School Context and the Effect of ESL Placement on Mexican-Origin Adolescents' Achievement

School Context and the Effect of ESLPlacement on Mexican-OriginAdolescents’ Achievementn

Rebecca Callahan, University of Georgia

Lindsey Wilkinson, University of Texas, Austin

Chandra Muller, University of Texas, Austin

Objectives. Immigrant adolescents’ academic achievement is crucial to our futureeconomic stability, and Mexican-origin linguistic minority youth in U.S. schoolsgenerally demonstrate lower levels of achievement. English as a Second Language(ESL) programs provide an institutional response to these students’ needs, the effectof which may vary by the proportion of immigrant students in the school.Measures. Using propensity score matching and data from the Adolescent Healthand Academic Achievement Study (AHAA) and the National Longitudinal Studyof Adolescent Health (Add Health), we estimate the effect of ESL placement onMexican-origin achievement for first-, second-, and third-generation adolescentsseparately in schools with many and few immigrant students. Results. The esti-mated effect of ESL placement varies by both immigrant concentration in theschool and by students’ generational status. Conclusions. We find that ESL en-rollment may be protective for second-generation Mexican-origin adolescents inhigh immigrant concentration schools, and may prove detrimental for first-gen-eration adolescents in contexts with few other immigrant students.

Academic achievement is a focus of research on adolescent immigrantassimilation due in large part to the central role that education plays inimmigrants’ well-being over the life course and in their potential to con-

nDirect correspondence, including requests for data and coding information, to RebeccaM. Callahan, Department of Language & Literacy Education, University of Georgia, 125Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30606-7123 [email protected]. This research was funded bygrants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD40428-02), from the National Science Foundation (REC-0126167) to the PopulationResearch Center, University of Texas at Austin; Chandra Muller (PI), and from the AmericanEducational Research Association, which received funds for its ‘‘AERA-IES Post-DoctoralFellows Program’’ from the Institute of Education Sciences (U.S. Department of Education),and from Russell Sage Project 88-06-12, Chandra Muller (PI) and Rebecca Callahan (Co-PI). This research uses data from the Add Health project, a program project designed byJ. Richard Udry (PI) and Peter Bearman, and funded by Grant P01-HD31921 from theNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Carolina PopulationCenter, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Persons interested in obtaining datafiles from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W.Franklin St., Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 hwww.cpc.unc.edu/AddHealth/contract.htmli.

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 89, Number 1, March 2008r 2008 by the Southwestern Social Science Association

tribute to society (Duran and Weffer, 1992; Kao and Tienda, 1995).Schools have long been considered a key institution for socializing, in-structing, and preparing immigrant children to participate in the largersociety (Tyack, 1974). Immigrant linguistic minority students have uniqueacademic and linguistic needs and federal regulations mandate that schoolsprovide instruction appropriate to meet these needs under the Lau decision(Lau v. Nichols, 1974). The degree to which schools develop and implementprograms designed for nonnative-English speakers often reflects the con-centration of immigrants at a given school site (Cosentino de Cohen, De-terding, and Clewell, 2005). School context, as it represents studentdemographics, undoubtedly affects the availability of ESL services and theidentification of students for such services.

In this article, we consider the case of Mexican-origin students, bothimmigrant and native born, and the role of schools in shaping theirachievement (Gibson, Gandara, and Koyama, 2004). As a major immigrantethnic group in the United States, Mexican-origin families also live incommunities with varying immigrant concentrations. Although it is widelyrecognized that school context impacts achievement in the general popu-lation, the prospect that it also shapes immigrant students’ achievement hasbeen largely overlooked (Portes and Hao, 2004). Schools with many im-migrant students may offer services and a climate better suited to the par-ticular academic and social needs of immigrants than schools with relativelyfew immigrant students. Alternately, if a higher concentration of immigrantsin a community leads to lower-quality schools, fewer academic opportu-nities, or, possibly, social marginalization, then immigrant students’ needsmay be better served in schools serving predominantly nonimmigrantpopulations.

Using nationally representative data, we consider this possibility and hy-pothesize that Mexican-origin students in schools serving greater concen-trations of immigrants may have very different experiences than those whoattend school with few immigrants, and that these differences may influencetheir achievement. We focus on college preparatory achievement outcomes,namely, grade point average (GPA) and math and science course-taking, ascollege is increasingly essential for access to a middle-class economic positionin U.S. society.

Distinguishing between schools with high and low concentrations of im-migrant students and families, we investigate two different dimensions of theimmigrant school experience. First, we consider whether students’ place-ment in English as a Second Language (ESL) coursework, which is designedto develop English-language skills, influences their academic achievement.We hypothesize that ESL placement may offer a different experiencedepending on the number and the proportion of immigrants within thestudent body. Second, we examine whether students’ generational statusis associated with academic success. A large body of evidence suggeststhat other factors, mainly social, come into play among later-generation

178 Social Science Quarterly

immigrants that could lead to academic declines. It is possible that thesesocial factors play out differently depending on the concentration of im-migrant students in the school. This study has important implications forpolicy and practice. Due to changes in the economy, numerous commu-nities and schools across the nation that traditionally have had few if anyimmigrant students now enroll substantially more. Fifteen states experiencedmore than a 200 percent increase in students requiring ESL services between1992 and 2002, during which time Add Health/AHAA respondents at-tended U.S. high schools (NCELA, 2006). The presence of immigrantstudents outside the traditionally immigrant receiving urban centers presentsnew challenges to schools.

Achievement and Mexican-Origin Youth

Among Mexican-origin students, English proficiency can be a sourceof academic and social division, marking generational status, assimilation,and acculturation (Rumbaut and Portes, 2001; Schmid, 2001). Schoolsplay a role in this division via student identification for and placement inESL programs as mandated by federal and state guidelines (Lau v. Nichols,1974). Educators develop ESL programs in response to the presenceof immigrant linguistic minority students; in schools serving greaterconcentrations of immigrants, ESL classes are likely to be more readilyavailable with more specially trained teachers than in schools enrollingfewer immigrants (Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, and Clewell, 2005).Placement in ESL programs may either reinforce or blur intergenera-tional divisions among Mexican-origin youth; recent immigrantsreport feeling excluded not only by native English-speaking, dominantculture peers, but also by their native-born co-ethnics (Olsen, 1997;Valenzuela, 1999). This study explores the effect of ESL placement onMexican-origin student achievement via both school context and genera-tional status.

School Context: The Composition of the School as aReceiving Community

Given the tenuous academic and economic futures predicted for Mexican-origin youth, both immigrant and native born, the effect of schoolcontext merits serious consideration. A major tenet of segmented assimi-lation theory posits that the socioeconomic composition of the receivingcommunity affects the economic integration of adult immigrants into theworkforce (Gans, 1992; Oropesa and Landale, 1997). Strong immigrantcommunities can be found in suburbs and urban centers alike (Logan,Zhang, and Alba, 2002), suggesting that composition, rather than location

School Context, ESL Placement, and Mexican-Origin Youth 179

or economic status, determines the strength of co-ethnic resources in a givencommunity. For adolescents, schools are the receiving community, and theirdemographic composition suggests the presence and availability of co-ethnicresources.

The racial and ethnic composition of a school affects achievement(Bidwell and Kasarda, 1975; Rumberger and Willms, 1992), suggesting thatthe concentration of immigrants may also have an effect. Immigrantstudents experience two very distinct school and neighborhood contexts(Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, and Clewell, 2005). Many live and attendschool in communities with relatively few other immigrants; for ease ofdiscussion, we refer to these communities and schools as low-concentrationcontexts. However, even more reside in high-concentration contexts, com-munities with much higher concentrations of immigrants and linguisticminorities (Logan, Zhang, and Alba, 2002).

Often, in highly competitive majority white environments, Mexican-origin students fare poorly, their differences are visible, and they experiencehigh levels of social and academic marginalization (Portes and Hao, 2004).In these low-concentration contexts, Mexican-origin students are more likelyto be peripheral to the academic and social processes of the majority cultureand to find themselves resegregated—academically isolated from high-per-forming majority group peers (Valencia, 2002). As the concentration oflinguistic minority and foreign born in the school and the communitygrows, schools and local governments evolve to respond to their needs(Lucas, Henze, and Donato, 1990). Social, academic, and linguistic normschange when a traditionally marginalized group grows significantly (Linton,2004). Faced with growing immigrant linguistic minority populations, in-structional programs and course offerings expand to meet students’ linguisticand academic needs (Walqui, 2000).

The role of school context as it affects immigrant achievement remainsrelatively unexplored (Portes and Hao, 2004). The majority of educationalresearch dealing directly with the effect of school composition on Mexican-origin youth achievement has been largely qualitative and ethnographic, tiedto specific communities and locales (Valenzuela, 1999; Vigil, 1997). An-alyses utilizing a nationally representative sample of students in their schoolswill clarify the effect of school context and composition.

ESL Placement: Educational Policy and School Context

Through scheduling, students in schools are exposed to academic courses,which affects achievement (Carbonaro and Gamoran, 2002), educationaltrajectories, and future professional opportunities (Riehl, Pallas, andNatriello, 1999). Access to academic content becomes even more pro-nounced when schools must address the tension inherent in meetingboth the academic and linguistic needs of Mexican-origin youth, many of


whom speak English as a second language. Mexican-origin students havebeen found to complete less math and science coursework than their Angloor Asian peers (Valencia, 2002). Traditionally, math and science courseworkhas been viewed as less language dependent. Math is often the first courseinto which ESL students are mainstreamed, followed by science (Olsen,1997). In theory, placement in ESL services should not affect mathor science enrollment; however, course taking has been found to vary byESL and immigrant status (Wang and Goldschmidt, 1999), as well as raceand ethnicity (Hallinan, 1994). ESL coursework is neither meant to replace,nor preclude access to, rigorous academic coursework; if it does, then itmay seriously disrupt long-term academic trajectories. Mexican-originstudents’ access to academic content via course placement merits carefulconsideration.

Lau (1974) mandates identification of students and the provision of anequitable, accessible education, most often in the form of ESL services;however, the quality and quantity of services and instruction vary greatlyacross states, districts, and schools (Rivera et al., 1997). In response to theproportion of immigrant students at a school site, administrators maychoose different strategies for meeting students’ linguistic and academicneeds. In schools with many immigrant students (Lucas et al., 1990),later-generation Mexican-origin students may benefit from the academicoptimism modeled by their first-generation peers. In these schools, the net-works that develop via ESL placement may buffer oppositional behavior andprovide co-ethnic, linguistic, and social support (Brittain, 2002). Thesenetworks may promote positive identity development and biculturalism,along with other factors that contribute to school success (Rumberger andLarson, 1998). In schools with few immigrant students, administrators andeducators must negotiate the diversion of resources to provide linguisticsupport to a small group of students identified for ESL services. If schoolsare ill equipped with the human and material resources to provide morethan basic language instruction courses to ESL-identified students, ESLclassrooms risk becoming depositories for all at-risk students, regardless oftheir linguistic or academic needs (Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, andClewell, 2005). Mexican-origin youth, already at risk academically, mayexperience a negative net estimated effect of ESL placement on theirachievement.

Generational Status and Achievement: Mexican-Origin Youth

Patterns of assimilation and integration vary by race/ethnicity and bygeneration (Rumbaut and Portes, 2001). The children and grandchildren ofwestern European immigrants from the early 20th century (Roediger, 2005)and the descendents of Asian and Southeast Asian immigrants from the mid20th century demonstrate high levels of academic and economic attainment


(Alba and Nee, 2003). The most striking exception to this pattern of gen-erational advancement is the case of Mexican-origin immigrants (Groggerand Trejo, 2002); due to a variety of factors, academic and economicachievement appears to plateau, if not decline, between the second and thirdgenerations (Gans, 1992). As a measure of assimilation and integration,academic achievement can be viewed as a source of social division amongMexican-origin students.

In U.S. schools, first-generation Mexican-origin students tend to dem-onstrate ‘‘immigrant optimism’’ and relatively high levels of academicachievement compared to their second- and third-generation peers (Kao andTienda, 1995). Mexican-origin youth who assimilate into a peer culturethat devalues academic success and produces an ‘‘oppositional culture’’ or‘‘adversarial stance’’ toward the dominant society have been found to strug-gle academically and access relatively few social and cultural resources fromtheir community of origin (Ogbu, 1991; Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco,1995).

Caught between the optimism of the first generation and the potentialalienation of the third, second-generation Mexican-origin youth may feelmore angst about their position and identity due to competing allegiancesto two cultures (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). Among Mexican-originyouth discontent with their marginalized role in U.S. schools, academicsuccess may be perceived as co-opting with and conforming to the dominantculture (Vigil, 1997). Second-generation Mexican-origin youth may beespecially susceptible to the pull, either positive or negative, of peer culture,a culture to which they are exposed in the context of the school. Wehypothesize that school context may affect the achievement patterns ofMexican-origin youth.

Schools create—and Mexican-origin youth experience—a tension whenplacement in ESL coursework diminishes access to the social and academicresources necessary for school success (Callahan, 2005). However, ESLplacement may also provide a protective factor, access to co-ethnic infor-mation, social, and academic networks (Olsen, 1997; Brittain, 2002).The stagnation of achievement in the third generation highlights theimportance of these networks and the consequences of marginalization insubtractive, even hostile, contexts (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). In this study,we analyze the effect of ESL placement on Mexican-origin youths’ achieve-ment in different school contexts while accounting for English proficiency,among other factors. We hypothesize that schools’ demographic composi-tion may influence the effect of ESL placement on the achievement ofMexican-origin youth, an effect that may also vary by the individual stu-dent’s generational status. We use propensity score matching techniques tofirst estimate students’ likelihood for placement in ESL. Then, among stu-dents with similar propensities for placement, we compare the achievementof those actually placed into ESL with the achievement of their main-streamed counterparts.


Data and Methods

Data

This study uses data from the Adolescent Health and Academic Achieve-ment Study (AHAA) and the National Longitudinal Study of AdolescentHealth (Muller et al., 2007) to investigate the influence of high school ESLplacement on Mexican-origin youths’ end of high school academic out-comes. Using a two-stage stratified sampling design, more than 80 highschools were selected for the Add Health study according to their region,urbanicity, sector, racial composition, and size. An in-school survey wasadministered to all students attending school in these high schools duringthe 1994–1995 academic year. The survey sample was augmented usingschool records to draw a representative sample of boys and girls (in equalnumbers) in Grades 7–12 to participate in the Add Health longitudinalstudy that currently includes three waves of data. Three waves of in-homesurvey data were collected in 1995, 1996, and 2000–2001; the Wave IIIsample includes 15,163 young adults.

In 2002–2003, when almost all Add Health respondents were no longerattending high school, high school transcripts were collected from the highschools last attended by Wave III respondents. Transcripts were collectedand coded for 12,250 Wave III respondents, over 81 percent of the Wave IIIAdd Health sample; 985 of the students for whom AHAA collected a highschool transcript report being Mexican-origin in the Wave I survey, 625 ofthese attend a high school that offered ESL. Each course that appeared onthe transcript was coded with a standard coding scheme, the ClassificationSystem for Secondary Courses (CSSC), using information provided by theschools about course offerings. Grades were coded in a standard format andthe courses were assigned Carnegie Units for comparability across schools.The coding schemes were comparable to those used in the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress High School Transcript Studies (NAEP-HSTS) and are similar to those used in NELS and HS&B.1

Sample

Of the original 78 Add Health high schools in AHAA, we identified 64that enrolled Mexican-origin students, 23 of which offered ESL classes. Ouranalytic sample is comprised of Mexican-origin students (N 5 625) enrolledat one of the 23 Add Health schools that offered ESL coursework andenrolled Mexican-origin students. We limited our sample in order to best

1NELS: National Educational Longitudinal Study (1988); HS&B: High School andBeyond Study (1982).


understand the effect of ESL placement on Mexican-origin student achieve-ment. To be included, Mexican-origin students must have completed theAdd Health Wave I and Wave III surveys, have had their high schooltranscripts collected, have a valid transcript weight, and have no missingvalues on the dependent variables or on generational status.

For this study, we split our sample of Mexican-origin students based onthe demographic composition of the school they attended. Schools weredivided into two groups based on the concentration, high or low, of theimmigrant linguistic minority population, determined by the proportion ofstudents who were either first- or second-generation immigrants. This pop-ulation includes not only Mexican-origin students, but also students of otherethnicities, as schools process immigrant and linguistic minority studentssimilarly, with relatively little attention paid to national origin (Olsen,1997). The Add Health schools fell into two categories: those with a ma-jority concentration of immigrant students (55 percent or more: two stan-dard deviations above of the mean for all Add Health high schools) andthose with a lower concentration of immigrant students (less than 55 per-cent).

Table 1 shows the characteristics of schools with high and low concen-trations of immigrant students, as well as the 41 Add Health schools thatenroll Mexican-origin students that appear to offer no ESL coursework. Themean immigrant population in high-concentration schools is 0.83 and 0.39in low-concentration schools. In addition, high-concentration schools alsoenroll the largest proportions of Latino and Mexican-origin students, stu-dents whose parents do not have a high school diploma, and students wholive in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of foreign-born andlinguistically isolated residents.

In our sample, 456 Mexican-origin students attended the five high-con-centration ESL schools, and 169 attended the 18 low-concentration ESLschools. As achievement among Mexican-origin students varies by gener-ational status, we designed this study to investigate the effect of ESL place-ment on achievement among Mexican-origin youth when accounting forboth English proficiency and generational status (Rumbaut and Portes,2001). Table 2 shows Mexican-origin student characteristics by generationalstatus and concentration of immigrant students in the school. The majorityof first-, second-, and third-generation students are enrolled in high immi-grant concentration contexts. Although virtually all the first generation andtwo-thirds of the second generation report usually speaking a language otherthan English in the home, regardless of school context, this is not the casefor the third generation. Among third-generation-plus Mexican-origin ad-olescents, nearly a third report usually speaking a language other than En-glish in the home in high immigrant concentration school contexts;however, this number drops to barely 3 percent in low immigrant concen-tration schools. It is important to keep in mind that by adolescence a highproportion of linguistic minority adolescents report a preference for English,


TA

BLE

1

Chara

cte

ristics

of

Add

Health

Schools

with

Mexic

an-O

rigin

Stu

dent

Popula

tions

(Unw

eig

hte

d)

Varia

ble

Non-E

SL

Schools

N5

41

Low

-Concentr

atio

nE

SL

Schools

N5

18

Hig

h-C

oncentr

atio

nE

SL

Schools

N5

5

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Pro

port

ion

of

Mexi

can-o

rigin

stud

ents

0.0

10.0

30.0

20.0

40.1

80.2

6P

rop

ort

ion

of

stud

ents

taki

ng

ES

L0.0

00.0

00.0

40.0

40.1

10.0

4P

rop

ort

ion

stud

ents

usu

ally

speaki

ng

language

oth

er

than

Englis

hat

hom

e0.0

30.0

60.1

30.1

10.5

10.1

7

Pro

port

ion

1st

genera

tion

or

2nd

genera

tion

0.1

10.0

90.2

60.1

60.6

70.1

2P

rop

ort

ion

1st

-genera

tion

imm

igra

nt

0.0

50.0

60.1

20.0

80.3

10.1

5P

rop

ort

ion

2nd

-genera

tion

imm

igra

nt

0.0

60.0

50.1

40.0

90.3

50.0

5P

rop

ort

ion

3rd

-plu

s-genera

tion

nonim

mig

rant

0.8

90.0

90.7

40.1

60.3

30.1

2P

rop

ort

ion

bla

ck

0.1

90.2

60.1

50.1

50.1

10.0

8P

rop

ort

ion

white

0.6

40.2

80.4

40.2

30.0

80.0

7P

rop

ort

ion

Latin

o0.0

80.0

70.2

20.1

50.6

90.1

9P

rop

ort

ion

Mexi

can-o

rigin

0.0

10.0

30.0

20.0

40.1

80.2

6P

rop

ort

ion

Asi

an

0.0

30.0

40.0

90.1

30.0

90.1

2P

rop

ort

ion

pare

nts

with

no

hig

hsc

hool

dip

lom

a0.2

20.1

40.2

90.1

20.5

00.1

0

Pro

port

ion

pare

nts

with

colle

ge

ed

ucatio

n0.3

80.2

00.3

30.1

40.1

80.0

8P

rop

ort

ion

fore

ign

born

inst

ud

ent’s

neig

hb

orh

ood

0.0

40.0

50.1

00.0

80.3

60.2

0

Pro

port

ion

age

51

notsp

eaki

ng

Englis

hw

ell

inst

ud

ent’s

neig

hb

orh

ood

0.0

10.0

20.0

40.0

30.1

90.1

4

Pro

port

ion

linguis

tically

isola

ted

inst

ud

ents

’neig

hb

orh

ood

0.0

10.0

20.0

40.0

40.2

10.1

4


TA

BLE

2

Mexic

an-O

rigin

Stu

dent

Chara

cte

ristics

by

Genera

tionalS

tatu

sand

SchoolT

ype

(Weig

hte

d)

Varia

ble

s

Firs

tG

enera

tion

Second

Genera

tion

Third

Genera

tion

Low

Concentr

atio

nH

igh

Concentr

atio

nLow

Concentr

atio

nH

igh

Concentr

atio

nLow

Concentr

atio

nH

igh

Concentr

atio

nN

541

N5

85

N5

65

N5

271

N5

63

N5

100

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Gend

er

Fem

ale

0.2

90.6

00.4

90.4

50.4

50.4

8Language

Usu

ally

speak

language

oth

er

than

Englis

hat

hom

e

0.9

10.8

40.6

60.4

60.6

60.0

30.3

2

Genera

tionalS

tatu

sA

rriv

ed

befo

reage

50.0

60.2

6A

rriv

ed

age

5or

after

0.9

40.7

4P

are

nt

Ed

ucatio

no

Hig

hsc

hool

0.8

10.8

60.4

50.7

10.2

20.3

7H

igh

school

0.0

70.0

30.2

60.2

40.2

80.2

6S

om

ecolle

ge

0.0

20.0

40.0

80.0

10.2

80.2

8C

olle

ge

0.0

70.0

40.0

90.0

10.2

20.0

9A

cad

em

icIn

dic

ato

rsA

H-P

VT

Englis

hp

rofic

iency

23.9

025.6

714.1

223.9

641.1

226.9

839.1

424.7

048.3

640.9

024.1

5


TA

BLE

2—

continued

Varia

ble

s

Firs

tG

enera

tion

Second

Genera

tion

Third

Genera

tion

Low

Concentr

atio

nH

igh

Concentr

atio

nLow

Concentr

atio

nH

igh

Concentr

atio

nLow

Concentr

atio

nH

igh

Concentr

atio

nN

541

N5

85

N5

65

N5

271

N5

63

N5

100

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Less

than

alg

eb

rain

Gra

de

90.4

90.6

80.4

60.4

00.3

70.5

1

Reta

ined

befo

reG

rad

e5

0.1

10.2

60.1

00.2

00.0

80.3

2

Took

ES

L0.6

80.4

70.1

80.0

80.0

70.0

7P

are

nt

Ind

icato

rsR

eceiv

efo

od

stam

ps

0.0

40.2

50.1

30.1

40.1

40.1

1

Acad

em

icO

utc

om

es

Alg

eb

raII/

chem

istr

y2.5

81.2

82.6

31.1

62.5

91.4

93.0

21.2

82.6

21.2

52.8

51.2

7Ju

nio

rye

ar

GPA

2.8

10.8

42.2

70.8

92.4

10.9

32.4

30.9

42.4

60.7

42.6

30.9

6


despite the presence of a language other than English in the home (Portesand Rumbaut, 2001).

Variables

Academic Outcomes. Our academic outcomes of interest include junioryear GPA and math and science enrollment.2 We constructed each of thesevariables using data from respondents’ high school transcripts. GPA is acontinuous variable ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 4.0. Due to therelatively high rate of high school dropout reported among linguistic mi-norities (Klein et al., 2004), we predict junior rather than senior year GPA.Another important measure of academic achievement is enrollment in col-lege preparatory coursework, as we suspect that enrollment in college pre-requisites provides a proxy for the academic press of students’ high schoolcurricula. Specifically, completion of algebra II is a strong predictor ofcollege attendance (Adelman, 1999), as is chemistry. In addition, math andscience are often perceived to be less language dependent than social scienceor English-language arts, and are thus believed to less likely be affected byESL placement. For this reason, we include a measure of math and scienceenrollment focused on algebra II and chemistry. This variable ranges from 0to 4. A score of 0 indicates that the student took nothing above generalscience or algebra, the minimum to graduate from high school in moststates. A score of 1 indicates that the student completed either biology orgeometry; a score of 2 indicates completion of both biology and geometry; ascore of 3 indicates that the student completed either biology and algebra II,or chemistry and geometry; a 4 indicates completion of both chemistry andalgebra II.

ESL Placement. In addition to coding courses with a standard scheme,transcript data also included the course titles used by the schools as theyappeared on the transcripts. Although the CSSC codes group courses bysubject and level (i.e., Algebra I, Organic Chemistry), they do not indicatewhether a course is designated ESL (except for the standard ESL courses,which are grouped with foreign-language courses). Relying solely on CSSCcodes would have eliminated Sheltered and SDAIE content courses as well asother courses designed specifically to meet the academic and linguistic needsof immigrant linguistic minority students. Thus, we utilized specific coursetitles, cross-referencing key words and phrases in the transcript and catalogtitles to determine whether a course should be coded as ESL. These key

2Math and science coursework variables were modeled separately, as well as combined. Theseparate results are consistent with the combined; as colleges will not accept one without theother, the combination was preferable, if not necessary in light of our argument.


words and phrases include the following: EL, ESOL, ESL, SDAIE, ELD,Sheltered, Language Learning, English Development, Immigrant, EnglishLanguage Development, and Bilingual. From a total of 564,280 undupli-cated course records, we identified 2,424 ESL-type courses taken by 502students, 155 of whom are Mexican-origin. In addition to identifying in-dividuals who ever took ESL in high school, we also identify those who tookESL at their original Add Health high school to indicate that ESL was takenwithin the school contexts we are measuring. Thus, 475 students took ESLat their original Add Health high school, and 141 of these students are ofMexican origin.

Our primary independent variable of interest is a dichotomous indicatorof ESL placement during high school (1 5 yes). We operationalize ESLplacement as dichotomous; our analysis focuses neither on the quality norquantity of ESL instruction but rather on schools’ identification of studentsplaced in ESL as having needs that distinguish them from peers.

Analytic Plan

Propensity Score Matching

We use propensity score matching to estimate the predicted effect of ESLplacement on academic success while simultaneously controlling on schoolcontext and neighborhood composition, prior achievement, English profi-ciency, and other factors that are known to be related to ESL identification.(See the Appendix for a complete list.) This method approximates a quasi-experimental design by using observational data to compare outcomes(e.g., academic achievement) for two groups of Mexican-origin youth: (1) a‘‘treatment group’’ (in this case, students placed in ESL) and (2) a ‘‘controlgroup’’ (students with a similar propensity for ESL placement not placed inESL). The comparison requires several steps. First, utilizing a logit model,one estimates the propensity of treatment group (ESL) placement for allrespondents. Then, cases (or groups of cases) in the treatment and controlgroup are matched based on the predicted propensity score calculated above.The next step, which compares those who took ESL to similar students whodid not, is relatively simple; an average treatment effect on the treated (ATT)is derived, representing the difference between average outcomes for thetreatment and control groups (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983; Becker andIchino, 2002; Dehejia and Wahba, 2002).

Propensity score modeling techniques have two major strengths. Theyreduce the selection bias that results from confounding factors simulta-neously influencing the treatment (ESL placement) and the outcome(s) ofinterest, in our case, GPA and math and science enrollment. The mostcritical confounding factor in this analysis is English proficiency. Propensityscore modeling techniques also increase certainty that predicted relationships


between treatments (ESL placement) and outcomes are causal (Morgan andSorensen, 1999; Dehejia and Wahba, 2002). This technique is only as goodas the estimated propensity score itself, and two assumptions must be met toensure confidence in results. First, models predicting respondents’ propen-sity scores must include all covariates predicting the treatment, in this case,ESL placement. The Appendix lists and describes the covariates we use topredict ESL placement, including both individual- and school-level vari-ables. In exploring the effect of ESL placement, English-language proficiencyis the most critical confounding factor, and propensity score matching isable to take this and a variety of covariates of ESL placement (Appendix)into account while increasing the likelihood that predicted relationshipsbetween treatments and outcomes are causal (Dehejia and Wahba, 2002;Morgan and Sorensen, 1999). Second, the conditional independence as-sumption (CIA) must be satisfied—the treatment and control groups mustbe balanced (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). In other words, matched casesfrom the two groups must be equivalent on covariates predicting the pro-pensity to receive the treatment, here, the propensity for placement in ESL.

Estimating the Propensity of ESL Placement. We use the STATA pscoreprocedure, which utilizes a logit model to estimate a propensity score rep-resenting students’ likelihood of ESL placement. This procedure also testsfor balance by grouping matched cases in the treatment and control groupsinto blocks with similar propensities of ESL placement and comparing thedistribution of covariates predicting the propensity score within each block(see Becker and Ichino, 2002 for a full review of the STATA pscore pro-cedure). We constructed one propensity score for our total sample of Mex-ican-origin students in schools offering ESL coursework. We then utilize thisscore to match cases and estimate group differences in academic outcomesfor our eight subsamples: (1) all students in high-concentration schools, (2)all students in low-concentration schools, (3, 4) first-generation studentsin high- and low-concentration schools, (5, 6) second-generation students inhigh- and low-concentration schools, and (7, 8) third-generation studentsin high- and low-concentration schools. We chose this approach (as opposedto the alternative approach—constructing eight different propensity scores,one for each sample) because it brings us closer to estimating propensityscores using a total population. This increases the likelihood of estimatingthe propensity score well (Morgan and Sorensen, 1999). Ancillary analysesusing the alternative approach (not shown) produce no significant differ-ences in results when compared to those shown here.

Theory and prior empirical research (Faltis and Wolfe, 1999; Harklau,1994) guided decisions about which covariates to use in the model pre-dicting the propensity of ESL placement. Covariates include individual-,family-, and school-level demographic characteristics (generational status,age at Wave I, parents’ education, public assistance, region, sector, average


class size), linguistic status (student reports usually speaking a language otherthan English at home), English proficiency (Add Health Peabody PictureVocabulary Test (AH-PVT)), prior achievement (ninth-grade math course-taking and retention before sixth grade), and parents’ and students’ socialintegration into the community context (parent’s reason for moving toneighborhood, how happy respondent is in neighborhood, whether the re-spondent knows a lot of people in the neighborhood). Additional neigh-borhood context variables include unemployment rates and percentlinguistically isolated. Covariates dealing with school context include theproportion of Latino, Mexican, immigrant, and linguistic minority studentsin the school, parent education at the school level, urbanicity, class size, andregion. We use mean and mode substitution to impute missing values on allcovariates predicting the propensity score. Dummy variables representingthese cases were used in our final weighted model but are not shown.

We estimate differences in academic achievement between students whowere and were not placed in ESL using the kernel matching method toestimate group differences in our outcomes, GPA and math and sciencecoursework completion (Frisco, Muller, and Frank, 2007). Kernel matchingutilizes the calculated propensity score to match cases in the treatment groupto a composite of control cases that are weighted by the similarity ofthe propensity to receive the treatment (Heckman, Ichimura, and Todd,1998). Thus, all control (non-ESL placement) subjects potentially contrib-ute to the weighted composite, improving the power and efficiency ofestimation. This is especially valuable when there are many potentialmatches for each treatment subject, as is the case in our study. The kernelmethod elegantly combines use of full information of stratification with thecontinuous conceptualization of propensity scores used in many one-to-onematching procedures.

We bootstrap standard errors using 1,000 repetitions to obtain estimatesof a standard error that allow us to assess whether the ATT that kernelmatching estimates is statistically significant. Note also that trimming didnot produce any significant differences in results estimated with either pro-pensity score matching technique we use in this study.

Results

Table 3 shows estimated differences in academic achievement for Mex-ican-origin students by ESL placement, school context, and generationalstatus. The left-hand side of the table shows results for Mexican-originstudents in low-concentration ESL schools, with the high-concentrationESL schools in the right-hand columns.

In the low-concentration schools, Mexican-origin students placed in ESLperform at significantly lower levels academically relative to their matchedcounterparts not placed in ESL. When first-, second-, and third-generation


TA

BLE

3

Estim

ate

dE

ffect

of

ES

LP

lacem

ent

on

Gra

des

and

Math

and

Scie

nce

Enro

llment

by

Concentr

ation

of

Imm

igra

nts

inth

eS

chool

and

Genera

tionalS

tatu

s

Low

-Concentr

atio

nS

chools

Hig

h-C

oncentr

atio

nS

chools

Treatm

ent

Contr

ol

SE

ATT

Treatm

ent

Contr

ol

SE

ATT

First

,S

econd

,Third

Com

bin

ed

N5

43

N5

126

N5

98

N5

358

Junio

rye

ar

GPA

2.5

24

3.0

50

0.6

06

�0.5

27

2.5

01

2.1

37

0.1

01

0.3

64nnn

Alg

II/chem

istr

y2.0

47

3.4

66

0.4

98

�1.4

20nnn

2.8

98

2.3

82

0.1

44

0.5

16nnn

First

Genera

tion

N5

31

N5

10

N5

42

N5

43

Junio

rye

ar

GPA

2.5

79

1.3

00

0.9

69

1.2

79

2.1

99

2.0

94

0.2

11

0.1

04

Alg

II/chem

istr

y1.8

71

3.2

07

0.4

46

�1.3

36nnn

2.4

05

2.6

32

0.3

90

�0.2

27

Second

Genera

tion

N5

9N

556

N5

42

N5

229

Junio

rye

ar

GPA

2.5

55

3.1

17

0.6

80

�0.5

62

2.7

44

2.2

10

0.1

42

0.5

34nnn

Alg

II/chem

istr

y2.5

56

2.9

91

0.7

95

�0.4

36

3.2

86

2.5

49

0.1

96

0.7

36nnn

Third

Genera

tion

N5

3N

560

N5

14

N5

86

Junio

rye

ar

GPA

1.8

61

2.4

99

0.3

63

�0.6

38w

2.6

81

2.3

15

0.2

86

0.3

67

Alg

II/chem

istr

y2.3

33

2.3

91

0.5

45

�0.0

58

3.2

14

2.5

80

0.3

43

0.6

34w

nnnpo

0.0

01;w po

0.1

0.


students are pooled, we find a negative, although not significant, predictedeffect of ESL placement on GPA (ATT 5 –0.527). In addition, we find anegative and significant predicted effect of ESL placement on enrollment inalgebra II and chemistry (ATT 5 –1.420). Once students in low-concen-tration ESL schools are disaggregated by generational status, it becomes clearthat the negative predicted effect of ESL placement on math and scienceenrollment is driven by first-generation students (ATT 5 –1.336). First-generation Mexican-origin students placed in ESL tend not to enroll ineither chemistry or algebra II, important college-going prerequisites; thematched students tend to enroll in at least one, if not both, of these courses.In addition, there is a marginally significant, negative predicted effect ofESL placement for third-plus-generation students on junior year GPA(ATT 5 � 0.638).

In schools with a larger concentration of immigrant students, the averagetreatment effect of ESL placement for respondents matched on observedcovariates predicting placement is positive and significant. Among thepooled matched sample of Mexican-origin students in high-concentrationschools, students placed in ESL earn significantly higher grades (ATT 50.364) and take significantly more math and science (ATT 5 0.516) thantheir mainstreamed counterparts with a similar propensity for placement.Disaggregating by generational status shows that in high-concentrationschools it is the second-generation Mexican-origin students who appear tobenefit most from ESL placement when compared to their counterparts withsimilar propensities for placement; the difference in achievement is not onlystatistically significant, but also substantively significant. Specifically, sec-ond-generation Mexican-origin youth placed in ESL maintain a high Caverage, as opposed to the low C average earned by their mainstreamcounterparts (ATT 5 0.534). In addition, on average, second-generationMexican-origin youth placed in ESL enroll in either algebra II or chemistry,if not both, while their mainstreamed counterparts do not (ATT 5 0.736).Both the average grades and course taking of the ESL group, while insuffi-cient for admission into a competitive university, are sufficient academicpreparation for entry into some level of postsecondary academic institution.In addition, third-generation Mexican-origin students are marginally morelikely to complete either algebra II or chemistry when placed in ESL(ATT 5 0.634).

Discussion and Conclusions

Our findings suggest that school context may shape the pathways throughwhich ESL placement impacts students’ academic achievement and prep-aration by the end of high school. In brief, immigrant students placed inESL in schools with higher immigrant concentrations do better than theirnon-ESL counterparts, and those in schools with fewer immigrants do worse


relative to non-ESL-course takers. If ESL placement precludes access to andenrollment in high levels of math and science coursework, as we find in low-concentration schools, then schools actively promote the downward assim-ilation of Mexican-origin youth placed in ESL. In contrast, when ESLplacement produces higher levels of math and science enrollment, as it doesfor second-and third-plus-generation students in high-concentration con-texts, schools facilitate Mexican-origin youths’ academic success.

The seemingly protective predicted effect of ESL placement for second-and third-generation Mexican-origin youth in high-concentration contextssuggests that the downward trend in achievement across generations is notinevitable. Schools, as organizational systems, affect the placement of Mex-ican-origin youth, their achievement, and their integration into the largersocioeconomic fabric of our society. Our findings suggest that there aremultiple mechanisms for both social and academic marginalization of Mex-ican-origin youth in our schools: within schools, as evidenced by the averagetreatment effect of ESL in low-concentration schools, and across schools, asis the case when we compare high-concentration schools to low-concentra-tion schools. One caveat persists, however; our data are limited in that weare unable to place with certainty students’ ESL course taking before or afterAdd Health surveys, making it impossible to assess the effect of ESL onsocial outcomes that may be reported in Add Health surveys. This should bea priority for future research.

These findings deserve attention in that most Mexican-origin students inthis national sample did not access the levels of content-area instructionnecessary for entry into higher education, regardless of ESL placement or theschool attended. Although English-language proficiency may well play a rolein the underpreparation of Mexican-origin students (Rumberger and Lar-son, 1998; Valenzuela, 1999; Vigil, 1997), our results suggest that it is likelynot the primary factor determining access. As growth of the Mexican-originpopulation continues to outpace other groups, an undereducated workforcewill increasingly affect the national economy (COSEPUP, National Acad-emy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Med-icine, 2007). This merits careful consideration in the policy arena because ofthe implications of high school preparation on long-term postsecondaryopportunities. If education is the gateway to economic and social success forimmigrant children (Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco, 1995), then criticalattention must be paid to these students’ access to content-area collegepreparatory academics. Further research might explore more specifically thecurriculum to which Mexican-origin students are exposed, and the breadthand depth of its content.

In identifying that school context appears to shape students’ opportuni-ties, this study leaves open questions about possible mechanisms for theoutcomes. School composition almost certainly affects schools’ institutionaland social climate experienced by immigrant students, and as such contrib-utes to the relatively low academic preparation of Mexican-origin youth


(Romo and Falbo, 1996; Vigil, 1997; Valencia, 2002). Future researchshould explore the institutional and social climates found in schools withboth high and low concentrations of immigrants, as the findings from thisstudy suggest that the settings have different implications for immigrantstudents.

REFERENCES

Adelman, Clifford. 1999. Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns,and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U.S. Department of Education.

Alba, Richard D., and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilationand Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Becker, Sascha O., and Andrea Ichino. (2002). ‘‘Estimation of Average Treatment EffectsBased on Propensity Scores.’’ Stata Journal 2(4):358–77.

Bidwell, Charles E., and John D. Kasarda. 1975. ‘‘School District Organization and StudentAchievement.’’ American Sociological Review 40(1):55–70.

Brittain, Carmina. 2002. Transnational Messages: Experiences of Chinese and Mexican Immi-grants in American Schools. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishers LLC.

Callahan, Rebecca M. 2005. ‘‘Tracking and High School English Learners: LimitingOpportunity to Learn.’’ American Educational Research Journal 42(2):305–28.

Carbonaro, William J., and Adam Gamoran. 2002. ‘‘The Production of AchievementInequality in High School English.’’ American Educational Research Journal 39(4):801–27.

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda forAmerican Science and Technology (COSEPUP), National Academy of Sciences, and Na-tional Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising Above the GatheringStorm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.

Cosentino de Cohen, Clemencia, Nicole Deterding, and Beatriz Chu Clewell. 2005. Who’sLeft Behind? Immigrant Children in High- and Low-LEP Schools. Washington, DC: UrbanInstitute.

Dehejia, Rajeev H., and Sadek Wahba. 2002. ‘‘Propensity Score-Matching Methods forNonexperimental Causal Studies.’’ Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1):151–61.

Duran, Bernadine J., and Rafaela E. Weffer. 1992. ‘‘Immigrants’ Aspirations, High SchoolProcess, and Academic Outcomes.’’ American Educational Research Journal 29(1):163–81.

Faltis, Christian J., and Paula M. Wolfe. 1999. So Much to Say: Adolescents, Bilingualism, andESL in the Secondary School. New York: Teachers College Press.

Frisco, Michelle, Chandra Muller, and Kenneth A. Frank. 2007. ‘‘Parents ‘Union Dissolutionand Adolescents’ School Performance: Comparing Methodological Approaches.’’ Journal ofMarriage and Family 69(3):721–41.

Gans, Herbert J. 1992. ‘‘Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and EthnicFutures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants.’’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(2):173–92.

Gibson, Margaret A., Patricia C. Gandara, and Jill Peterson Koyama. 2004. School Con-nections: U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement. New York: Teachers CollegePress.


Grogger, Jeffrey, and Steve J. Trejo. 2002. Falling Behind or Moving Up?: The Intergener-ational Progress of Mexican Americans. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of Cal-ifornia.

Hallinan, Maureen T. 1994. ‘‘School Differences in Tracking Effects on Achievement.’’Social Forces 72(3):799–820.

Harklau, Linda. 1994. ‘‘ESL Versus Mainstream Classes: Contrasting L2 Learning Envi-ronments.’’ TESOL Quarterly 28(2):241–72.

Heckman, James J., Hidehiko Ichimura, and Petra E. Todd. 1998. ‘‘Matching as an Econo-metric Evaluation Estimator.’’ Review of Economic Studies 65:261–94.

Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda. 1995. ‘‘Optimism and Achievement: The EducationalPerformance of Immigrant Youth.’’ Social Science Quarterly 76(1):1–19.

Klein, Steven, Rocio Bugarin, Renee Beltranena, and Edith McArthur. 2004. LanguageMinorities and Their Educational and Labor Market Indicators: Recent Trends. Washington,DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 566 (1974).

Linton, April. 2004. ‘‘A Critical Mass Model of Bilingualism Among US-born Hispanics.’’Social Forces 83(1):279–314.

Logan, John R., Wenquan Zhang, and Richard D. Alba. 2002. ‘‘Immigrant Enclaves andEthnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles.’’ American Sociological Review67(2):299–322.

Lucas, T., R. Henze, and R. Donato. 1990. ‘‘Promoting the Success of Latino LanguageMinority Students: An Exploratory Study of Six High Schools.’’ Harvard Educational Review60:315–40.

Morgan, Stephen L., and Aage B. Sorensen. 1999. ‘‘Parental Networks, Social Closure, andMathematics Learning: A Test of Coleman’s Social Capital Explanation of School Effects.’’American Sociological Review 64:661–81.

Muller, Chandra, Jennifer Pearson, Catherine Riegle-Crumb, Jennifer Harris Requejo,Kenneth A. Frank, Kathryn S. Schiller, R. Kelly Raley, Amy G. Langenkamp, SarahCrissey, Anna Strassmann Mueller, Rebecca M. Callahan, Lindsey Wilkinson, and SamuelH. Field. 2007. National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Wave III EducationData. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina atChapel Hill.

NCELA. 2006. The Growing Numbers of Limited English Proficient Students: 1991/2 to 2001/2. U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language En-hancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA).Available at hhttp://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/stateposter/pdfi.Ogbu, John U. 1991. ‘‘Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities in Comparative Perspective.’’Pp. 3–33 in Margaret A. Gibson and John U. Ogbu, eds. Minority Status and Schooling: AComparative Study. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Olsen, Laurie. 1997. Made in America: Immigrant Students in Our Public Schools. New York:New Press, distributed by W.W. Norton.

Oropesa, R. S., and Nancy S. Landale. 1997. ‘‘Immigrant Legacies: Ethnicity, Generation,and Children’s Familial and Economic Lives.’’ Social Science Quarterly 78:399–416.

Portes, Alejandro, and Lingxin Hao. 2004. ‘‘The Schooling of Children of Immigrants:Contextual Effects on the Educational Attainment of the Second Generation.’’ Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Science: PNAS 101(33):11920–27.


Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant SecondGeneration. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Riehl, Carolyn, Aaron M. Pallas, and Gary Natriello. 1999. ‘‘Rites and Wrongs: InstitutionalExplanations for the Student Course-Scheduling Process in Urban High Schools.’’ AmericanJournal of Education 107:116–54.

Rivera, Charlene, Carolyn Vincent, Anne Hafner, and Mark LaCelle-Peterson. 1997. State-wide Assessment Programs: Policies and Practices for the Inclusion of Limited English ProficientStudents. Washington, DC: Department of Education.

Roediger, David R. 2005. Working Towards Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants BecameWhite. New York: Basic Books.

Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. 1983. ‘‘The Central Role of the PropensityScore in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.’’ Biometrika 70(1):41–55.

Rumbaut, Ruben G., and Alejandro Portes. 2001. Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants inAmerica. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Rumberger, Russell W., and Katherine A. Larson. 1998. ‘‘Toward Explaining Differences inEducational Achievement Among Mexican American Language-Minority Students.’’ Soci-ology of Education 71(1):68–92.

Rumberger, Russell W., and J. Douglas Willms. 1992. ‘‘The Impact of Racial and EthnicSegregation on the Achievement Gap in California High Schools.’’ Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis 14(4):377–96.

Schmid, Carol. 2001. ‘‘Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, and the NewSecond Generation.’’ Sociology of Education Supplement: Currents of Thought: Sociology ofEducation at the Dawn of the 21st Century: 71–87.

Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo. 2001. Manufacturing Hope and Despair. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo, and Carola Suarez-Orozco. 1995. ‘‘The Cultural Patterning ofAchievement Motivation: A Comparison of Mexican, Mexican Immigrant, and Non-LatinoWhite American Students.’’ Pp. 161–90 in R. Rumbaut and W. Cornelius, eds., California’sImmigrant Children. San Diego, CA: Center for US Mexican Studies, University ofCalifornia.

Tyack, David B. 1974. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cam-bridge: Harvard University Press.

Valencia, Richard R. 2002. Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present and Future. NewYork: Routledge Falmer.

Valenzuela, Angela. 1999. Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Car-ing. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Vigil, James Diego. 1997. Personas Mexicanas: Chicano High Schoolers in a ChangingLos Angeles. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Walqui, Aida. 2000. Access and Engagement: Program Design and Instructional Approaches forImmigrant Students in Secondary School. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics andDelta Systems Co.

Wang, Jia, and Pete Goldschmidt. 1999. ‘‘Opportunity to Learn, Language Proficiency, andImmigrant Status Effects on Mathematics Achievement.’’ Journal of Educational Research93(2):101–11.


Appendix: Logit Model Predicting Propensity to be Placed in ESL of Mexican-Origin Students in Schools Offering ESL (N 5 625)

Female 1.21Parent education: College 1.09Parent education: Some secondary 0.90Parent education: Some college � 0.56Age at Wave I 0.52Usually speak language other than English at home 0.12First generation arrived before age 5 � 0.28First generation arrived after age 5 3.83Second generation 0.48AH-PVT (English proficiency—vocabulary test) � 0.03Low math placement Grade 9 1.53Retained before Grade 6 � 2.40Physical attractiveness 0.11Parents receive food stamps � 1.62Respondent happy in neighborhood 0.26Respondent knows people in neighborhood � 0.87Respondent visits fitness/recreation center in neighborhood 1.18Parents moved to neighborhood because of children 0.61Male unemployment rate in respondent’s neighborhood 1.29Proportion linguistically isolated in respondent’s neighborhood 3.40Average proportion linguistically isolated in respondent’s

neighborhood in school21.00

Proportion Latino in school � 15.73Proportion Mexican in school 3.59Proportion of students usually speaking language other than English

at home at school8.97

Proportion of parents with no high school diploma in school 12.04Proportion 1st or 2nd generation in school � 8.27Average class size in school 0.13Urban school � 0.89Rural school 0.92West 0.06South � 0.15Intercept � 13.65Pseudo R2 0.56


Documents

School Context and the Effect of ESL Placement on Mexican-Origin Adolescents' Achievement