement has proven to be a prolific area of research. This literature has suggested

that parental aspirations for children’s future academic achievement may have a

particularly powerful effect on student achievement as parents with higher expectations

and aspirations for their children’s educational attainment are consistently more likely to

have children that excel academically. In a meta-analysis designed to understand the

differential effects of various forms of parental involvement, Fan and Chen (2001)

concluded that parental aspirations and expectations shared the strongest relationship to

student academic achievement when compared to general parental involvement, parent-

child communication, home supervision, and school contact and participation. In another

study which explored the factors that may be perpetuating the achievement gap between

White and Latino students, Okagaki and Frensch (1998) concluded that differences in

parental expectations of children’s achievement were among the five potential causes for

the differences in the academic achievement of White and Latino students.

Research among Latino families has highlighted the ways in which parental

aspirations and expectations operate to shape Latino student achievement. There are two

39

primary themes that emerge from this literature. First, parental aspirations are being

shaped by Latino parents’ experiences within the US labor force. Additionally, Latino

parents have a unique way of conveying educational aspirations. Instead of articulating

specific goals for their children’s future educational attainment, parents tend to rely on

personal narrative as a means of demonstrating the utility of education in obtaining adult

success.

While middle-class White families may view education as an avenue to personal

growth or fulfillment, research has found that Latino parents have an instrumental view

of education focusing on the future opportunity provided through educational attainment.

Goldenberg and Gallimore (1995) write:

The parents … view education in instrumental terms. Education is a means to economic security, the attainment of professional status, or both. Although they also express the hope that children will learn something useful as a part of their schooling, they unquestionably believe that education is necessary for social mobility and economic success (p. 191).

In addition to believing in the utility of education, Latino parents who believed that their

upward mobility was limited because of their lack of education were more likely to hold

high educational aspirations for their own children (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, &

Garneir, 2001). These findings are inline with Ogbu’s characterization of voluntary

minorities. Taking a pragmatic approach to the acquisition of education would allow

parents and their children to buy into the American educational system without

jeopardizing their sense of identity. Moreover, focusing on the utility of education allows

voluntary minorities to overlook inequities within the educational system as they remain

focused on their future goals and the role that education plays in paving the way to adult

success. Consequently, this buy-in of the American educational system would likely lead

40

to academic achievement among their children as their children internalize parents’

messages about the value and role of education in adult success.

In this same vein, qualitative studies have documented the ways in which some

Latino parents rely on personal narrative to encourage their children to stay in school

(Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995; Romo & Falbo, 2000; Stanton-

Salazar, 2001). In their analysis of parental aspirations Romo and Falbo (2000) found that

Latino parents with low educational attainment tend to rely on their own narratives to

provide examples of the costs of low academic achievement. ‘Don’t be like me. Stay in

school.’ (Romo & Falbo, 2000, p. 211) is a sentiment echoed by many Latino parents

who find themselves trapped in low-wage jobs that offer little to no job security and few,

if any, prospects of upward mobility. Like most parents, Latinos want their children to

have more than they have. As a result, they may rely on personal narratives as a means of

demonstrating the consequences of low educational attainment. This is illustrated in a

quote from a high achieving Latino high school student:

[My mother] tries to keep that dream alive in my head, so it continues, so it doesn’t die off like other stuff, … like a record, and the next day you say, “Ah, I don’t like it anymore.” My parents just emphasize the importance of an education, and they give examples, like the kind of job they have, and where I’m going to end up if I don’t finish. (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, p. 97).

As is demonstrated in this quote, Latino parents do not necessary set an explicit

expectation for the level educational attainment and instead focus on the consequences of

not obtaining an education. In this study of immigrant adolescent Latinos and their

families, Stanton-Salazar (2001) found that while parents wanted their children to

achieve, they were inclined, “to allow their children to define their own educational

plans” (p. 83). These findings suggest that Latino parents are likely to want their children

41

to attend college. However, they may also tend to leave the decision of the level of

educational attainment to their children. This laissez-faire approach may result from

Latino parents’ limited knowledge of the American educational system which implicitly

requires parents to effectively manage their children’s education (Baker & Stevenson,

1986).

Given the research that has demonstrated a positive relationship between parental

aspirations and academic achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Okagaki & Frensch, 1998),

Latino parents’ failure to articulate a clear goal for their children’s future educational

attainment may contribute to Latino students’ underachievement. Since the message is

not clearly articulated, students are free to interpret what it means to “get a good

education.” And if their parents are in low-wage jobs such as dishwashers, gardeners, and

house cleaners, a high school diploma and minimum wage job at a department store may

be perceived by students as a significantly better life with more opportunities than those

available to their parents.

Collectively, these findings suggest that Latino parental aspirations for their

children’s future educational attainment may have both positive and negative effects on

Latino student achievement. While parents’ emphasis of the utility of education is clearly

aligned with a voluntary minority perspective of education, the failure to articulate clear

goals may undermine parents’ endorsement of education. Consequently, it is important to

begin to understand how Latino students perceive their parents messages about education

and how these perceptions may be shaping Latino student achievement.

Educational Strategies Utilized by Students

42

As minorities adjust to their incorporation into American society they adopt

strategies that will both protect their identity and promote their goals for future success.

Within the school system, voluntary minorities adopt a pragmatic approach to education

which allows them to remain focused on their goal of educational attainment in spite of

numerous structural barriers to academic achievement. In contrast, involuntary minorities

have lost faith that their educational credentials will be fairly rewarded within society and

therefore develop a cultural folklore of alternative pathways to adult success.

Consequently, voluntary and involuntary minorities develop and utilize different

strategies within the educational system. Voluntary minority students develop strategies

that will help them gain the most from their educational experience and therefore exhibit

a high correspondence between their verbal endorsement of and commitment to

education and their engagement in academic behavior. Ogbu (2003) has asserted that it is

the correspondence between verbal endorsement and positive educational strategies that

promote academic achievement among voluntary minority students as they are not only

saying that they want to do well in school but also engaging in the types of activities that

promote academic success, such as preparing for exams and completing homework. In

contrast, involuntary minority students lack congruence between their beliefs and

behavior. Instead, there is a disconnect between their verbal endorsements of education

and the behavioral strategies that they employ within educational settings. Involuntary

minority students are likely to verbalize high educational aspirations but at the same time

are unlikely to adopt the behavioral strategies that would help them to achieve their goals.

Instead, involuntary minorities fail to attend class regularly, complete homework

43

assignments, and prepare for exams making it unlikely that they will achieve

academically.

The academic behavior exhibited by minority students is also likely to affect the

way that students are perceived and treated within the school system. According to

Goyette & Conchas (2002), school personnel make decisions about what students are

worthy of investment. This decision is undoubtedly informed by students’ appearance

and behavior (e.g. Matute-Bianchi, 1991; Valenzuela, 1999). Consequently, the

educational strategies utilized by voluntary and involuntary minorities are not only likely

to effect their academic achievement but also their relationships within the educational

system. As such voluntary minorities have a tremendous advantage over involuntary

minorities as they are not only engaging in the behavior necessary for academic

achievement but are also likely to be benefiting from additional assistance, support, and

encouragement from school personnel.

In an effort to understand how educational strategies effect Latino student

achievement, the present study captures students’ academic behavior and endorsement of

education. More specifically, this study looks at the amount of time students spend on

their homework during an average school night and students’ aspirations for their future

educational attainment.

Time spent on homework

According to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School

Performance, students’ academic behavior, or school functioning, is a critical component

to their scholastic success. While both voluntary and involuntary youth are likely to

44

verbally endorse education, only voluntary youth couple their verbal endorsement with

behavioral strategies that are conducive to academic success.

While the range of behaviors that can promote academic success is plentiful,

school functioning has been defined as: getting along with teachers, paying attention in

school, getting homework done, and getting along with other students (Heard, 2007). In

addition to exhibiting high school functioning, students who spend more time on their

homework are also more likely to have higher GPAs (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). In a

cross-ethnic comparison between Filipino, Chinese, Mexican, Central and South

American, and European American students, Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam (1999) demonstrated

that Mexican and Central and South American students spend considerably less time on

their homework than their Asian and Filipino peers but more time on their homework

than European American peers. Moreover, findings from this study suggest there is a

relationship between time spent on homework and grade point average. Based upon such

findings, the present study utilizes students’ self-reports of the amount of time that they

spent on homework on an average school night as a measure of academic behavior. It is

expected that students’ who are likely to report spending more time on their homework

are also more likely to perform well academically.

Student aspirations for their future educational attainment

According to Ogbu, the educational strategies employed by students are critical to

their school adjustment and academic achievement. Accordingly, when students are

academically successful they employ educational strategies that consist of both verbal

and behavioral commitment to education. In the present study, student aspirations for

45

their own future educational attainment are a measure of the verbal commitment to their

education.

Across studies which have included students of various nationalities and

ethnicities, student aspirations “have been shown to affect positively and consistently

subsequent educational and occupational achievement” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, p.

215). Even so, results with Latino students have indicated that there may be some

noteworthy differences among this group of students. First, ethnicity has been shown to

have differential affects on the educational aspirations of Latino students. In a study

comparing the educational aspirations of Cuban, Dominican Republic, Mexican,

Nicaraguan, Columbian, Other Latino, Haitian, Jamaican, Other West Indies,

Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong, Cambodian, Filipino, Chinese and other Asian, and

European and Canadian youth, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) found that “independent of

other factors, Mexican-origin reduces educational aspirations and expectations by almost

10 percent” (p. 230). Since this sample is primarily Mexican-ancestry, this finding is

particularly relevant suggesting that the students within this study may be likely to have

suppressed educational aspirations.

In a longitudinal study of educational aspirations among Latino, Asian, and White

youth, Kao and Tienda (1998) found that while aspirations remained relatively stable for

most students from eighth to twelfth grade, this was not the case for Latino students.

High aspirations were less stable for Latino students and by the time they finished high

school there was a noticeable decline in their aspirations. In follow up analyses, Kao and

Tienda (1998) concluded that this decline could be attributed to their socioeconomic

background, which limited their information about college and resulted in early

46

aspirations that were less concrete than those of non-Latino students. Since the

aspirations measured within the present study were taken in the second semester of

students’ ninth grade year, still early in their educational trajectories, this measure of

student aspirations may capture an optimism that is not entirely grounded in reality.

Consequently, including a measure of student behavior will greatly enhance our

understanding of the educational strategies utilized by students. It may be that students

who have aspirations grounded in reality will have knowledge of the entrance criteria for

colleges and will be more likely to exhibit behavior associated with high school

functioning as they understand that such behavior is necessary if they are to achieve their

educational goals.

Contributing to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

The conceptual model guiding the present study (see Figure 3) is grounded in

Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance while also

considering the breadth of research on Latino student achievement. Therefore, in addition

to utilizing Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance, the

present study also attempts to build upon this theory in several important ways. While

Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) has said that the profiles of voluntary and involuntary

minorities are anchors of a continuum, he has done little to elaborate this point, and the

work that he has done has focused on African American students (e.g. Ogbu, 1989).

However, work by Matute-Bianchi (1991) suggests that the categorization of Mexican-

descent students is complex, lending itself to a continuum that has yet to be fully

articulated. So while this theory may explain group differences in minority achievement,

it does not adequately address the variation that exists within groups. Taking seriously the

47

heterogeneity of the Latino population, this study explores within group variation. In

particular, this study gives careful consideration to students’ generational status, gender,

and maternal educational attainment in an effort to understand how these variables affect

students’ beliefs, relationships, behaviors, and academic achievement.

The conceptual model guiding the present study makes explicit an interest in

students’ generational status. This interest in grounded in a body of research (Buriel,

1987; College Board, 1999; Kao & Tienda, 1998; Ogbu, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001;

Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995; Zarate & Gallimore, 2005) that has established a

strong link between Latino students generational status and their academic achievement.

This is particularly important because while Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) has

discussed the influence of generational status, the discussion has remained predominately

theoretical. Therefore it is important that models of Latino student achievement carefully

consider the ways in which generational status is operating to influence students’ beliefs

about schooling, their academic behavior, relationships they develop with school

personnel, and their academic performance.

Maternal education is yet another demographic characteristic that has consistently

been linked to improved academic outcomes for children (e.g. Lareau, 2000; Lareau,

2003; Holloway, Fuller, Rambaud, & Eggers-Piérola, 1997; College Board, 1999;

Stevenson & Baker, 1987). However, acknowledging the pivotal role parents play in their

children’s educational attainment Ogbu (2003), argued that minority status was more

important than parents’ educational resources in determining the messages that parents

convey to their children. While highly-educated involuntary minority parents may

express higher aspirations and exhibit more positive forms of parental involvement than

48

lower-educated involuntary minority parents, involuntary minorities, regardless of

educational attainment, are generally suspicious of the educational system. This distrust

of the system is transmitted to their children, either through words or actions and results

in strained relationships within the system. Since voluntary minority parents do not have

this distrust of institutions, students are able to establish positive relationships with

school personnel, thus creating an educational advantage for voluntary minorities.

Regardless of minority status, parents with more education are more likely to be able to

manage their children’s education (Stevenson & Baker, 1987) and are more likely to be

knowledgeable about how the educational system works (e.g. Lareau, 1987; Lareau,

2003; Holloway et. al., 1997). This knowledge may be particularly important for

involuntary minorities who have fewer opportunities to obtain this information through

relationships established with people from within the educational system. Consequently,

the present study explores the ways in which students’ maternal educational attainment

shape students’ beliefs about schooling, their academic behavior, the relationships they

develop with school personnel, and their academic performance.

Finally, this study includes one variable that is not directly tied to Ogbu’s

Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance but that has been shown to

be a factor influencing Latino student achievement. It has been well established that

differential patterns of achievement exist among Latino male and Latina students

(College Board, 1999; Kao & Tienda, 1985; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Zarate &

Gallimore, 2005). This difference results in an increased risk of school failure for Latino

males. Understanding the ways in which student gender influences Latino students’

beliefs about schooling, academic behavior, the relationships they develop with school

49

personnel, and academic performance is key to developing a richer understanding of the

variation in Latino student achievement and will therefore be included in the present

study.

Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance:

Generational Status

As noted earlier, Latinos generational status has implications for their

categorization into Ogbu’s voluntary/involuntary minority paradigm. While immigrants

from Central and South America, Cuba, and Mexico are considered voluntary minorities,

whereas, due to their historical integration into American society, early Mexican

Americans in the Southwest and Puerto Rican Americans are considered involuntary

minorities (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). More importantly, Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998)

outlines the process by which Mexican immigrants become involuntary minorities as

subsequent generations assimilate into American society. According to Ogbu (Ogbu and

Simmons, 1998) Mexican immigrants affinity to Mexican Americans lead Mexican

immigrants to be perceived and treated as part of the pre-established involuntary group of

Mexican Americans. Consequently, discriminatory practices keep Mexican immigrants

segregated from voluntary Mexican Americans. Instead, Mexican immigrants reside and

work alongside Mexican Americans thus perpetuating the intermingling and eventual

merging of these voluntary and involuntary minorities such that subsequent generations

of Mexican-immigrant ancestry will become involuntary minorities. Consequently, it is

imperative to consider generational status when utilizing Ogbu’s theoretical framework to

understand Latino student achievement.

50

Research has underscored this phenomenon by demonstrating that immigrant

Latino youth fare better within educational institutions than do American-born Latinos

(Buriel, 1987; Kao & Tienda, 1998; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-

Orozco, 1995). While the reasons underlying this differential pattern of achievement are

still being investigated, researchers have been able to identify two factors that contribute

to the differences in the achievement of immigrant and American-born Latinos. The first

factor contributing to differential patterns of achievement has been attributed to

immigrant optimism, a term used to define the immigrant experience which is

characterized by feelings of hope, opportunity, and promise. Because of their immigrant

optimism, immigrant youth believe that their hard work will be rewarded. More

specifically, immigrant youth believe that if they learn English and do well in school they

will improve their future outlook by increasing their opportunity for upward mobility

(Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995).

Additionally, some researchers have attributed differential patterns of

achievement to immigrant Latinos’ dual frame of reference (e.g. Suárez-Orozco, 1991;

Valenzuela, 1999). According to this perspective, Latino immigrants are able to use their

country of origin as a point of reference making them more apt to see the positive in the

American educational system. For example, some immigrant youth would not have been

able to attend school in their home country because cost or distance would have made it

prohibitive. Consequently, they view their school attendance as an opportunity that is

being afforded to them because of their U.S. residency. This perspective allows them to

overlook some of the structural inequities that exist within the educational system and

allows them to maintain focus on the goals they have for their future success within this

51

country. In contrast, American-born Latinos use White Americans as their reference

group. As such, they are keenly aware of the structural inequalities that exist within the

school systems. From the physical space, to the resources, to their treatment by school

personnel, American-born Latinos are often embedded in an awareness of discrimination

and social injustice making it more likely that Latino American youth will disengage

from school and create what Ogbu terms an “oppositional identity” thereby rebuffing the

educational system.

As is demonstrated in the above research findings, generational status among

Latinos is likely to be shaping Latino students experiences within schools and leading to

differential patterns of achievement among immigrant and American-born Latino youth.

And while Ogbu has provided an explanation for the process by which voluntary

minority youth take on the characteristics, beliefs, and behaviors of involuntary minority

youth, how this process is operationalized within the Latino community remains unclear.

By including students’ generational status this study will explore variation within Latino

student achievement with the goal of creating a more robust understanding of the ways in

which Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance can be

utilized in the study of Latino academic achievement.

Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance:

Maternal Education

As Ogbu (2003) suggests, parental education is a factor which influences parental

behaviors as they relate to student achievement. For this reason, it is important to

consider parental education in any model of student achievement. In their article,

Okagaki and Frensch (1998) have identified differences in socioeconomic status and

52

parent education as one of five potential causes for the differences in the academic

achievement of White and Latino students. Moreover, it has been well-established that

“students from low-income homes, or who have parents with little formal education, are

more likely to be low achievers and much less likely to be high achievers” (College

Board, 1999). For this reason, the present study includes maternal educational attainment

in its models of student achievement. In doing so this research will explore within group

variation among Latinos further enhancing the usefulness of Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological

Theory of Minority School Performance in the study of Latino student achievement.

Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance: Student

Gender

Centering upon minority school adjustment, Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory

of Minority School Performance does not address the role of gender in student

achievement. However, research with Latinos has demonstrated that there are differential

patterns of student achievement that are based upon student gender. When compared with

Latino males, Latinas tend to have higher grades (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001); NAEP

reading scores (College Board, 1999; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001); graduation rates (Civil

Rights Project of Harvard University, 2005); and college-going rates (Zarate &

Gallimore, 2005). Collectively these findings indicate the Latino males are at greater risk

for academic underachievement.

Moreover, there is also evidence to suggest that Latino male and Latina students

experience different pathways to academic success (College Board, 1999; Kao & Tienda,

1985; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Zarate & Gallimore, 2005). For example, one study

found that eighth grade Latino males report higher aspirations for their educational

53

attainment than do Latinas (Kao & Tienda, 1985). Given Latinas tendency to graduate

from high school (Civil Rights Project of Harvard University, 2005) and enroll in college

(Zarate & Gallimore, 2005) at higher rates than Latino males, this finding is somewhat

unexpected suggesting that early student aspirations may have less affect on Latino

student achievement. As was reported earlier, Kao and Tienda (1998) concluded that

Latino students’ early aspirations for their future educational attainment were less stable

as a result of limited access to information about college. It may be that this phenomenon

is more pervasive among Latino male students.

The gender-based differences in Latino students’ educational experiences are

further highlighted in a longitudinal study of factors leading to college enrollment among

Latino males and Latinas. As a result of this study, Zarate and Gallimore (2005)

concluded that parental effects are more important in the educational attainment of Latino

males than they are for Latina students. More specifically, parental expectations of

educational attainment were more aligned with Latino males’ college enrollment than

they were with Latinas college enrollment. This was particularly interesting because

parents did not seem to differ in the expectations that they held for their children.

However, the messages parents conveyed to their children about the importance of

academic attainment varied by gender. Zarate and Gallimore (2005) write:

When asked to reflect on how they had communicated their educational expectations to their children, it became apparent that boys’ parents seemed to align formal education with improved economic status. For example, a parent told her son, “Tu tienes que prepararte, estudiar para que ayude a su papa” (You have to study, to help your father). On the other hand, parents of girls seemed to characterize formal education as a means of counteracting the girls’ gendered vulnerabilities. For example, parents frequently told their daughters that education was important para defenderse (to defend oneself) or para hacerle frente a la vida (to confront life). It was also not uncommon for girls’ parents to stress that education

54

could allow their daughters to become breadwinners if a marriage failed (p. 394).

Collectively these findings draw attention to the need to consider gender when examining

academic achievement among Latino students. More specifically, these findings suggest

that gender is shaping Latino students schooling experiences and subsequent academic

achievement. So while Ogbu failed to include gender in his theory of minority school

performance, the present study includes gender in the belief that it will further enhance a

model of Latino student achievement.

Summarizing the Objectives of the Present Study

The date, Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

offers the most robust theoretical framework from which to investigate students’

academic achievement. This theoretical perspective is unique in that it combines macro

and micro-level factors including the socio-historical effects of treatment within

American society and the influences of the minority group culture as well as the

influences of home, school, and the individual. And while this theoretical framework has

been used for thirty years, it is still being refined. The present study hopes to add to this

endeavor. In doing so, this study adds to the limited work utilizing this framework to

investigate Latino student achievement. More specifically, this study has two main

objectives. First, it seeks to explore the ways in which students’ generational status,

maternal educational attainment, and gender contribute to differential patterns within

Latino students’ academic beliefs and behaviors, relationships with school personnel, and

school performance. In addition, this study utilizes Ogbu’s model to explain variation in

Latino student achievement by testing how well a model containing students’

generational status, maternal educational attainment, gender, beliefs in the utility of

55

education, familism beliefs, perceptions of parental aspirations, student aspirations for

their own educational attainment, student relationships with school personnel, and the

amount of time spent on homework explain differences in Latino students’ grade point

averages.

56

Chapter IV: Methods

Learning Beliefs Study

This research is part of a larger longitudinal, international project aimed at

understanding achievement motivation among low-income adolescents. The principal

investigators of this project are: Susan Holloway, Janine Bempechat, Julian Elliot, Neil

Hufton, and Jin Li. While this project has many components, the present study focused

only on a survey administered to ninth-graders in two high schools in the San Francisco

Bay Area in the spring of 2005.

Participants

Five hundred and thirteen students were sampled from two high schools in the

San Francisco Bay Area. Based upon data from the California Department of Education

for the 2000-2001 academic year (http://greatschools.net), these high schools were

selected because (a) their student body consisted of prominently low-income students (at

least 32% of their student body qualified for free or reduced lunch prices) and (b) their

student body provided adequate representation of students from focal ethnicities (at least

10% of each of the following ethnic groups: African American, White, and Latino).

Additionally, more than half of the students within these schools had a reported parental

education level of high school or less.

The participants included in this analysis were 1982 self-identified Latino3 ninth

graders from two low-income high schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. Of the 198

2 Bi-racial and multi-racial students were excluded from this analysis. 3 According to 2000 census data, 32% of Californians are Latino with 25% of the state’s population being Mexican-origin Latinos (United States Census, 2000). While it is acknowledged that the term Latino encompasses a diverse group of persons who differ in country of origin, the primary language spoken in the home, immigration history and generational status, this term will be applied to the participants of this study. However, it should be noted that the sample used within this analysis is representative of California and should therefore be considered to be predominately Mexican-origin.

57

students, fifty-four percent (n=106) were female, twenty-two percent (n=44) were first-

generation Latinos, and twenty-two percent (n=44) reported that their mothers had at

least some college education. On average, Latino students reported 2.57 adults in the

home with a range of zero to nine.

Survey

Surveys were administered to ninth graders in mainstream English classes. Prior

to administration of the survey, parents received letters at the home addresses on file with

the school. These letters notified parents of the plans to administer surveys within their

children’s classrooms and provided parents with the opportunity to return a negative

consent form to the school if they did not want their children to participate in the survey.

On the day of survey administration, students were informed about the survey and given

consent forms. The survey was then administered by research staff. Upon completion of

the surveys, all students in attendance received a candy bar and one student per class won

a cash prize of $15.

The seven page survey took students approximately 20 minutes to complete. This

survey captured student demographics, beliefs and perceptions, behavior, and

achievement. Demographic variables included: gender, generational status, maternal

educational attainment, and number of adults and children residing within the home.

Measures of students beliefs and perceptions included feelings of connection to their

school, motivational orientation; aspirations for their educational attainment, perceptions

of their parental aspirations for their educational attainment, perceived benefits of

education, familism beliefs, parental monitoring, and emotional closeness to a parent.

The amount of time spent on homework was captured as a measure of student behavior.

58

And finally student achievement was obtained by capturing student grades in English,

Math, Science, and History.

59

Variables

Utilizing the data collected in the aforementioned survey, the present study

focused on the following variables: maternal education, generational status, gender,

familism, utility of education, familism beliefs, student aspirations for their own future

educational attainment, student perceptions of parental aspirations for their future

educational attainment, student relationships with school personnel, the amount of time

students’ reported spending on homework on an average evening, and grade point

average (GPA). The survey items and instruments used in this analysis can be found in

Appendix A. This appendix contains the original items used to create student

demographic variables, including maternal education, gender, and generational status;

those items used to create proxies for community factors, including utility of education,

familism beliefs, student perceptions of parental aspirations for their future educational

attainment, student aspirations for their future educational attainment), student

relationships within the system (relationships with school personnel), and student

academic behavior (time spent doing homework); and finally those items used to create

students’ achievement variables (grade point average).

Maternal education

Maternal education was obtained from one item which asked students if their

mother had attended college (0=no, 1=yes). Students also had the option to check “I don’t

know.”

Gender

Gender was obtained from a single item with 1=male and 0= female.

Generational status

60

Generational status was obtained by asking students the following questions:

Were you born in the United States? Was your mother born in the United States? Was

your father born in the United States (0=no, 1=yes)? Students who reported that they and

both of their parents were born outside of the United States were labeled first generation

American. Those students who reported that they were born in the United States and that

both of their parents were born outside of the United States were labeled second

generation American. And finally students who reported that they and at least one parent

were born inside the United States were labeled third generation American.

Utility of education

The African American Educational Outcome Inventory (Irving, 2002) was created

to assess African American students’ expectations for their future provided that they did

well in school. The items within this ten-item scale were rated on a 10-point Likert scale

from 1=very likely to 10=very unlikely. In his most recent work, Irving (Irving &

Hudley, 2005) averaged the original ten items of the African American Educational

Outcome Inventory (Irving, 2002) to create a composite which yielded a Cronbach’s

Alpha of .89. For the purposes of the present study, this scale was modified in 3 distinct

ways. First, items were modified to be applicable to students of any ethnicity. In addition,

the stem was changed from “If I graduate from high school and complete a higher

education program, I will be able to” to “If I do well in school, it will give me.” Lastly,

while the original instrument utilized a 10-point Likert scale, students in this study rated

outcome items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

(Ex. Item: If I do well in school, it will give me enough money to have a good life.) A

61

composite score of student beliefs about the utility of education was created using the

average of the mean scores summed across items.

Familism

Familism was assessed utilizing The Family Interdependence Scale (Phinney &

Madden, 1997). This instrument was originally developed to assess the value that

students place on close, interdependent relationships with their parents in a multi-ethnic

sample of adolescents. Students rated 10 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

1=not at all importation to 5= very important. (Ex. Item: How important is it for you to

spend time with your family?) When the FIS items were averaged to create composite

scores they yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .78, ranging from .71 to .86 across five

different ethnic groups (Phinney & Madden, 1997) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .82,

ranging from .75 to .83 across four ethnic groups (Phinney, Kim-Jo, Osorio, and

Vilhjamsdottir 2005). A composite score of student familism beliefs was created using

the average of the mean scores summed across items.

Student perceptions of parental aspirations

Student perceptions of parental aspirations for their educational attainment was

obtained through a single item which asked students to indicate their parents’ goal for

their educational attainment. 1 = high school, 2 = 2 year community college/trade school

3 = 4 year college, 5 = professional degree. Students also had the option to check “other”

or “I don’t know.”

Student aspirations

Student aspirations for their future educational attainment was obtained through a

single item which asked students to indicate their goal for their educational attainment.

62

1 = high school, 2 = 2 year community college/trade school 3 = 4 year college,

5 = professional degree. Students also had the option to check “other” or “I don’t know.”

Relationships with school personnel

Student relationships with school personnel was a composite of four questions

that came from a 15-item instrument that was created for the Learning Beliefs Project for

the purposes of assessing students’ feelings of connection to their school. These items

were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = not at all true and 5 = to very true. The items

used to create the relationships with school personnel were the following: I am treated

with respect by the teachers; I feel connected to at least one adult in this school; there are

teachers in my school who care about me; and there are teachers at this school who have

confidence in me.

Time spent doing homework

Time Spent Doing Homework was a measure of students’ academic behavior and

was obtained through a single item which asked students to indicate the time spent doing

homework on a regular school night (1 = 30 minutes or less, 2 = 30 minutes to 1 hour,

3 = 1 to 2 hours, 4 = 2 hours or more).

Grade point average

Grades were obtained from 4 items assessing students’ grades in English, Math,

History, and Science during their first semester in 9th grade. Grades were assigned values

(A=4; B=3; C=2, D=1, and F=0) and averaged to obtain GPA.

Student achievement level

Utilizing student grade point average, this variable created three categories of

students: high achieving, getting by, and under achieving. High achieving students were

63

those with a GPA of 3.0 or above. Students labeled as getting by were those who had a

GPA of 2.0 to 2.9. And low achieving students were those with a GPA of 1.9 or below.

64

Chapter V: Results

Data Analysis

Data analysis for this study was conducted with SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.

The data analysis consisted of four parts, including reliability analysis, exploratory

analysis of differential patterns of achievement associated with gender, maternal

education, and generational status; exploratory analysis of the relationships that exists

among belief, relationship, behavior, and achievement variables; and finally, testing of

the conceptual model put forth within the present study. First, reliability analyses were

conducted to create the composite variables used in the present study (see methods

section). In the next section, descriptives, t-tests, and multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) were conducted to explore differential patterns of achievement that exist

among Latino students. More specifically, t-tests were conducted to explore differences

that exist between Latino male and Latina students as well as differences that exist

between Latino students whose mothers have had some college and those whose mothers

have not had any college education. Next, a MANOVA was conducted to explore

differences in the beliefs, relationships, behaviors, and grades among first-, second-, and

third-generation Latino Americans. The third section focuses on relationships among

belief, relationship, behavior, and student achievement variables. First, a MANOVA was

conducted to explore differences in the beliefs, relationships, and behaviors of Latino

students that were low achievers, students who were getting by in school, and those that

were high achievers. Next, correlation analyses were used to further explore the

relationships that exist among variables included within the present study of Latino

student achievement. Lastly, this chapter concludes with a hierarchical regression

65

analysis exploring how well the proposed model of Latino student achievement fits the

current data.

Reliability Analysis

Prior to the analysis set forth in this study, preliminary analyses were conducted

to create the composites included in this research model. The results of those composite

analyses are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Grade point average

In order to obtain a composite of grade point average (GPA) that would assess a

student’s potential for graduation and advancement in education, GPA was calculated

from students’ self-reported grades in core subjects (mathematics, science, English, and

history). Of the 198 students, GPA was obtained for 192 of them. The average GPA

across these students was 2.41 (SD =.93). (See Table 1). Students in this study did best in

English (M=2.54, SD =1.22) and worst in mathematics (M=2.24, SD =1.15). The GPA

composite was reliable and yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .80.

66

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics concerning Student Grades (N=192)

Subject M SD

English 2.54 1.22

Math 2.27 1.15

Science 2.46 1.17

History 2.31 1.35

GPA 2.41 .93

Note. Grades were calculated on a 4-point scale with no distinction made between pluses and minuses

(e.g. 4= A-, A, and A+).

Utility of education

Students’ belief in the usefulness, or benefit, of education for their future was

assessed through the perceived utility of education composite. Across these items, Latino

students averaged a score of 3.95 (SD=.60) out of 5, indicating that students’ believed

that obtaining an education would positively effect their future. Analyses indicated that

when these items were averaged to create a composite the reliability of the composite was

high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 (see Table 2). Students most endorsed the notion

that obtaining an education would aid them in assisting their families (M=4.52, SD =.81).

Moreover, students least endorsed the notion that obtaining an education would reduce

the discrimination that they encountered (M=3.30, SD =1.23).

67

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics concerning Student Beliefs in the Utility of Education (N=198)

Items M SD

1. Choices in what jobs I can get… 4.30 .79

2. Job security… 3.67 1.08

3. Enough money to have a good life… 4.22 .96

4. Respect from other people… 3.78 1.08

5. Interesting ideas to go on thinking about… 3.77 .91

6. A way to avoid discrimination… 3.30 1.23

7. A way to give back to my community… 3.63 1.05

8. Time to do fun things… 3.99 .96

9. The chance to support myself… 4.40 .80

10. A way to help out my family… 4.52 .81

11. A chance to contribute to society… 3.83 .96

Utility of Education Composite

3.95

.60

Note. Items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree).

Familism

As noted in the literature review, belief in the importance of family, or familism,

is a cultural model strongly endorsed by Latinos (Fuligni, 2001; Ruschenberg & Buriel,

68

1989; Suárez-Orozco, C & Suárez-Orozco, M., 1995). For this reason, a composite was

created to measure students’ familism beliefs. This composite was reliable with a

Cronbach’s alpha of .84 (see Table 3). Students in this survey felt that family was

important (M=3.84, SD =.71). Moreover, students in this study felt that it was most

important “to be available to family members when they need help” (M=4.50, SD =.83),

and they felt that it was least important “to live at home with your parents/guardians until

you are married” (M=2.57, SD =1.47).

69

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics concerning Student Familism Beliefs (N=198)

Items M SD

1. To satisfy your family’s needs even when your own needs are different… 4.09 .96

2. To be available to family members when they need help… 4.50 .83

3. To spend time with your family… 4.33 .95

4. To do what your parents/guardians want you to do even when you don’t

agree with them…

3.49 1.14

5. To consult with your parents/guardians before making decisions… 3.74 1.12

6. To show respect for your parents/guardians by not arguing with them… 4.07 1.04

7. To put your family’s needs before your own… 3.96 1.05

8. To live at home with your parents/guardians until you are married… 2.57 1.47

9. To spend time with your parents/guardians after you no longer live with

them…

4.29 1.03

10. To have your parents/guardians live with you when they get older… 3.32 1.31

Familism Composite 3.84 .71

Note. Items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree).

70

Relationships with school personnel

Ogbu notes that students’ relationships with school personnel are instrumental to

minority groups’ success within academic settings. Moreover, research has noted that the

relational component of schooling may be particularly important among Latino students

as they place a high value on interpersonal relationships and often value rich and

extensive social networks (González & Moll, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). These items had a

low Cronbach’s alpha of .64. The mean for each of the four relationship items was

similar ranging from 3.43 to 3.67. Since Cronbach’s alpha is low, this suggests that

caution should be taken in assuming composite reliability. However, since this study is

exploratory this composite was included in the present study.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics concerning Relationships with School Personnel (N=197)

Items M SD

1. I am treated with respect by the teachers. 3.67 1.18

2. I feel connected to at least one adult in this school. 3.43 1.43

3. There are teachers in my school who care about me. 3.44 1.22

4. There are teachers at this school who have confidence in me. 3.64 1.13

Relationships with School Personnel Composite 3.54 .86

Note. Items on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all true to 5 = very true).

71

The Role of Gender, Maternal Education, and Generational Status in Differential

Patterns of Latino Student Beliefs, Relationships, Behaviors, and Achievement

Gender Differences

How do male and female Latino students compare with respect to their beliefs about the

utility of education, family obligation, perceptions of parental education goals, their

educational goals, their relationships with school personnel, the amount of time they

spent on homework and their ninth grade GPA?

An independent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate if gender played a

significant role in students’ beliefs in the utility of education, familism, perceptions of

parental aspirations for their future educational attainment, aspirations for their own

future educational attainment, relationships with school personnel, academic behavior,

and students’ 9th grade GPA. Results from this analysis yielded no significant differences

indicating that Latino male and female students were relatively similar in the beliefs,

relationships, behaviors, and achievement (see Table 5).

72

Table 5 Differences in Beliefs, Relationships, Behaviors, and Achievement of Latino Male and Latina Students

Mean

Standard

deviation

Sample

Size

T-test

statistics Variable

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female T P

Utility of education 3.93 3.93 0.60 0.61 87 106 0.02 0.98

Familism 3.77 3.89 0.71 0.71 87 106 1.21 0.23

Parental aspirations 2.56 2.81 1.13 1.06 82 98 1.50 0.14

Student aspirations 2.59 2.79 1.01 1.08 80 100 1.25 0.21

Relationships with

school personnel 3.49 3.59 0.83 0.87 87 106 0.86 0.39

Time spent on

homework 1.95 2.07 0.87 0.87 86 106 0.90 0.37

GPA 2.32 2.47 0.92 0.93 84 103 1.08 0.28

Note. Sample size for males varies from 80 to 87. Sample size for females varies from 98 to 106.

73

Maternal Education

How do Latino students whose mothers have some college compare to those Latino

students whose mothers have no college with respect to their beliefs about the utility of

education, family obligation, perceptions of parental education goals, their educational

goals, their relationships with school personnel, the amount of time they spent on

homework and their ninth grade GPA?

Differences based upon maternal educational attainment were assessed via

independent samples t-tests. Comparisons between Latinos whose mothers had no college

and those whose mothers had some college were done to assess differences in students’

beliefs about the utility of education, family obligation, perceptions of their parental

aspirations for their future educational attainment, aspirations for their own future

educational attainment, relationships with school personnel, the amount of time students

spent on homework, and students’ 9th grade GPA. This analysis yielded only one

significant difference (see Table 6). As expected, students whose mothers had some

college were more likely to hold higher aspirations for their own future educational

attainment than were those students whose mothers had no college education.

74

Table 6 Differences in Beliefs, Relationships, Behaviors, and Achievement of Students Whose Mothers have No or Some College

Mean

Standard

deviation

Sample

Size

T-test

statistics Variable

No

College

Some

College

No

College

Some

College

No

College

Some

College T P

Utility of

education 3.94 4.02 0.63 0.48 123 44 -0.94 0.35

Familism 3.88 3.88 0.71 0.71 123 123 0.95 0.34

Parental

aspirations 2.67 2.81 1.09 1.12 114 43 -0.75 0.46

Student aspirations 2.66 3.02 1.08 0.91 118 41 -2.13 0.04

Relationships with

school personnel 3.57 3.63 0.88 0.77 123 44 -0.42 0.68

Time spent on

homework 2.00 2.11 0.83 0.92 122 44 -0.75 0.45

GPA 2.41 2.65 0.94 0.80 118 44 -1.51 0.13

Note. Sample size for students whose mothers have no college varies from 114 to 123. Sample size for students whose

mothers have some college varies from 41 to 44.

Generational Status

75

How do first-, second-, and third-generation Latino American students compare with

respect to their beliefs about the utility of education, family obligation, perceptions of

parental education goals, their educational goals, their relationships with school

personnel, the amount of time they spent on homework and their ninth grade GPA?

In order to evaluate the role generational status may play in students’ beliefs

about the utility of education, family obligation, perceptions of parental aspirations for

their future educational attainment, student aspirations for their future educational

attainment, relationships with school personnel, the amount of time students spent on

homework, and students’ 9th grade GPA, a multiple analysis of variance was conducted.

Table 7 contains the means, standard deviations, and sample size for each variable within

this analysis. The current sample contained 44 first-generation, 113 second-generation,

and 31 third-generation Latino American students. Next, Table 8 contains the results of

the MANOVA. And finally, Table 9 contains the data from follow-up post hoc

comparisons which were conducted using the Fisher Procedure.

76

Table 7 Differences in Beliefs, Relationships, Behaviors, and Achievement of First-, Second-, and Third- Generation Latino Americans

Mean Standard deviation Sample size

Variable First Second Third First Second Third First Second Third

Utility of

education 4.01 3.92 3.97 .58 .58 .68 44 113 31

Familism 3.99 3.91 3.51 .67 .70 .70 44 113 31

Parental

aspirations 2.80 2.73 2.55 1.02 1.13 1.15 40 105 29

Student aspirations 2.73 2.74 2.71 1.03 1.05 1.05 41 106 28

Relationships with

school personnel 3.75 3.47 3.49 .85 .89 .77 44 113 31

Time spent on

homework 2.23 1.95 1.97 .84 .84 .95 43 113 31

GPA 2.37 2.43 2.51 .89 .97 .79 43 108 31

The results of the MANOVA (see Table 8) indicated that there was only one

statistically significant difference in the beliefs, relationships, behaviors, and achievement

of first-, second-, and third-generation Latino students. Results of the omnibus F-test

77

indicated that first-, second-, and third-generation students differed significantly in their

endorsement of familism beliefs F(2, 185) = 4.96, p = .008.

Table 8 Analysis of Variance for Differences First-, Second-, and Third-Generation Latino Americans

df F p

Variable Between Within

Utility of education 2 185 0.32 0.72

Familism 2 185 4.96 0.01

Parent aspirations 2 171 0.45 0.64

Student aspirations 2 172 0.01 0.99

Relationships with school personnel 2 185 1.79 0.17

Time spent on homework 2 184 1.77 0.17

GPA 2 179 0.22 0.80

Follow-up post-hoc analyses were conducted using the Fisher Procedure. Post-hoc

analyses indicated that when comparing the familism beliefs of first-, second-, and third-

generation Latino Americans, third-generation Latino Americans differ significantly from

both first- and second-generation students (see Table 9). First-generation Latino

Americans (M = 3.99, SD = .67) more strongly endorsed the centrality of family than did

third-generation Latino Americans (M = 3.51, SD = .60), p < .01. Moreover, second-

generation Latino Americans (M = 3.91, SD = .70) also endorsed familism beliefs more

strongly than did third-generation Latino Americans (M = 3.51, SD = .60), p < .01.

78

However, there was not a statistically significant difference between the strength of the

endorsement of familism beliefs among first- and second-generation Latino Americans.

Contrary to previous research (e.g. Ruschenberg & Buriel, 1989), Latino students

endorsement of familism beliefs do appear to diminish as Latinos become more

Americanized.

Table 9 Post Hoc Comparisons of the Familism Beliefs of First-, Second-, and Third-Generation Latino Americans

Group 1 Group 2

Mean

difference

Standard

Error p

First- Second- .08 .12 .51

Third- .48 .16 .00

Second- First- -.08 .12 .51

Third- .40 .14 .01

Third- First- -.48 .16 .00

Second- -.40 .14 .01

79

Exploring Relationships among Student Belief, Relationship, Behavior, and Achievement

Variables

Utilizing GPA students were grouped into three achievement levels—low

achieving, getting by, and high achieving. These categories were selected to represent

real world consequences of GPA thresholds. With a GPA of 1.9 or below, low achieving

students who continue along their current academic trajectory will not graduate from high

school. Students who are getting by have a GPA of 2.0 to 2.9 and will likely graduate

from high school if they continue on their current academic trajectory but are unlikely to

go directly to a 4-year college. With a GPA of 3.0 or above in core subjects, high

achieving students who remain on their current academic trajectory will likely graduate

from high school and be eligible to enroll in a 4-year college. Means, standard deviations,

and sample size are displayed in Table 10. Forty-nine of the students in this sample were

categorized as low achieving. The largest group was comprised of students who were

getting by (N=80). And the remaining 63 students were categorized as high achieving.

80

Table 10 Differences in Beliefs, Relationships, Behaviors, and Achievement of Low Achieving, Getting By, and High Achieving Students

Mean Standard deviation Sample size

Variable Low

Getting by High Low

Getting by High Low

Getting by High

Utility of

education 3.80 3.94 4.06 0.62 0.61 0.56 49 80 63

Familism 3.81 3.76 3.94 0.66 0.72 0.73 49 80 63

Parental

aspirations 2.30 2.64 2.98 1.12 1.12 1.01 43 76 59

Student

aspirations 2.21 2.69 3.11 1.06 1.02 0.92 43 77 59

Relationships

with school

personnel

3.37 3.56 3.71 .93 .77 0.88 49 80 63

Time spent on

homework 1.77 1.91 2.27 0.78 0.80 0.97 48 80 63

A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to explore the differences

between students who were low achieving, getting by, and high achieving. Since

differences in student demographics were not statistically significant they will not be

81

discussed here (see Table 11). Results indicated that there were statistically significant

differences in the perceptions of parental aspirations, student aspirations, and academic

behavior of low achieving, getting by, and high achieving students. The omnibus F-tests

were all statistically significant at p < .01, perceptions of parental aspirations F (2, 175)=

4.96, p =.008; student aspirations for their own future educational attainment F (2, 176)=

10.18, p =.000; and time spent on home F (2, 188)= 5.28, p =.006.

Table 11 Analysis of Variance for Low Achieving, Getting By, and High Achieving Students

df F p

Variable Between Within

Utility of education 2 189 2.67 .07

Familism 2 189 1.12 .33

Parental aspirations 2 175 4.96 .01

Student aspirations 2 176 10.18 .00

Relationships with school

personnel 2 189 2.25 .11

Time spent on homework 2 188 5.28 .01

As in the previous MANOVA, the Fisher Procedure was chosen as the method for

post-hoc analyses. The first post-hoc analyses examined differences in students’

perceptions of parental aspirations for their future educational attainment (see Table 12).

Post-hoc analyses indicated that when comparing perceptions of their parental aspirations

for their future educational attainment, there was a statistically significant (p < .001)

difference between low achieving and high achieving students. Low achieving students

believed that their parents held lower aspirations for their future educational attainment

82

(M = 2.30, SD = 1.12) than did those students who were high achieving (M = 2.98, SD =

1.01). While the difference between those students who were getting by (M = 2.64, SD =

1.12) and those who were high achieving (M = 2.98, SD = 1.01) did not reach statistical

significance, it did approach statistical significance (p = .07). Collectively, these findings

suggest that there is a positive linear relationship between parental aspirations and student

achievement.

Table 12 Post Hoc Comparisons of the Parental Aspirations of Low Achieving, Getting By, and High Achieving Students

Group 1 Group 2

Mean

difference

Standard

Error p

Low Getting by -.34 .21 .10

High -.68 .22 .00

Getting by Low .34 .22 .10

High -.34 .19 .07

High Low .68 .22 .00

Getting by .34 .19 .07

Next, the Fisher procedure was used to investigate the differences in students’

aspirations for their future educational attainment (see Table 13). As one might expect,

low achieving students (M = 2.21, SD = 1.06) were less likely (p < .01) than those

students who were getting by (M = 2.69, SD = 1.02) and those who were high achieving

(M = 3.11, SD = .92) to hold high aspirations for their future educational attainment.

83

Moreover, those students who were getting by were also significantly (p < .05) less likely

than high achieving students to hold high aspirations for their future educational

attainment. Like perceptions of parental aspirations, findings suggest that student

aspirations have a positive and linear relationship with student achievement.

Table 13 Post Hoc Comparisons of the Student Aspirations of Low Achieving, Getting By, and High Achieving Students

Group 1 Group 2

Mean

Difference

Standard

Error p

Low Getting by -.48 .19 .01

High -.90 .20 .00

Getting by Low .48 .19 .01

High -.42 .17 .02

High Low .90 .20 .00

Getting by .42 .17 .02

The final post-hoc analysis examined differences in students’ academic behavior

and identified the significant differences that existed in the amount of time students’

reported spending on homework (see Table 14). According to results of the Fisher

procedure post-hoc analysis, high achieving students (M = 2.27, SD = .97) were

significantly more likely to spend more time on their homework than were low achieving

students (M = 1.77, SD = .78), p < .001. Moreover, high achieving students were also

84

significantly more likely to spend more time on homework than were students who were

getting by (M = 1.91, SD = .80), p < .05.

Table 14 Post Hoc Comparisons of the Time Spent on Homework for Low Achieving, Getting By, and High Achieving Students

Group 1 Group 2

Mean

difference

Standard

error P

Low Getting by -.14 .16 .37

High -.50 .16 .00

Getting by Low .14 .16 .37

High -.36 .14 .01

High Low .50 .16 .00

Getting by .36 .14 .01

Relations among Student Belief Variables

What relations exist among students’ beliefs in the utility of education, the centrality of

family, perceptions of their parental aspirations, and aspirations for students’ own future

educational attainment?

Correlation analyses were conducted to explore the relations that exist among

student belief variables (see Table 15). Students who were more likely to endorse the

utility of education were also more likely to endorse familism beliefs, r = .47, p < .01;

perceive their parents as holding high aspirations for their future educational attainment,

85

r = .18, p < .05; and report holding higher aspirations for their own educational

attainment r = .19, p < .01. Moreover, students’ beliefs in the utility of education and the

importance of family had the most pronounced relation and produced a moderate

correlation (Cohen, 1988). As expected, parental aspirations for their children’s future

educational attainment was strongly related (Cohen, 1988) to students’ own aspirations

for their future educational attainment, r = .52, p < .01, such that students who perceived

their parents as holding higher aspirations for their future educational attainment were

much more likely to report holding higher aspirations for their own future educational

attainment.

Table 15 Correlations among Belief Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 1. Utility of education

1 .47** .18* .19**

2. Familism -- 1 0.10 0.13

3. Parental aspirations -- 1 .52**

4. Student aspirations -- 1

Note. Sample size varies from 178-198 due to missing data. *p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Relations among Model Variables

How do students’ beliefs in the utility of education, the centrality of family, perceptions of

their parental aspirations, and aspirations for students’ own future educational

attainment relate to students’ relationships with school personnel and the amount of time

students spent on homework?

86

Correlational analyses were conducted to explore how model variables were

related to one another (see Table 16). Results indicated that students’ relationships with

school personnel were moderately (Cohen, 1988) related to beliefs in the utility of

education, r = .27, p < .01 and beliefs in the importance of family, r = .32, p < .01.

Students who had positive relationships with school personnel were also more likely to

endorse the utility of education and the importance of family. And while the relation is

small (Cohen, 1988), correlation analyses indicate that those students who had positive

relationships with school personnel were also likely to spend more time on their

homework, r = .24, p < .01. And finally, those students who spent more time on their

homework were more likely to believe in the utility of education, r = .24, p < .01 and to

endorse the importance of family, r = .29, p < .01. However, only students’ familism

beliefs were moderately (Cohen, 1988) related to the amount of time students’ reported

spending on homework.

Table 16 Correlations among Beliefs, Relationships, and Behavior Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Utility of education 1 .47** .18* .19** .27** .24**

2. Familism -- 1 0.10 0.13 .32** .29**

3. Parental aspirations -- 1 .52** .10 .06

4. Student aspirations -- 1 .06 .09

5. Relationships with school personnel -- 1 .24**

6. Time spent on homework -- 1

Note. Sample size varies from 178-198 due to missing data. *p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

87

How does students’ ninth grade GPA relate to students’ beliefs (utility of education,

familism, perceptions of parental aspirations, student aspirations), relationships with

school personnel, and academic behavior (time spent on homework)?

In order to investigate the relations that exist among students’ grade point

averages and other model variables, correlation analyses were conducted (see Table 17).

Initial examination of the results indicated that student beliefs were related to student

achievement. Specifically, GPA had a small relation (Cohen, 1988) to beliefs in the

utility of education, r = .19, p < .01. In addition GPA had a moderate relationship

(Cohen, 1988) to student perceptions of parental aspirations for their future educational

attainment, r = .26, p < .01 and to student aspirations for their own future educational

attainment, r = .33, p < .01. In sum, correlation analyses indicated that higher achieving

students were more likely to endorse the utility of education, perceive their parents as

holding higher aspirations for their future educational attainment, and were more likely to

report holding higher aspirations for their own future educational attainment. And while

students with higher GPAs were also more likely to have positive relationships with

school personnel, r = .14, p < .01, this relation was small (Cohen, 1988). Lastly, high

achieving students were moderately (Cohen, 1988) more likely to spend a greater amount

of time on their homework, r = .29, p < .01 than were lower achieving students.

88

Table 17 Correlations among Beliefs, Relationships, Behavior, and Achievement Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Utility of education 1 .47** .18* .19** .27** .24** .19**

2. Familism -- 1 0.10 0.13 .32** .29** .10

3. Parental aspirations -- 1 .52** .10 .06 .26**

4. Student aspirations -- 1 .06 .09 .33**

5. Relationships with school personnel -- 1 .24**

.14*

6. Time spent on homework -- 1

.29**

7. GPA -- 1

Note. Sample size varies from 178-198 due to missing data. *p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Utilizing Hierarchical Regression to Test the Model of Latino Student Achievement

How much variance in student grade point average is explained by a model containing

measures of students’ demographics (maternal education, generational status, and

gender), beliefs (utility of education, familism beliefs, perceptions of parental aspirations

for their future education, and aspirations for their own future education attainment),

relationships with school personnel, and academic behavior?

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to explore the contributions of

demographic, belief, relationship, and behavior variables to this model of Latino student

achievement (see Table 18). Variables were entered in blocks, following the

89

chronological order of their appearance in the student’s life. Demographic characteristics

were included in the first step of the model, as they were considered to be permanent

characteristics of students. Student beliefs were placed in the second block because these

were likely to have been formed through interactions with family members over the

course of the student’s life. The variable reflection the students’ relationships with school

personnel was entered as the third block with the thought that positive relationships with

school personnel may motivate students to participate in positive academic behavior. The

amount of time students reported spending on homework was entered as the final block.

When student demographics were entered into this model of student achievement,

the overall model was insignificant, F (3,136) = .99, p > .05, and accounted for .02% of

the variance in student grade point average (adjusted R2 = .00). In Step 2, perceived

utility of education, familism beliefs, perceptions of parental aspirations, and student

aspirations for their own future educational attainment were entered into the model. The

addition of belief variables significantly contributed to the overall model, ∆R2=.09, ∆F

(4, 132) = 3.33, p < .05 and resulted in a statistically significant model, F(7,132) = 2.35, p

< .05 which accounted for 11.1% (adjusted R2 = .06) of the variance in student

achievement. In the next step, student relationships with school personnel was added to

the model. The addition of student relationships with school personnel added little

explanatory power to this model of student achievement, ∆R2=.01, ∆F (1, 131) = 1.46, p=

.23. And while the addition of this variable did not significantly contribute to the model

of student achievement, the overall model remained significant, F (8,131) = 2.25, p < .05

and accounted for 12.1% (adjusted R2 = .07). In Step 4, student academic behavior was

added to the model. The addition of this variable significantly contributed to the

90

explanatory power of the model, ∆R2=.05, ∆F (1, 130) = 8.13, p < .01. And when all of

the variables included in this analysis were entered into the model, the final model of

Latino student achievement was statistically significant F (9,130) = 3.01, p < .01 and

accounted for 17.3% (adjusted R2 = .12) of the variance in grade point average.

91

Table 18

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Latino Student Achievement (N = 139)

Variable B SE B β Step 1

Gender -.15 .15 -.09

Generational status .02 .12 .02

Maternal education .22 .18 .11

Step 2

Gender -.10 .15 -.06

Generational status .03 .12 .02

Maternal education .13 .17 .07

Utility of education .05 .14 .03

Familism beliefs -.11 .12 -.09

Parental aspirations .08 .08 .10

Student aspirations .19 .09 .23*

Step 3

Gender -.10 .15 -.05

Generational status .05 .12 .04

Maternal education .11 .17 .06

Utility of education .02 .14 .02

Familism beliefs -.16 .12 -.10

Parental aspirations .08 .08 .10

Student aspirations .19 .09 .23*

Relationships with school personnel .12 .10 .11

92

Table 18 (Continued) Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Latino Student Achievement (N = 139)

Variable B SE B β Step 4

Gender -.10 .14 -.05

Generational status .04 .12 .03

Maternal education .08 .17 .04

Utility of education -.03 .14 -.02

Familism beliefs -.19 .12 -.15

Parental aspirations .10 .08 .12

Student aspirations .18 .08 .21*

Relationships with school personnel .08 .10 .07

Time spent on homework .25 .09 .24**

Note. Variables added in each step indicated in italics. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

In summary, the regression analyses indicated that student aspirations contributed

to the variance in student GPA above and beyond the contribution of student

demographic characteristics. The variable assessing student relationships with school

personnel did not predict GPA after controlling for the effects of student demographic

characteristics and student beliefs. Finally, the addition of student academic behavior

contributed significantly to the model after controlling on student demographic

characteristics and student beliefs.

93

Chapter VI: Discussion

Objectives of the Present Study

The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, this study explored the degree to

which student gender, generational status, and family SES (i.e. maternal level of

education) were associated with student beliefs, relationships with school personnel,

academic behaviors, and achievement in a sample of low-income Latino ninth grade

students. Additionally, the current study drew upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory

of Minority School Performance to examine how student beliefs, relationships with

school personnel, and academic behavior were associated with student achievement in the

ninth grade.

Gender Differences

Research literature related to Latino student achievement has consistently linked

gender to differential achievement outcomes with Latinas outperforming Latino male

students. For example, Latinas graduate from high school at higher rates and are more

likely to persist beyond high school than are Latino male students (College Board, 1999;

Zarate & Gallimore, 2005). Consequently, it was expected that Latinas within this study

would have higher grade point averages than Latino male students. However, this

expectation was not supported by the data. While the discrepancy in grade point average

was in the anticipated direction, it was not statistically significant. The grade point

average of Latinas was 2.47, or .15 above Latino male students. The pressing question

became if the existence of gender differences in achievement is undisputed, why were

they not captured within this study? This study examines students’ grade point averages

after the fall semester of their freshman year, Gender differences in Latino achievement

94

may emerge over the course of the students’ high school trajectory. If this is the case, the

first year of high school may be a critical period for interventions aimed at raising the

retention and success of Latino male students. In order to fully address this question,

further analysis is needed in which a longitudinal design will allow researchers to track

Latino student achievement throughout high school to determine if and why the gender

gap in achievement continues to widen.

Maternal Education

Students whose parents have higher educational attainment are advantaged within

academic settings and are more likely to excel in school (e.g. College Board, 1999; Ogbu,

2003; Okagaki & Frensch, 1998). However, within the present study the advantage of

higher maternal educational attainment was minimal. When examining student beliefs,

relationships, behaviors, and achievement, there was only one statistically significant

difference between students whose mothers had some college and students whose

mothers had no college. Students whose mothers had some college education were

significantly more likely to hold higher aspirations for their future educational attainment.

Furthermore, when examining differences among students who were high achieving,

getting by, and low achieving, maternal educational attainment did not emerge as a

source of achievement differences. However, while not statistically significant, students

whose mothers had some college tended to have higher GPAs than those students whose

mothers had no college.

Based upon previous research it was expected that differences in maternal

education would account for some of the variation in Latino student achievement.

However, this was not the case; maternal educational attainment did not significantly

95

contribute to this model of Latino student achievement. In reconciling this work with

previous literature on maternal education, several possible explanations emerged. First,

since Latino families are more likely to have a traditional family structure in which

fathers play a primary role in children’s education. In such instances, it may be especially

important to capture and include measures of paternal educational attainment. Next, the

measure of maternal education used within this study was a dichotomous variable which

limited the variation captured within the present study. This may be especially

problematic for a parental population with wide variation in educational attainment level.

For example, while some Latino parents have only a few years of primary schooling

others have a college degree. Future studies would likely benefit if items related to

parental education more accurately captured this variation. And finally, in addition to

concerns regarding variation in educational attainment, researchers should also be

concerned with obtaining an indicator of the country in which parents received their

education. Since Latino parents may have been educated outside of the United States, it

may be useful to ask where parents were educated. This is particularly important because

the U.S. educational system places an expectation upon parents to effectively manage

their children’s education (Baker & Stevenson, 1986). Consequently, parents who lack

experience within the U.S. educational system may be disadvantaged and unable to

manage their children’s schooling as effectively as a parent with first-hand knowledge of

the U.S. educational system.

Generational Status

According to the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance,

immigrants have a dual lens which allows them to compare the opportunities they find

96

within the United States to those that are available within their country of origin. And for

voluntary immigrants, this dual frame of reference results in a phenomenon referred to as

immigrant optimism. Researchers have postulated that it is this optimism that explains

why immigrant Latino youth tend to fare better in school than do American-born Latino

students (Buriel, 1987; Kao & Tienda, 1998; Ogbu, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001;

Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995).

However, the present study did not find that immigrant students performed better

than second- or third-generation Latino Americans. The lack of a statistically significant

difference in the student achievement of first-, second-, and third-generation students

contradicts previous research and suggests that caution should be used when assuming

that subsequent generations of Latino students are at greater risk for academic failure. In

fact, closer examination of the direction of the differences found in GPA, though not

statistically significant, was not in the direction that one might expect based upon

previous research on Latino student achievement (e.g. Buriel, 1987; Kao & Tienda, 1998;

Ogbu, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995). Within

the present study, first-generation Latino Americans had the lowest GPA (2.37) while

third-generation Latino Americans had the highest GPA (2.51) suggesting that the benefit

of immigrant optimism was not extended to the participants in this study. This is likely

due to the homogeneity of the sample. Unlike samples used in previous research which

recruited students from ESL and mainstream classes, the present study recruited all

participants from mainstream classes. And because this study sampled students from

mainstream courses, the first-generation students captured within this study have been

part of the U.S. educational system long enough to be considered English proficient.

97

Consequently, the first-generation Latino American students who participated in this

study may have been more influenced by their involuntary minority Latino peers than

students who were insulated within ESL classes and only exposed to immigrant peers.

According to Ogbu, as Latino immigrants associate with Latino Americans they are

integrated into the culture of involuntary minorities. And while Ogbu outlines how this

transition occurs over generations, it may occur more rapidly for those who come to the

United States early enough to be integrated into American institutions. This finding

highlights the need to consider additional contextual information when examining the

contribution of students’ generational status to their overall academic achievement.

Moreover, the lack of a significant difference between the achievement of immigrant and

non-immigrant Latino students also suggests that the benefit of immigrant optimism is

only extended to those students who are still isolated from their Latino American peers

and thus able to maintain their dual frame of reference.

Alternatively, generation-based differences in student achievement may be

grounded in time. While first-generation students had lower GPAs than third-generation

students, they were more likely to have positive relationships with school personnel

(first-generation students M= 3.75; third-generation students M= 3.54) and spent more

time on their homework than did third-generation students (first-generation students M=

2.23; third-generation students M= 1.97). As with gender, it may be an ongoing and

cumulative effect of immigrant Latino students ability to cultivate and maintain positive

relationships with school personnel and spend adequate amounts of time on homework

that explain the achievement differences researchers have found between first- and

subsequent generations of Latino youth. In future work, a longitudinal research design

98

may lend evidence to this theory thus further supporting the idea that ninth grade is a

critical period for Latino youth in which interventions may have the greatest impact in

improving Latino student achievement.

In this study the only statistically significant difference between first-, second-,

and third-generation Latino American students was in their beliefs in the centrality of

family. While previous research (Ruschenberg & Buriel, 1989) has suggested that

familism beliefs do not decrease across subsequent generations of Latino Americans, this

was not supported in the current study. First-generation Latino Americans more strongly

endorsed familism beliefs than did second- or third-generation Latino Americans. As

noted by Ruschenberg and Buriel (1989), second- and third-generation students are more

likely to develop social networks that extend beyond they family. And while their

research suggested that expanding one’s social network did not diminish the centrality of

the family in the lives of Latino students, this study does not support that claim.

Student Beliefs

One of the primary objectives of this study was to understand how Latino student

beliefs in the utility of education, the centrality of family, perceptions of parental

aspirations for students future educational attainment, and aspirations for students own

future educational attainment related to relationships with school personnel, academic

behavior, and student achievement. When controlling on student demographic

characteristics, the block of variables containing student beliefs was a significant

predictor of achievement. Within that block, student aspirations emerged as a significant

predictor of academic achievement (GPA).

99

Utility of education

Ogbu suggests that the belief in the utility of education is instrumental in

determining students’ adaptation to schooling with voluntary minorities articulating a

stronger endorsement of the utility of education. Even so, students’ belief in the utility of

education did not directly predict student achievement nor did it emerge as a factor that

distinguished between low, getting by, and high achieving students. While student belief

in the utility of education was not directly related to student achievement, it was

significantly related to every other variable in the model, including student familism

beliefs, perceptions of parental aspirations, aspirations for students own educational

attainment, relationships with school personnel, academic behavior, and student

achievement. These findings lend support to Ogbu’s claim that students’ belief in the

utility of education is central to their adaptation to schooling. Since gender, generational

status, and maternal education did not explain differences in student beliefs in the utility

of education, further research is needed to understand what factors differentiate Latino

students’ belief in the utility of education.

Familism

Researchers (e.g. Ruschenberg & Buriel, 1989) have demonstrated that familism

is a central belief that is strongly endorsed among Latinos. Subsequently familism beliefs

were conceptualized as a core indicator of student identity that would be positively

related to student achievement. And while student familism beliefs were not directly

related to student achievement, students who held stronger beliefs in the importance of

family were also moderately more likely to have positive relationships with school

personnel and were more likely to spend a greater amount of time on their homework.

100

Since students’ academic behavior significantly contributed to this model of Latino

achievement, the relationship between student familism beliefs and the amount of time

students spent on homework is noteworthy. Moreover, students who strongly endorse

familism beliefs may have developed the social skills needed to cultivate and maintain

strong relationships such that the skills honed within the family will benefit these

students in any social setting thus accounting for the stronger relationships with school

personnel. Alternatively, Goldenberg and Gallimore’s (1995) investigation into the term

bien educado which refers to a person who is an upstanding citizen, someone who is

caring, respectful, and loyal to his or her family lends another possible explanation for the

relationship between familism beliefs and relationships with school personnel and

familism beliefs and academic behavior. It may be that students with a stronger sense of

obligation to their family feel compelled to present themselves as “bien educado”

motivating them to behave in a socially desirable manner.

Perceptions of parental aspirations

The messages that children receive from their parents about the value of education

is a distinguishing component of Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model of minority school

performance. According to Ogbu (2003), involuntary minority parents give children

contradictory messages about the importance of school credentials to adult success.

Consequently, these mixed messages undermine parental attempts to endorse and

encourage the pursuit of education.

Previous research has highlighted three ways in which Latino parental aspirations

may operate differently than other ethnic groups (e.g. Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Goldenberg

& Gallimore, 1995; Romo & Falbo, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). First, research has

101

demonstrated that Latino parents often fail to explicitly communicate their expectations

for their children’s future educational attainment and instead rely upon their children to

define their educational goals. Moreover, instead of articulating a clear educational goal,

Latino parents utilize personal narrative to underscore the hardships that await their

children if they fail to obtain an education. And finally, immigrant Latino parents may be

particularly disadvantaged in their ability to articulate clear educational goals for their

children because of their lack of familiarity with the U.S. educational system (Baker &

Stevenson, 1986). Collectively, these findings underscored the need to understand how

parental aspirations are internalized by students and how this internalization of parental

aspirations effect Latino student achievement.

As expected, students who perceived their parents as holding higher aspirations

for their educational attainment were more likely to endorse the utility of education, echo

high aspirations for their own educational attainment, and achieve at higher levels. While

perceptions of parental aspirations did not significantly contribute to the multivariate

model of Latino achievement, students that were categorized as high achievers were more

likely to perceive their parents as holding higher aspirations for their future educational

attainment. And finally, while studies of upper-middle class families (Lareau, 2000)

suggest that parents want their children to obtain a master’s degree, the average

educational aspiration held by parents of high achievers in this study was a four-year

college degree. This is noteworthy as it may help explain the achievement gap that exists

between White and Latino students.

Student aspirations

102

While perceptions of parental aspirations for students’ future educational

attainment were clearly a factor in Latino student achievement, it was students’ own

aspirations for their future educational attainment that significantly contributed to the

multivariate model of Latino student achievement. In fact, of the student beliefs included

in this model of Latino student achievement, only student aspirations for their future

educational attainment significantly contributed to the final model of student

achievement. The importance of this belief in explaining Latino student achievement may

be reflective of the cultural phenomenon noted above wherein Latino parents perceive

their role as one in which they encourage education and use personal narrative to remind

children of hardships associated with little education, but where children are expected to

determine and pursue their own educational goals.

Results examining differences among low achievers, students who were getting

by, and high achievers indicated that while high achievers within this study hoped to

obtain more than a bachelor’s degree, low achievers hoped to attend a two year

community college or trade school. And since low achievers represented 26% of the

sample, it would be beneficial if follow-up research could determine the reasons

underlying the differences in student aspirations. For example, are differences in student

aspirations for their future educational attainment affected by perceptions of their own

ability, a realistic assessment of their current achievement, or a lack of knowledge of the

opportunities and educational paths available to them? In understanding how these

factors shape Latino students’ aspirations, researchers may gain more insight into the

pervasive underachievement among Latino students.

Relationships with School Personnel

103

In his Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance, Ogbu

acknowledges the importance of students’ relationships with teachers and school

personnel. Building this into his theory, Ogbu (2003) notes that voluntary minorities are

able to benefit from their relationships with school personnel as they are able to establish

trusting relationships with those that have the knowledge and expertise to help them

navigate and succeed within educational institutions. However, involuntary minorities are

distrusting of school personnel and take an oppositional stance against those they view as

being part of the system. The social distance, conflict, and mistrust that often

characterizes involuntary minorities relationships with school personnel places them at a

disadvantage within the educational setting as the potential social capital available

through school personnel is withheld from these students. Moreover, their transgressions

are more likely to be noticed and punished, further deteriorating any potential for

relationship-building.

The importance of relationships may be amplified among Latino students as their

culture is one in which relationships are emphasized as being central to one’s existence.

In her book Subtractive Schooling: U.S.—Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring

(1999), Valenzuela illustrates the culture of caring that characterizes the Mexican culture,

and the ways in which this cultural model of caring shapes Mexican youths’ expectations

for their educational experiences. More specifically she notes that the term “educación”

implies that learning is occurring within the context of a caring relationship that has

developed between a student and teacher. In this sense, caring is not separate from

teaching and learning but occurs within a relational context.

104

In an effort to understand how Latino students’ relationships with school

personnel shaped student achievement, a measure of the quality of the relationships

students had with school personnel was included within this study. Based upon the

Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance (e.g. Ogbu, 1978; 1987;

2003) and literature on the culture of caring (Valenzuela, 1999), it was expected that

student relationships with school personnel would be central to the current model of

Latino student achievement. However, this expectation was not met. Throughout the

analyses student relationships with school personnel remained insignificant. Not

surprisingly, student relationships with school personnel were moderately related to

beliefs in the utility of education and endorsement of family obligation. It is likely that

students who believe in the utility of education would be more likely to seek out

relationships with school personnel, exhibiting the behavior of a voluntary minority

student. As noted by one of the students in Valenzuela’s (1999) study, Latino children are

reared to be respectful of their elders, including teachers. Therefore it stands to reason

that students with greater devotion to their family would be more likely to behave in

ways that would positively reflect upon their family and their family’s values.

Based upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

and Valenzuela’s (1999) work on the culture of caring, it was expected that students’

relationships with school personnel would be particularly important in a model of Latino

student achievement. There are two possible explanations as to why student relationships

with school personnel did not significantly contribute to this model of Latino student

achievement. First, it may be that Latino students did not have positive relationships with

school personnel within these schools. The mean for this composite was 3.54 on a scale

105

of 1 to 5, suggesting that overall Latino students did not have particularly positive

relationships with teachers. In fact, Valenzuela (1999) found in her study that students

were hard pressed to name a teacher that they felt was a “good” teacher suggesting that

while Latino students may long for a relational educational experience they are unable to

effectively establish social networks with school personnel. Alternatively, a closer

examination of the measure used within this study suggests that the measure of student

relationship with school personnel may not have adequately captured the nuances of

relationships between students and school personnel. This is partially supported by the

reliability analysis for this measure of student relationships with school personnel which

yielded only marginal reliability (Cronbach’s α =.64). Since the present study was

exploratory in nature the decision was made to include the measure within the current

model of Latino achievement in spite of its marginal reliability. However, in the future it

would be better to develop a more comprehensive and reliable measure of student

relationships with school personnel.

Academic Behavior

While there are many dimensions to student academic behavior this study focused

on the amount of time students spent on homework during an average school night. The

significant contribution of this behavioral measure to the model of Latino student

achievement presented within this study supports Ogbu’s claim that the educational

strategies employed by minority students distinguishes between voluntary and

involuntary minorities, such that high achieving students will display both a verbal and

behavioral commitment to education.

106

Results within this study indicated that students who spent more time on their

homework were moderately more likely to believe in the utility of education and to

endorse the importance of family. Moreover, when comparing low achievers, students

who were getting by, and high achievers, high achieving students spent significantly

more time on homework than did other students. Finally, student academic behavior

significantly contributed to the explanatory power of this model after controlling on

student demographic characteristics and student beliefs, highlighting the importance of

including behavioral measures in models of Latino student achievement. These findings

suggest that Latino students’ positive academic behavior may be motivated by two

factors—their belief that their educational attainment will result in a payoff and their

devotion to their family.

107

The Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance Applied to Latino

Student Achievement

The main objective of this study was to determine how well a model of student

achievement grounded in Ogbu’s (e.g. 1974, 1978, 1987, 1991, 1994, and 2003) cultural-

ecological framework could explain variation in Latino student achievement. As a result

the current study focused upon understanding the role that community factors play in the

achievement of Latino students. Moreover, in expanding upon Ogbu’s Cultural-

Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance, this model of Latino student

achievement also included gender, generational status, and maternal education. More

specifically, this study explored the ways in which student demographics (gender,

generational status, and maternal educational attainment), student beliefs (perceptions of

the utility of education, familism, student perceptions of parental aspirations for students

future education attainment, and student aspirations for their own future educational

attainment), the quality of student relationships with school personnel, and academic

behavior as measured by time spent on homework contributed to a model of Latino

student achievement.

Underlying this analysis was the interest in if and how relational and behavioral

variables contributed to a model of student achievement that was grounded in student

beliefs. The results of a hierarchical regression analysis suggested that while measures of

behavior added significantly to the model, relational variables did not. After taking

student demographic characteristics into account, student aspirations for their future

educational attainment predicted student GPA. Furthermore, after controlling on student

demographics as well as student beliefs, student academic behavior significantly

108

contributed to this model of Latino student achievement. These findings are consistent

with Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance and underscore

the importance of the congruence between students’ aspirations and verbal endorsements

of education and students’ academic behavior (e.g. Ogbu, 2003). Interestingly, students

who spent more time on their homework were not statistically more likely to hold higher

aspirations for their own future educational attainment, suggesting that student

aspirations and academic behavior need to be captured and examined independently.

Conclusion

Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance is based

primarily upon research with African American students. Consequently, his theory has

been criticized by those who study Latino student achievement (e.g. Conchas, 2001).

Specifically, researchers’ criticisms have centered upon the theory’s emphasis upon the

variation that occurs across groups and its subsequent failure to address the substantial

variation that occurs within minority groups (e.g. Conchas, 2001; Kao & Tienda, 1998).

Still some work has been done to examine within group variation among both African

American and Latino students (e.g. Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

Contrary to expectation, differences in student demographics were not associated with

variation in student achievement in the present study. Students’ generational status,

gender, and maternal educational attainment all failed to produce statistically significant

differences among low achievers, students who were getting by in school, and high

achievers. Since differences in student demographics did not account for differences in

student achievement, the interesting question became “why were differences not found?”

There are several possible explanations that may help explain why expected differences

109

were not found within the present study. First, sampling may have constrained the

variation within this sample of Latino students, as all of the students included in this

study were sampled from mainstream English classes within low-income, urban high

schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. Consequently, these students were predominantly

low-income, English-proficient, Mexican-ancestry students attending schools plagued

with many of the problems associated with urban schools, including under-qualified

teachers, limited resources, and high incidences of school failure.

In future work, it would be beneficial to incorporate sampling methods that would

maximize the variation of a Latino sample in terms of ethnicity, primary language,

generational status, socioeconomic status, and region. Therefore it would be beneficial to

ask several questions pertaining to language, including the first language acquired,

language spoken within the home, language spoken with peers, and preferred spoken

language. In her qualitative study, Matute-Bianchi (1986) found language to be a way of

differentiating among different Latino groups. Additionally, parental educational

attainment should assess the country in which parents were educated as well as the

highest educational level attained by each parent. This may be particularly important for

families in which a patriarchal family structure emphasizes the role of the father in

monitoring and influencing children’s education.

The second and more interesting possibility is that these differences emerge

slowly as students progress through high school. Latino students that are disengaged and

disinterested in school often taken on an oppositional identity which is, at times, meant to

intimidate or threaten those in positions of authority (Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Valenzuela,

1999). It is possible that as students’ physical maturation produces more adult-like

110

features, the effectiveness of intimidating and threatening dress and behavior increases,

thus perpetuating a continuous but gradual withdrawal of resources away from Latino

students. Since Latino male students are more likely than Latina students to be perceived

as threatening or intimidating, it is likely that the withdrawal of resources will be more

pronounced among Latino male students. If this is the case, it could help explain why

significant gender differences did not emerge within this study despite the clear evidence

that a gender gap in student achievement exists among Latino students (e.g. College

Board, 1999; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Zarate & Gallimore, 2005).

Even while it was expected that student beliefs would contribute to this model of

student achievement, only student aspirations for their future educational attainment

significantly contributed to the explanatory power of this model of Latino student

achievement. As expected, student aspirations were strongly related to student

perceptions of parental aspirations for their future educational attainment lending support

to Ogbu’s claim that the messages that students receive from their parents about

education are internalized by students. The importance of this relationship may also

highlight a possible point of intervention as research on Latino families has suggested

that Latino parents may be less likely to articulate clear goals for their children’s

academic achievement (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995; Romo &

Falbo, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). Consequently, it may be important to educate

parents about the importance of clearly articulating their educational aspirations for their

children while also educating parents about the various educational opportunities

available to students.

111

Finally, this study suggests that behavioral variables significantly contribute to a

model of Latino student achievement grounded in student beliefs while relational

variables do not. More specifically, of the variables entered into the model it was the two

that represented the educational strategies utilized by students that significantly

contributed to this model of Latino student achievement. As emphasized by Ogbu (e.g.

2003), it is the congruence between students’ high aspirations and verbal endorsement of

education and their participation in academic behavior conducive to such goals that

predict Latino student achievement.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This is an exploratory study intended to provide researchers with some insight

into the ways in which the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance

may be applied to Latino students. One of the limitations of this study was in its

sampling. All of the students in this study were English proficient, in mainstream classes,

and attending predominately low-income urban high schools. In future work it would be

beneficial to have a larger and more diverse sample of Latino adolescents.

Since the Learning Beliefs Study is an international study of achievement

motivation among adolescents, it was not designed specifically for Latino students.

Subsequently, the variation that was captured within the present study of Latino student

achievement was constrained by the demographics captured for all study participants.

This may be problematic for a study of variation among Latino students as Matute-

Bianchi’s (1986) work suggests that generational status alone may not be enough to

accurately capture subcategories of Latino adolescents. Future studies may want to

112

incorporate measures of orientation (e.g. Mexico vs. United States), ethnic identity, and

linguistic capabilities and preferences as means of further differentiating a Latino sample.

Results of this exploratory study suggest that a longitudinal design would greatly

enhance the understanding of the present findings. In doing so this model would move

beyond capturing a point in time to understanding how student demographics, beliefs,

relationships, and behavior interact over time to effect Latino student achievement. For

example, while it was noted that there are no statistically significant differences in the

grade point averages of Latinas and Latino male students, this finding is somewhat

puzzling given the plethora of research which indicates that Latinas fare better in school

than Latino male students. A longitudinal design would allow researchers to track Latinas

and Latino male students over the course of high school in an effort to deepen our

understanding of the factors underlying the gender-based achievement gap among Latino

students. In doing so, researchers may be able to pay special attention to students’

relationships with school personnel, as research (e.g. Zarate & Gallimore, 2005) has

suggested that Latinas are more likely to benefit from relationships with school personnel

while Latino males are often isolated from positive relationships within schools.

Finally, the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance is a

broad theoretical framework which addresses many factors influencing student

achievement. Yet, this study only looked at four community factors outlined by Ogbu

(2003). In developing a deeper understanding of the ways in which the Cultural-

Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance can be applied to Latino students, it

would be necessary to have a more comprehensive set of variables that can adequately

address all aspects of Ogbu’s theory.

113

114

References

Amato, P. (1987). Family processes in one-parent, stepparent, and intact families: The

child's point of view. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 327-337.

Anton, K. (1980). Eligibility and enrollment in California public higher education.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Baker, D. & Stevenson, D. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement:

Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Buchanan, C., Maccoby, E., & Dornbusch, S. (1998). Adolescents after divorce. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 60, 263-274.

Buriel, R. (1987). Academic performance of foreign and native-born Mexican

Americans: A comparison of first-, second-, and third generation students and

parents. (Working Paper No. 14.) New York, NY: New Directions for Latino

Public Policy Research.

Buriel, R. (2003, April). Methodological and conceptual issues for researching Mexican

Americans. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Child Development,

Tampa, FL.

Cairns, R. Cairns, B. & Neckerman, H. (1989). Early school dropout: Configurations and

determinants. Child Development, 65, 457-471.

The Civil Rights Project. (March 24, 2005). Confronting the graduation rate crisis in

California. Cambridge, MA.

115

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

College Board. (1999). Reaching for the top: A report of the National Task Force on

Minority High Achievement. New York, NY: Author.

Conchas, G. (2001) “Structuring success and failure: understanding variability in Latino

school engagement.” Harvard Educational Review, 70 (3), 475-504.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School-matter in the Mexican-American home: Socializing

children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 495-513.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Spanish-speaking families’ involvement in schools. In C.

Fagnano and B. Werber (Eds.) School, family, and community interaction: A

view from the firing lines. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.

El Nasser, H. (June 19, 2003). 39 million make Hispanics largest U.S. minority group.

USA Today http:www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2003-06-

18census_x.htm.

Fan, X. & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement:

A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.

Farkas, G., Grobe, R., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y. (1990). Cultural resources and school

success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district.

American Sociological Review, 55, 127-142.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

116

Fordham, S. & Ogbu, J. (1996). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden

of acting White. The Urban Review, 18(3), 1-31.

Fuligni, A. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families:

The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development,

68, 261-273.

Fuligni, A. (2001). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from

Asians, Latin American, and European Backgrounds in A. Fuligni (Ed.) New

Directions for Child and Adolescent Development No. 94: Family obligation

and assistance during adolescence: Conceptual variations and developmental

implications (pp. 61-76). San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

Fuligni, A., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among

American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European

backgrounds. Child Development, 70(4), 1030-1044.

García Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., & Chin, C.

(2001). Parental involvement in children’s education: Lessons from three

immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2(3), 303-324.

García Coll, C. & Pachter, L. M. (2002). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. Bornstein

(Ed.) Handbook of parenting: Volume 4. Social conditions and applied parenting

(pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibson, M. & Ogbu, J. (1991). Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of

immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

117

Goldenberg, C. & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ values and beliefs

about their children’s education: Continuities and discontinuities across cultures

and generations. In M. Maehr, P. R. Pintrich, & D. E. Bartz, Advances in

motivation and achievement: Vol. 9. Culture, motivation and achievement (pp.

183-228). San Francisco, CA: JAI.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garneir, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A

Longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations and

their children’s school performance. American Educational Research Journal,

38(3), 547-582.

Goyette, K. & Conchas, G. (2002). Family and non-family roots of social capital among

Vietnamese and Mexican American children. In B. Fuller & E. Hannum (Eds.)

Research In Sociology of education: Vol. 13. School and social capital in diverse

cultures (pp.41-72). San Francisco, CA: JAI.

Harwood, R., Leyendecker, B., Carlson, V., Asencio, M., & Miller, A. (2002). Parenting

among Latino families in the U.S. In M. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of parenting:

Volume 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (pp. 21-46). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heard, H. (2007). The family structure trajectory and adolescent school performance:

Differential effects by race and ethnicity. Journal of Family Issues, 28(3), 319-

354.

Henderson, R. (1997). Educational and occupational aspirations and expectations among

parents of middle school students of Mexican descent: Family resources for

academic development and mathematics learning. In R. W. Taylor & M.C.

118

Wang (Eds.) Social and emotional adjustment and family relations in ethnic

minority families. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hess, R. & Holloway, S. (1984). Family and school as education institutions. In R.

Parke, R. Emde, H. McAdoo, G. Sacket (Eds.) Review of Child Development

Research: Volume 7 The Family, (pp. 179-222). Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press.

Holloway, S., Fuller, B., Rambaud, M. & Eggers-Piérola, C. (1997). Through My Own

Eyes: Single Mothers and the Cultures of Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Hu, A. (1997). Education and race: The performance of minority students in affluent

areas refutes the prevailing educational shiboleths. National Review, 49-66.

Irving, M. (2002). Oppositional identity and academic achievement among African

American males. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(06), 2129. (UMI No.

AAT 3055998).

Irving, M. & Hudley, C. (2005). Cultural mistrust, academic outcome expectations, and

outcome values among African American adolescent men. Urban Education, 40,

476-496.

Johnson, H. & Reed, D. (2007, May). Can California import enough college graduates to

meet workforce needs? California Counts: Population trends and profiles 8(4).

California: Public Policy Institute of California.

Kao, G. & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth. American

Journal of Education, 106 (3), 349-384.

119

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary

education. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Lareau, A. (2003). Social structure and daily life. In Unequal childhoods: Class, race,

and family life. (pp. 14-32). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Llagas, C. & Snyder, T. (2003, April). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics.

(NCES 2003008). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Educational Statistics.

Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patters of school success and failure

among Mexican-descent and Japanese-American students in California high

school: An ethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education. Special Issue:

The education of Hispanic Americans: A challenge for the future. 95(1), 233-255.

Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1991). Situational ethnicity and patterns of school performance

among immigrant and nonimmigrant Mexican-descent students. In M.A. Gibson

& J.U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of

immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York, NY: Garland.

Mehan, H., Villanueava, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school

success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT:

Yale New Jersey.

Ogbu, J. (1974). The next generation: An ethnography of education in an urban

neighborhood. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York, NY: Academic Press.

120

Ogbu, J. (1982). Cultural discontinuities and schooling. Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 13, 290-307.

Ogbu, J. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an

explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 312-334.

Ogbu, J. (1989). The individual in collective adaptation: A Framework for focusing on

academic underperformance and dropping out among involuntary minorities. In

L. Weis, E. Farrar, and H. Petrie (Eds.) Dropouts from school: Issues, dilemmas,

and solutions. (pp. 181-204). New York, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher,

27(2), 168-190.

Ogbu, J. (Winter 1994). Racial stratification and education in the United States: why

inequality persists. Teachers College Record, 96, 264-298.

Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic

disengagement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ogbu, J. & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-

Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education.

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29 (2), 155-188.

Okagaki, L. & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A

multiethnic perspective. American Education Research Journal, 35, 123-144.

121

Oliver, M. L., Rodriguez, C., & Mickelson, R. A. (1985). Brown and black in white: The

social adjustment and academic performance of Chicano and Black students in a

predominantly White university. Urban Review, 17(1), 3-34.

Phinney, J., Kim-Jo, T., Osorio, S., & Vilhjamsdottir, P. (2005). Autonomy and

relatedness in adolescent-parent disagreements: Ethnic and developmental factors.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 8-39.

Phinney, J., & Madden, T. (1997, November). Individualism and collectivism: What do

they mean for adolescents from different ethnic groups? Paper presented at

Conference on Ethnicity and Development, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Romo, H. & Falbo, T. (2001). Latino high school graduation: Defying the odds. Austin,

TX: University of Texas Press.

Ruschenberg, E., & Buriel, R. (1995). Mexican American family function and

acculturation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology critical issues in theory

and research (pp. 15-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sabogal, F., Marín, G. Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B. & Perez-Stable, (1987), Hispanic

Familism and Acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t. Hispanic Journal

of Behavioral Science, 9 (4), 397-412.

Slade, M. (1982, October 24). Aptitude, intelligence, or what? New York Times, p. E22.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting

processes on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school

achievement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

122

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Social capital and social embeddedness in the socialization of

low-income Latino adolescents in the United States. In Manufacturing hope and

despair: The School and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth. (pp. 12-32)

New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Stanton-Salazar, R. & Dornbusch, S. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of

inequality: information networks among Mexican-origin high school students.

Sociology of Education, 68, 116-135.

Stern, S.P. (1986, December). School imposed limits on Black family participation: A

view from within and below. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the

American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia.

Stevenson, D. & Baker, D. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s school

performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Suárez-Orozco, M. (1991). Immigrant adaptation to schooling: A Hispanic case. In M. A.

Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study

of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 37–61). New York, NY: Garland

Publishing, Inc.

Suárez-Orozco, C. & Suárez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family

life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). United States Census 2000.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Valdés, F. (April 19, 2005). Lat Crit: A Conceptual Overview.

http://personal.law.miami.edu/~fvales/latcrit/overview.html.

123

Valdés, G. (1996). Con respecto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse

families and schools.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of

caring. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Valenzuela, A. & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Familism and social capital in the academic

achievement of Mexican origin and anglo adolescents. Social Science Quarterly,

75, 18-36.

Young, B. (2002). Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public and Elementary and

Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2000-01. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Zarate, M. & Gallimore, R., (2005). Gender Differences in Factors Leading to College

Enrollment: A Longitudinal Analysis of Latina and Latino Students . Harvard

Revie, 75 (4) 383-408.

124

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC MEASURES

MATERNAL EDUCATION

Think of your mother or main female guardian. Did she attend any college?

Check one: □ Yes □ No □ Don’t Know GENERATIONAL STATUS/GENERATIONAL STATUS Were you born in the United States?

Check one: □ Yes □ No □ Don’t know Was your mother/main female guardian born in the United States?

Check one: □ Yes □ No □ Don’t know Was your father/main male guardian born in the United States?

Check one: □ Yes □ No □ Don’t know GENDER Your gender:

Check one: □ Male □ Female

125

STUDENT BELIEF MEASURES UTILITY OF EDUCATION THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS IS ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DO WELL IN SCHOOL. PLEASE USE THE SCALE BELOW TO SHOW HOW MUCH YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH EACH STATEMENT.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

Disagree I don’t agree Or disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

IF I DO WELL IN SCHOOL, IT WILL GIVE ME….. (FILL IN ONE)

1 2 3 4 5

1. Choices in what jobs I can get……………….. O O O O O 2. Job security…………………………………….. O O O O O 3. Enough money to have a good life …………. O O O O O 4. Respect from other people…………………… O O O O O 5. Interesting ideas to go on thinking about…… O O O O O 6. A way to avoid discrimination………………… O O O O O 7. A way to give back to my community……….. O O O O O 8. Time to do fun things………………………….. O O O O O 9. The chance to support myself…………......... O O O O O 10. A way to help out my family………………… O O O O O 11. A chance to contribute to society………….. O O O O O

126

FAMILISM USING THE SCALE BELOW, RATE EACH STATEMENT ABOUT YOUR FAMILY. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little Somewhat Quite Very Important important important important important HOW IMPORTANT IS IT FOR YOU… (FILL IN ONE)

1 2 3 4 5

1. To satisfy your family’s needs even when your own needs are different…. O O O O O

2. To be available to family members when they need help…………………... O O O O O

3. To spend time with your family………………………………………………… O O O O O

4. To do what your parents/guardians want you to do even when you don’t agree with them…………………………………………………………………….. O O O O O

5. To consult with your parents/guardians before making decisions…………. O O O O O

6. To show respect for your parents/guardians by not arguing with them…… O O O O O

7. To put your family’s needs before your own…………………………………. O O O O O

8. To live at home with your parents/guardians until you are married……….. O O O O O

9. To spend time with your parents/guardians after you no longer live with them…………………………………………………………………………………. O O O O O

10. To have your parents/guardians live with you when they get older……… O O O O O

PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL ASPIRATIONS

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR EDUCATION GOALS AND THOSE OF YOUR PARENTS/GUARDIANS. CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.

2. My parents/guardians’ goal for me is to graduate from… (Check one)

□ high school □ professional degree (example: law school)

□ 2 year community college or trade school □ other (write in here) ___________________

□ 4 year college or university □ I don’t know

127

STUDENT ASPIRATIONS HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR EDUCATION GOALS AND THOSE OF YOUR PARENTS/GUARDIANS. CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.

If all goes well, my goal is to graduate from…

□ high school □ professional degree (example: law school)

□ 2 year community college or trade school □ other (write in here) ___________________

□ 4 year college or university □ I don’t know

128

RELATIONSHIP MEASURE

RELATIONSHIPS WITH SCHOOL PERSONNEL

THINK ABOUT YOUR CURRENT SCHOOL AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. FILL IN THE ANSWER THAT BEST DESCRIBES WHAT YOU THINK.

1 2 3 4 5

not at all true somewhat true very true

1 2 3 4 5

1. I feel connected to this school ............................................................................ O O O O O

*2. I am treated with respect by the teachers. ................................................... O O O O O

3. This school is preparing me well for what I want to do after high school. O O O O O

4. I find what I learn in school to be relevant in real life. ...................................... O O O O O *5. I feel connected to at least one adult in this school. ..................................... O O O O O

6. Participating in school activities makes me feel connected to this school. ......... O O O O O

*7. There are teachers in my school who care about me. .................................. O O O O O

8. Most teachers at my school treat all students the same regardless of background. ..................................................................................................... O O O O O

9. I feel safe at this school. ..................................................................................... O O O O O

10. Most teachers at my school understand the values of students like me. ........... O O O O O

*11. There are teachers at this school who have confidence in me………… O O O O O

12. Students treat each other with respect at this school. ....................................... O O O O O

13. This school provides the materials I need to learn. .......................................... O O O O O

14. My school is clean and orderly. ........................................................................ O O O O O

15. Most students at this school try to avoid risky or dangerous behavior… O O O O O *Indicates that item was used as subscale item to create relationships with school personnel composite.

129

ACADEMIC BEHAVIOR MEASURE

TIME SPENT ON HOMEWORK PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR BACKGROUND. 1. On a regular school night, how much time at home do you spend doing homework? Check one:

□ less than 30 min □ 30 min to 1 hr □ 1 hr to 2 hrs □ more than 2 hrs

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

GRADE POINT AVERAGE What grade did you get on your last report card in these classes? English ______ Math ______

Science ______ History ______