Conchas 2012. Acculturation and Social Succes

7/27/2019 Conchas 2012. Acculturation and Social Succes

1/22

Acculturation and School Success: Understanding

the Variability of Mexican American Youth AdaptationAcross Urban and Suburban Contexts

Gilberto Q. Conchas Leticia Oseguera

James Diego Vigil

Published online: 10 March 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This article concentrates on the educational experiences of urban and

suburban Mexican American youth, from recent immigrants to those that have been

in the United States for generations. The article seeks to unravel the relationship

between acculturation and school success by offering a holistic and longitudinal

approach of three time periods: 1974, 1988, and 2004. The dynamics of Mexican

American acculturation and adaptation differ across populations (People), envi-

ronmental settings (Place), and across the three time periods studied (Time). Thediversity of physical space, social locations, and ethnic identities within the Mex-

ican American population needs to be recognized within such an analysis. This

article highlights policy and practice designed to impact the largest ethnic minority

group in the United States, a population constantly facing changes.

Keywords Immigration Acculturation Mexican American youth Urban

Suburban High schools Engagement

The children of immigrants have a significant impact on American society. As

constituents, students, future parents and participants in the economy, these young

people, their families and their environments together present unique profiles

G. Q. Conchas (&)Department of Education, University of California, Education Building, Irvine, CA 92617, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. Oseguera

Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

J. D. Vigil

Department of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

1 3

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422DOI 10.1007/s11256-012-0197-2


2/22

worthy of exploration. One of the greatest areas of concern is their educational

plight especially as there is evidence of an educational decline the longer

immigrants remain in this country (Feliciano 2006; Keller et al. 2008; Suarez-

Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 2001). This article concentrates on the educational

experiences of Mexican American1

youth, from recent immigrants to those that havebeen in the United States for generations. The article seeks to unravel the

relationship between acculturation or the degree to which one adapts to host country

standards and values and school success by offering a holistic and longitudinal

approach of three time periods in two neighborhood contexts.

By doing so, we are able to devise policy and practice designed to impact the

largest ethnic minority group in the United States, a population constantly facing

changes (Sanchez2002). As new waves of Latino immigrant labor enter the U.S. to

meet the enormous demands of a global economy (Oboler 1995; Morales and

Bonilla1993), we suggest that an examination of the Latino educational experiencecarries profound implications as this group trails other immigrant groups in

educational attainment and we know educational attainment is important for labor

market participation (Feliciano 2006; Kao and Tienda 1995). We expand earlier

work (see Vigil 2002) and suggest what continues to be omitted from analyses of

educational achievement is attention to a framework of time, place, and people.

That is, this research illustrates why the dynamics of Latino acculturation and

adaptation differ across the three time periods studied, across environmental

settings, and among different Mexican American cohorts. The diversity of cultural

styles, languages, and ethnic identities within the Latino population needs to berecognized within such an analysis to provide a more nuanced understanding of why

this group experiences different educational outcomes.

Mexican Americans and U.S. Schooling

Educational practices in the United States directed toward Mexican American

students have often been paternalistic and racist, reflecting the secondary status

accorded Mexican Americans in the country (Carter 2005; Chavez 2008). This

treatment persisted throughout the twentieth century, as immigration from Mexico

brought millions of settlers to the Southwest in search of better living standards.

Many Americans believed that the only way for Mexican Americans to achieve

social mobility was via acculturation to Anglo American standards of speaking and

behaving. This theory dominated educational practices through the late 1930s

(Gonzalez1999). Educators argued that minority students needed to learn English

and assimilate as rapidly as possible (Garcia1999; Gonzalez1999). This policy was

carried to an extreme, however, as teachers often demeaned the native culture of

minority students (Garcia1999; Gonzalez1999; Valenzuela1999).

1 We use Mexican American and Chicano to refer to the students in this sample or when the research weare citing uses these terms. The term Latino is used relatively interchangeably and is used when theresearch we are citing uses this pan-ethnic term instead of the ethnic specific terms Mexican American or

Chicano.

402 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


3/22

This approach was often the only alternative to the more egregious practice of

outright segregation, which offered separate, inferior, or even nonexistent school

facilities for minorities (Valencia 2010). The policies of Americanization and

segregation combined to ensure problems in school for Mexican American students

as they were subjected to learning program based on a premise of cultural deficiency(Conchas2001; Gandara and Contreras2009).

Mexican Americans (and other communities of color) in the United States resisted

blatant forms of racism and discrimination from the onset and regularly struggled for

equality on numerous fronts (Delgado Bernal1999; MacDonald and Garcia2003). In

the aftermath of World War II, the Mendez v. Westminster case in 1947 struck down

separate and unequal schools in California (Donato et al. 1991).The Civil Rights

Movement of the 1960s included various protests and rallies, which represented a

challenge to the orthodoxy of the established, Anglo-dominated system. The Chicano

Movement of the 1960s grew from this earlier movement. During the East LosAngeles Walkouts of 1968, more than seven thousand students in three East Side Los

Angeles high schools left their campuses to stage public protests against inferior

schooling options in Mexican American populated schools (Garcia 2010). This

student activism achieved various educational reforms, including the introduction of

bilingual education and an increase in college enrollment and activism of Latino

youth (Delgado Bernal1999; MacDonald and Garcia2003).

While outright segregation was against the law, the cultural deficiency

perspective endured. In 1968, Latino children (and blacks) that tested low on IQ

tests in the San Diego School District were labeled Educable Mentally Retarded(EMR) and placed in special classes. Many of these students spoke little English or

were not exposed to the dominant Anglo culture on which the test was based

(Valencia and Aburto1991). Only after this practice was challenged by a coalition

of leaders from the NAACP and the Mexican American Political Association

(MAPA) was the EMR policy changed. Today, Latino (and black) children continue

to be overrepresented in special education classes and are most likely to be served

with negative sanctions at school (Cammarota 2004; Hehir 2005; Noguera2003).

Thus, the cultural deficit philosophy still exists, but is hidden under the cloak of

objective, standardized tests (Gandara and Contreras2009; Valencia1999).

By 1974, student and community activism began to break down the monolithic

cultural barriers that impeded adjustments to Latino students needs; a cultural

accommodation promised in Article 21 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848

(Vigil2011). This period marked the beginning of a shift from the Anglo promotion

of Americanization to one advocating ethnic pluralism (Spindler and Spindler1990)

or cultural democracy (Ramirez 1985). The Chicano Movements legacy encour-

aged barrio youth to retain cultural distinctiveness and not to assimilate, regardless

of ones generation or cultural orientation. This was a dramatic reversal as up to the

mid-1960s, it was still common for Chicano students to seek a trajectory to Anglo

customs. Up to this time, Anglos often degraded Spanish-speaking students by

referring to them as T.J.s (Tijuanerosa derogatory slang term for new immigrants

from Mexico, or more specifically, Tijuana), even if they were born in the United

States (Vigil2007). Many students, particularly from the more Anglo-oriented third

and fourth generations, found themselves in a quandary. As they pushed to fit in

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 403

1 3


4/22

with Anglos, the rules in their neighborhoods reversed back toward a Latino,

specifically Mexican orientation or a move toward Mexicanization.

The 1970s to the present saw a significant increase in immigration from Mexico,

which has broadened the Mexicanization process (Sanchez 1993). The increase in

the number of Mexicans, and Latinos in general, in the United States creates acritical mass, which affirms and further invigorates political and cultural awareness

efforts (Gandara and Contreras2009). This presence has made it more palatable and

acceptable to be Mexican (Gonzalez1990). Moreover, Mexicanization often guides

the ethnic self-identification process among adolescents and youth (Chavez2008).

While this Mexicanization process gained ground in the early 1980s, a political

backlash also began to form. The conservative Reagan administration proved

particularly difficult for many minority groups in the United States (Kozol 1992;

Chavez 2008). Poverty increased in response to funding cutbacks and the

government cast a blind eye to persistent socioeconomic problems (Wilson1996).Government funding for low-income and ethnic minority communities dropped

significantly from the late 1960s levels of the Great Society Era including such

programs as special education and Head Start (Quadagno 1994). Paradoxically,

bilingual education expanded during this time, due to lobbying efforts initiated by a

coalition of ethnic organizations (Garcia 1999).

As cultural assertiveness grew among Latino opinion makers, government

leaders reintroduced Americanization policies. For example, the English-Only

language movement, led by nativist Americans, became popular during this time

(Hakuta2011). Consequently, significant tension began to develop among educatorswho disagreed on the direction of future U.S. educational policy initiatives (Colvin

1996; Gandara2002).

Political pressures to counter the effects of massive immigration continued and

resembled turn of the century restriction policies and agendas such as the English-Only

movement, anti-immigration initiatives, and antipathy toward Latinos (Chavez 2008).

Elected political leaders, at both the federal and state level, use the demographic and

multiculturalist changes to appeal to the fears of the public (Hayes-Bautista 2004). The

passage of Proposition 187 in 1994, the bill to exclude public benefits to all

undocumented persons in California, stands as an example (Ono and Sloop 2002).

Additionally, legislation such as AB 540 in California, which allows certain

undocumented students to attend Californias public higher education institutions at

in-state resident tuition rates has been challenged in the courts (Flores and Oseguera

2009). More recently, the signing of Arizonas SB 1070, which orders all immigrants

to carry their legal identification papers at all times, generated a furor across the

country as did a recent court ruling upholding much of Alabamas immigration law

that is described by some as the strictest immigration law in the country (Robertson

2011). In some quarters, there exists a push to generate laws that would prevent anchor

babies, children born in the U.S. of undocumented parents, from being granted

citizenship (Chavez 2008). These governmental and political forces shape the

communities, school climates and lives of those in their path. This article offers an

examination of how these broader forces impact the lived experiences and educational

outlook of adolescents growing up in these contexts across three different time

periods.

404 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


5/22

Methodology

To illustrate the examination of time, people, and place, two schoolsone urban and

one suburbanwere selected to provide detailed analyses of how the broader social,

economic, and political context shapes students ethnic identity and subsequentschool success. The current study is based on earlier work examining two time

periods: 1974 and 1988 but extends the analyses to include the examination of the

community and school context in 2004. In 1974, the schools were initially selected

because they represented diverse school settings in terms of their enrollment of

students from different immigration generation statuses and ethnic make-ups of the

school population; yet, the two schools were about equal in size and both had

similar average grade point averages of their student bodies, which would inform a

study on ethnic identity and school achievement.

Neighborhood Context and School Sites

There are differences between the two communities sampled in this study, location

differences (urban barrio vs. suburban working and middle class), educational

attainment and income levels, household size, as well as differences over time (see

Table1). In 1974, the urban location was a largely low-income Latino community

in East Los Angeles. The homes and infrastructure here date from as early as the

first decades of the twentieth century. The suburban neighborhood was located

approximately fourteen miles southeast of East Los Angeles. In this area, the well-maintained school and neat rows of tract-home developments exemplify the

suburban explosion that characterized greater Los Angeles in the 1950s.

During the initial study in 1974, the urban barrio in East Los Angeles, composed of

Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans, had a population of more than 102,000,

of whom 85 percent were of Latino descent. Residents were generally poor. The average

annual household income was only $7,526, and 18 percent of the households were

receiving some sort of public assistance. Adults in the urban barrio had an average of

8.8 years of education, and 7.4 percent had no formal education whatsoever.

In contrast, the suburban area, in 1974, had a population of approximately

15,500, 48 percent of whom were of Latino descent. The suburban residents were

generally middle and working class with household heads in blue-collar occupa-

tions. The average annual income was $11,478, and only 4 percent of the

households received public assistance. Adults in the suburban area had an average

of 12 years of education, and only 1.5 percent had no formal education whatsoever.

In 1988, roughly one-third of the population in the urban area had completed at least

a high school education while this figure was 60% in the suburban area. By 2004,

the urban areas population had declined slightly while the suburban areas

population increased. During this time, the Mexican population had mushroomed in

both locales representing 97% of the population in the urban area and 81% in thesuburban area. Urban income increased to about $31,022 (household size was 4.04)

and suburban income increased to $43,223 (household size 3.35). The gaps between

residents on public assistance in the urban and suburban areas remained about the

same over time.

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 405

1 3


6/22

Table1

Selected

communityandschoolcharacteristics,1974,

1988,and2004

Year

Inc

omelevel

Educationattainment

Percentonpublicassistance/lowincome

Population

PercentMexicanorigin

Urban

Suburban

Urban(%)S

uburban(%)

Urban(%)

Suburban(%)

Urban

Suburban

Urban(%)

Suburban(%)

Communitychara

cteristics

1974

$7,52

6

$11,4

78

20

50

18

4

102,000

15,5

00

85

48

1988

$22,93

7

$33,3

13

34

60

24

20

126,379

15,5

20

91

67

2004

$35,64

5

$43,2

23

43

74

50a

48a

124,283

17,0

60

97

81

Year

Schooldropout

Schoolsize

PercentofschoolMexicanorigin

Urban(%)

Suburban(%)

Urban

Suburban

Urban(%)

Suburban(%)

Highschoolcharacteristics

1974

24

14

2,2

10

2,4

20

92

35

1988

N/A

28

3,4

02

1,1

72

99

71

2004

17

N/A

4,8

30

2,7

82

99

84

Source:U.

S.

CensusandHighSchoolWebsites

a

Percentonpublicassistanceisnotavailablesow

eusepercenteligibleforfreeor

reducedlunch

406 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


7/22

By 1988, an erosion of the economic infrastructure occurred, which was caused

by a statewide recession that affected jobs and social habits in both areas (Moore

and Pinderhughes-Rivera 1993). Specifically, factory closures in the Los Angeles

area and changes in labor market demands caused populations to follow the service

sector jobs now located in suburban areas (Vigil 2007; Wilson 1996). Socioeco-nomic experiences play a particularly important role in determining an individuals

access, exposure, and identification with the dominant culture (Darder and Torres

2004). Demographic shifts showed a general increase in poverty, with an alarming

emphasis on the feminization of this poverty (Bauman2008). A steady rise in crime

and related gang behavior materialized (Vigil2007). The urban barrio had grown in

population, as had the proportion of residents of Mexican descent. The total

population in the suburban area had not changed significantly, but the populace was

much more Mexicanized.

Neighborhoods in both places have not been radically transformed since the early1970s. In 2004, filled by residential units, the urban area is mostly older clapboard

homes of modest sizes with well kept gardens and streets overcrowded with

vehicles, older cars and many pickup trucks. Parking is a problem here and reflects

the overcrowded circumstances found in many low-income neighborhoods. Two

blocks away is a major thoroughfare which is considered one of the main roads in

East Los Angeles with used-car lots, liquor stores, restaurants, bars, and smaller

business offices. The suburban area in 2004 includes mid-twentieth-century tract

homes, newer but not as solidly built as the older urban ones, but less densely

positioned. Parents who work are working class or lower middle class, with manymore skilled and professional wage earners. There has always existed a mini-mall

three long blocks away from the high school but over the decades has undergone a

series of renovations and remakes. It is still the place for students to go when school

is over, as a couple of fast food establishments offer tacos and hamburgers. Both

neighborhoods are very close to a freeway, one of the desirable elements for a

working class population that requires ready access to work places.

Significantly, in 2004, while gang activity had been common in the urban area,

gang and street youth activities became more prominent in the suburban

neighborhood, as school officials and law enforcement emphasized suppression

tactics to stem the tide. Suburban areas by then had become sufficiently urbanized

that marginalization had taken its toll (Vigil2007). In large part, older classic gangs

characterized the urban area and, as the Mexican population moved to other places

in search of service jobs, the gang problem and school disengagement followed

them (Vigil2007).

The high schools sampled in the three time periods of the study reflected their

respective environments. The urban high school, built in the 1920s, sits on relatively

little acreage. The suburban school, built in 1955, sits on a sprawling, green campus.

In 1974, the urban high schools population primarily included students of Latino

descent: 32 percent of the students were born in Mexico and 92 percent of the

students were of Mexican heritage. In the suburban high school, 35 percent of the

students were Mexican American, and only 5 percent had been born in Mexico.

Despite having a similar total number of students and average school-wide grade

point average (GPA), the urban high school had a significantly higher percentage of

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 407

1 3


8/22

dropouts than the suburban schoolofficial rates of 24 percent versus 14 percent,

respectively. By 2004, the urban and suburban high schools were 99 and 84%

Mexican origin students, respectively.

Student Sample

In 1974, a sample of students was chosen from each of the two schools by randomly

drawing equal numbers of students of Latino2 descent at each grade level (tenth,

eleventh, and twelfth). The final 1974 sample consisted of 39 urban and 41 suburban

students, evenly divided by gender. These students were administered questionnaire

guided interviews covering their language skills, cultural backgrounds, and school

behavior, performance, and attitudes. In addition, using an acculturation scale

developed by Vigil (2002), constructed from students responses about language

and culture practices, six students from each school were selected for more in-depth,intensive interviews and home and school observations. Two students were chosen

with low-scale scores (more Mexican-oriented), two with intermediate scores

(Chicano-oriented), and two with high-scale scores (more Anglo-oriented).3 Data

from interviews with these students, their families and teachers as well as report

cards and school records were used to provide context for the analyses. Based on

their school records, academic performance was evaluated by calculating the grade

point average of the students and divided into low performance if students

maintained lower than a 2.0 grade point average and satisfactory performance if

their grade point average was above 2.0.In 1988, a similar design was employed. However, the 1988 sample included

fewer suburban students than before (only 31) and more students (12 from each

school) for the in-depth interviews. The 2004 sample is generated from a larger

dropout study that has been underway since 2002 and in 2004, surveys were

administered (including the acculturation items to produce the acculturation scale)

to 460 students (representative of the school-wide population) and formal intensive

interviews with 12 students at each school (more than in year 1974 but the same as

in year 1988) were conducted. Initially, we expected to include selected data from

students at each acculturation scale (e.g., Mexican-oriented, Chicano-oriented, or

Anglo-oriented) yet few students identified as Anglo oriented while the majority

scored closer to a Mexican-oriented identity (see Fig. 1).

Analytic Approach

Ethnographic field notes (Emerson et al. 1995) that focused on observed actions and

scenes were recorded. After the observations, these fieldnotes guided the

development of lengthier descriptive accounts of the observation session. These

observations allowed us to document specific elements of acculturation, school

2 While the original studies included students of various Latino descents, we restrict this sample and

analysis to those students who identified as Mexican origin for the three time periods included in thisanalysis.3 For a detailed explanation of the acculturation scale scores and meanings, see Vigil (2002).

408 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


9/22

engagement and changes in student behaviors over time. Interview data were

analyzed in two phases. During the first phase, transcripts were reviewed line-by-

line with the goal of identifying recurrent words, phrases, expressions and

significant events or aspects of informants experiences paying special attention to

how students related their ethnic identity to their academic performance in school.

The second phase consisted of focused coding for any attributions of school success

(or failure) that students ascribed to other factors such as sibling influences, teacher

support, or paid employment pressures. We also relied on interviews with school

leadership and personnel over the three time periods studied as well as literature

around the changing social, political, and economic contexts of the communities in

which the two selected school sites were situated.

The analysis and subsequent findings section is designed to accomplish two

goals: (1) elaborate how school achievement can be understood in the context oftime, people, and place which is informed by the interviews of school and

community leaders as well as other sources describing the two contexts such as the

Los Angeles Unified School District website and U.S. Census data; and (2) provide

a longitudinal explanation for the variations in student achievement across the two

contexts and across the three time periods studied.

Findings

Various structural and cultural factors influenced school engagement among the

sample of students during the three time periods. In addition to larger demographic

changes, factors such as immigrant aspirations, lower economic status, family

stability, gender, and ethnic identity, were found to affect academic success. Those

Fig. 1 Acculturation spectrum placement of selected students, 1974, 1988, and 2004.Fdenotes femaleinterviewee and Mdenotes male interviewee

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 409

1 3


10/22

students with an adequate socioeconomic status as self-reported by the student that

their families are consistently able to pay expenses on time, active parental

involvement and support as defined by student reports that parents encourage their

aspirations and know how they are performing in school, secure family environment

as defined by having both parents present and family members not negativelyinvolved with the law, successful role models such as peers and teachers, and a

stable ethnic identity as identified in this study as moving toward a Mexican-

oriented spectrum seemed to do very well at school.4 We first present the

demographic changes that took place during the three time periods and the common

factors found to influence school engagement from 1974 to 2004 then provide an

analysis of how differences in time, people, and place explain students outlook on

their educational achievement.

Immigration and the Mexicanization of Los Angeles High Schools

The data from the 2004 samples show how the communities in both the urban and

suburban areas produced a new generation of youth and families, who were proud of

their cultural background. For example, the urban field site experienced a large

influx of recent Mexican immigrants including undocumented populations (as well

as other Latinos, especially Central Americans, primarily Salvadorans). In the

suburban field site, there were high numbers of immigrants that had been in

America for 3060 yearsmany coming as young children. Asserting a cultural

allegiance to their home country, the immigrants of this 1.5 generation were unlikeeither first- or second-generation immigrants of the past who strived to be more

American (Feliciano2006; Rumbaut and Komaie 2010).

South Central and Southeast Los Angeles and Pico Union (west of downtown)

replaced East Los Angeles as the primary port of entry for immigrants. New arrivals

gravitated to older, cheaper housing and neighborhoods that were closer to the

downtown garment and sweatshop factories (Vigil 2007; Wilson 1996). Some

newcomers displaced the Chicano residents of older, traditional barrios (Vigil

2007). Consequently, third- and fourth-generation Chicano families, some gang-

oriented, moved to suburbia, filling the void left by white flight. In the suburban

area, the remaining Anglo residents often met the Mexicanization phenomenon with

resentment. Clinging to their notion of privilege, many Anglos, including teachers

and other public employees, struggled to maintain an aura of control and dominance

(Vigil2007).

In the new millennium, as noted, a tremendous wave of immigration increased

the Mexican percentage to close to 100% in the inner-city area and near 90% in

suburbia. Urbanization had overwhelmed the suburban locality of Los Angeles

4 Although many students were familiar with street-wise rules and regulations, they often preferredschool-smart routines and rhythms. For example, there were always a few role shifters in the urbanschool, balancing their daytime learning activities with nighttime entertainments and adventures on thestreet. The effect and degree that these roles play in determining educational success is still unclear.Research does suggest that these factors are interconnected and that no single factor, present on its own,

ensures academic success (i.e., Carter2005; Conchas2001).

410 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


11/22

County in the last 40 years. Today, the new suburbia is located in the outskirts of

Orange County, just south of Los Angeles County.

In 1974 the two high schools and their respective communities reflected

contrasting populations in terms of culture, class, and social issues. Place plays

an important role in this study, but the dynamic of time is also significant. By1988, the high schools had experienced dramatic changes. The urban high

school student body was now composed almost entirely of students of Mexican

and other Latino descent, and it had grown in total student population by more

than 50 percent. In the suburban high school, the proportion of Latino students

in the total student population had nearly doubled. The local population was

mirrored by the school population, which by 2004 was 97% Latino in the

urban area and 81% Latino in the suburban area. The few Anglos that

remained were the elderly whose children had matured and moved out to the

new Orange County suburbs.In addition, there was a Mexicanization of the political and academic landscape.

In 1974, there were few Latinos on either high schools school board. By 1988, there

were several Latinos on the school boards of both schools, and the number of Latino

faculty and administrators had also increased from the time of the first study in

1974, as more Latinos gained access to higher education. Parent-teacher meetings

were sometimes conducted in Spanish at both school sites.

From 1974 to 1988, schools developed strategies to discourage gang members

and other incorrigibles from attending. As a result, more gang members were in the

streets than in classrooms. Both the suburban and urban high school, in 1988,appeared to be gang free. The only students allowed in school were those with clean

records and the proper appearance i.e., ones who did not wear typical gang attire. To

some degree, the proliferation of street gangs in years between the studies can be

traced to the failure of schools to reach out and address the special circumstances

and learning difficulties of choloized youth (Conchas and Vigil 2010; Trueba1991).

By 2004, across both the urban and suburban school sites, we saw increases in gang

violence on both school grounds. The re-emergence of gangs in the urban, but more

significantly, in the suburban area stems from some third- and fourth-generation

families with gang ties moving in but may also stem from the attendant increase in

poverty in both of these neighborhoods.

By 1988, the introduction of new learning strategies like AVID (Advancement

via Individual Determination) made a strong impact in the urban school. AVID

was tailor-made for the neglected inner-city students who were identified as

bright and capable of rigorous study despite spotty, mostly poor, past academic

records.

Suburban students also benefited from AVID but had an additional program of

Advanced Placement (AP) courses to accelerate their educational trajectories. There

was a special, rigorous accelerated history class for each grade level. It included

many speakers and outside enrichment outings, during which students heard lectures

by experts and visited institutions and historical sites. By 1988, Latino origin

teachers were recruited for both schools as many more Latinos acquired teaching

credentials (MacDonald and Garcia2003). The urban school employed about sixty

Latino teachers, some even graduates of that school. This trend of hiring Latino

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 411

1 3


12/22

teachers has continued into 2004, especially as more Latinas are enrolling and

succeeding in higher education than ever before.5

Based on data collected during the 1988 study, we see that with an increased

Mexican and Latino presence, school officials in the urban locale made progressive

changes to meet the demands of their student population. For example, the schoolstrengthened its bilingual education approach in order to soften the culture shock for

immigrant or Spanish-speaking children. Moreover, as noted, the recruitment of

more sensitive and culturally aware teachers, adding to the core of those from the

1970s, and an increase in a significant number of Latino and Latina instructors,

contributed to a more accommodative learning climate in the urban locale.

Other developments countered these changes. A back to the basics education

curriculum led to the appointment of school principals who took no-nonsense,

quasi-military approaches to campus life and operations (Gandara and Contreras

2009). The urban school, in particular, had a short period during which a formermilitary officer became principal and operated the school in what informants

described as a tight ship. However, to pull this off, he had to cater primarily to well-

behaved and academically motivated students. He generally ignored the other

students and, in fact, eliminated any street socialized students, including gang

members, by sending them to a nearby alternative high school. Overall, on the

surface, this window dressing provided an attractive facade, but a large percentage

of the local school-age population was underserved and shunted aside. After a few

years of this, some of the parents persuaded the board of education offices that this

type of arrangement was elitist, especially for a low-income, ethnic minority school.By 2004, the urban school was filled with Latinos who were familiar with and

experienced in addressing the learning problems of Latino high-schoolers. This

despite the still high dropout rate of close to 50%, remembering that the school was

mostly of immigrant stock, first or second generation, and reflected the Mexican-

ization current spoken of in other sections of this article.

Suburban educational programs were also notable in 2004. Interestingly, most of

the special programs, like Expanded Horizons and AVID, were headed by Latinos

and supported by Mexican American teachers and other volunteer parental staff in

guiding and directing the educational trajectories of the students. Overall, what

began over 30 years as a culturally sensitive learning environment has matured into

one that prides itself on things Mexican American.

Socioeconomic Status and Immigrant Aspirations

Socioeconomic status and immigrant aspirations can be strong factors affecting

educational success (Feliciano 2006). Those students with high aspirations were

motivated to succeed in school, and this motivation, in turn, helped drive their

academic success. Across both the urban and rural contexts in 1974 up to 2004,

5 From the 1974 to 1988 study, institutional changes related to gender tensions evolved as a result of thegrowing awareness of differences in how males and females receive their education (Noguera et al.2011).Many teachers and school officials coordinated their efforts to meet the needs of female students. By the2004 study, the educational paths of females had opened to the point that they were a sizeable majority of

graduates going on to higher education from both the urban and suburban high schools.

412 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


13/22

recent immigrants tended to have the highest aspirations. Comparatively, many third

and fourth generation Latinos lowered their level of expectations (Conchas 2006;

Gandara and Contreras 2009; Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 1995). This was

due to a diminishing newcomer effectthe excitement and energy applied to a fresh

arena. In 1974 and 1988, some immigrants to the urban locale had experiencedsetbacks in the United States, and had, over time, lost momentum and motivation;

similar to what other scholars have identified as downward assimilation (Oboler

1995; Portes and Zhou1993; Telles and Ortiz2009). In contrast, in 1974 and 1988,

some immigrants in suburbia felt a sense of relative affluence compared to their

urban relatives. As a result, some did not strive for a higher socioeconomic status

than their parents and were satisfied living a de facto blue-collar lifestyle.

This complacency, however, was not identified in 2004. In fact, we identified

both urban and suburban students (mostly the second or third generation students)

who were aware of the lower social classes they occupied. We suggest it is becausein both the urban and rural contexts, depressed economic conditions have led

students to identify as low-income. Additionally, the socioeconomic gap witnessed

in 1974 and 1988 has been practically eliminated across these communities in 2004.

That is, a higher proportion of both urban and suburban students live in poverty.

The socioeconomic status of immigrant families both before and after entering

the United States also affected educational performance and acculturation (Feliciano

2006). Some immigrants who came from educated and fairly affluent backgrounds

were able to do well in America within the first few years of migration. Others had

faced poverty both in Mexico and in the U.S., which dampened their aspirations andhopes. This phenomenon was apparent in both the 1974 and 1988 studies. However,

by 2004, an added layer of complexity was identified, specifically, the rise in

undocumented immigrants in both locales. A recent study reported that because of

an increase in undocumented children, mostly in the urban area but also in suburbia,

there were additional hardships that dampened their educational trajectories (Perez

2011). Because parents feared apprehension and deportation, they were unable to

fully participate in school affairs, parent-teacher conferences, and other school

events. Along with the many obstacles outlined in this paper, legal status problems

add to the difficulties in the modern period and can likely be traced back to early

1990s immigration reform (Hagan et al. 2002).

Family Stability, Support, and Latino Engagement

Poverty and the immigration processes tremendously impact family stability.

Family stability and parental support are recurrent themes in the students life

histories. Functional families, headed by parents with high expectations, clearly

helped the students in this sample start and sustain a positive school career. The

active participation and involvement of parents, adults and older siblings in school-

related activities was also beneficial (Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 1995;

Delgado-Gaitan 1991) across all three time periods but interestingly, we see a

decrease in the family stability in the 2004 study of the suburban students.

Compared to the suburban students of 1974 or 1988, suburban students in 2004

describe their families as having to work multiple jobs in the service industries.

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 413

1 3


14/22

However, family stability alone was not a predictor of academic success across

either locale. Several students from relatively stable families had parents that had no

strategy or interest in helping their children perform well in school, we saw this

especially in the suburban students of 1988 and some of the urban and suburban

students of 2004. They were preoccupied with work and other concerns, thusdepriving their children of time and attention. This, of course, is no fault of their

own but of the need to work long hours, often two jobs each to provide for their

families.

Unfortunately, for many students across the entire acculturation spectrum,

tension and instability were characteristics of their family life in poor and

marginalized circumstances; again this was primarily witnessed in the 1988 urban

students and both the 2004 urban and suburban students. This had a negative

consequence on their performance at school as positive home dynamics provide a

crucial foundation for success in school. Young people need encouragement andsupport, a secure family environment, and a climate conducive to learning. The

relative optimism witnessed in the 1974 and 1988 studies seemed to have dissipated

in both locals by the 2004 study. To reiterate, in the new millennium, the

tremendous rise in undocumented workers and their school age children has affected

family integration and survival strategies. Large, extended families that provide

social capital are much less common in the United States as compared to networks

back in their home country. The lack of social capital adds another burden to the

equation for hundreds of thousands of children educated in the nation.

School, Classrooms, Teacher Culture, Leadership, and School Success

The environment or culture that a school fosters is a significant factor to consider

when analyzing academic success. Classroom dynamics and teacher-student

interactions are especially significant (Conchas and Rodrguez 2008). Despite

many obstacles, several students in the 2004 study were performing satisfactorily at

school (i.e., maintaining a grade point average above 2.0); they often attributed

much of their success to the efforts of their teachers. Teachers can be very

influential role models for students. They can motivate students to realize their full

potential and provide nurturing learning environments.

Just as teachers can bring about positive changes in their students, their actions

can also be detrimental. The teachers in the 1974 study were found, in general, to

have lower academic expectations for their students; negative attitudes and racist

comments were also more common among them. Discrimination, however, still

existed in the 1988 and 2004 studies. In 1988, some students expressed resentment

at such treatment, but their responses were subtle. In 2004, conversely, students

were more vocal about the racism they experienced in and out of schools.

The 1970s saw an increase in hostility and friction in the urban high school

employees, mainly between the Chicano principal and the teachers, who were

mostly middle class whites.6 The Chicano Movement had played a role in getting

the principal appointed, against the wishes of most of the white teachers in the

6 See the work of Urrieta (2009), Working from Within, for a thorough discussion of this phenomenon.

414 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


15/22

school, who resented this imposition. The subsequent tensions led to a negative

climate for students in the school. Frequent gang fights also contributed to creating

this negative atmosphere. As a result, two youth lost their lives during the study

year.

After a heated political struggle that involved teachers and many community andschool officials, the school district replaced the Chicano principal of the urban high

school in the mid-1970s. A series of administrators, at the behest of Los Angeles

School District officials, reintroduced a traditional educational curriculum, avoiding

some of the more culturally experimental learning programs. Meanwhile, new

teachers, many of them Chicanas and Chicanos, joined the faculty. Together with

more established Latino teachers, they collectively made a difference despite the

opposition of some top administrators.

The ESL program is one example. This program proved pivotal to the

participating students academic success. It created a learning environment ofcultural accommodation for Mexican-oriented students, which eased their accul-

turation stress. In recent decades, such programs have become more established and

have made their mark in the urban setting, even though controversy continues to

swirl around them (Hakuta2011).

In the suburban high school in 1974, the Expanded Horizons program helped

students mediate the acculturation process. When the program was launched in the

mid-1960s, it was considered innovative but somewhat safe as Latinos were a

minority at the time. In the late 1970s and 1980s, when the district, school, teachers,

and officials began to become increasingly Latino, some people began to considersuch programs a threat. Eventually school district leaders made adequate

adjustments to the program in lieu of its elimination. The program became

institutionalized district-wide and renamed as New Horizons. It expanded to include

working-class whites, similar to the previously mentioned AVID initiative that was

not ethnic-specific.

By the 1988 study, administrators introduced additional learning approaches. For

example, and as noted, the AVID program is a daring, innovative strategy for low-

income students, who are identified as bright on the basis of several criteria such as

a teachers belief in their potential to succeed and not solely on standardized test

results. These students are placed in academically-oriented classes that address their

potential and special learning needs. Research shows that the AVID program has

been successful and makes a difference among its students (Mehan et al. 1996).

However, the suburban school did not escape the onset of tensions between

principal and staff. In her attempts to adjust to the tide of Mexicanization, the

suburban principal resisted strengthening the multicultural learning environment.

Nevertheless, with the persistence and help of certain district officials and a group of

committed and dedicated teachers and parents, most of the students were still able to

gain a good education and, at the same time, develop pride in their Latino heritage.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, both schools had Latino principals and

key school counselors and teachers that openly embraced some of the learning

strategies developed earlier and were now being carried out in a more systematic

way. For example, the suburban director of New Horizons was a Chicana activist,

who went beyond clerical office duties and took risks on a daily basis, including

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 415

1 3


16/22

instructing students to boycott the school during a regional and statewide, Day

without Mexicans protest. Unlike many other teachers and mid-level administrators

that toe the party line, she proudly and calmly declared for the principles of the

Chicano Movement and provided an example for students. Generally, as the

suburban school student population of Anglos declined and Latinos rose, there was aconcomitant increase in Latino teachers and an increase in adult Latino volunteers.

The urban high school in 2004 had undergone a number of administrative

changes in the early 2000s and the current principal was a Latino with wide

experience working with alternative student bodies. The vice-principal was also a

Latina and had risen from the ranks in the same school. Many of the other

administrative staff and counselors were also Latino, mostly Mexican Americans,

and at least 75 teachers were graduates of the same high school.

Racism, Ethnic Cultural Identity, and Engagement

Another salient theme influencing students perceptions of their academic achieve-

ment is their ethnic and cultural identity; although the spectrum has swung between

the 1974 and 2004 studies. Strong educational pursuits are associated with a stable

and relatively stress-free ethnic identity (Conchas 2001; Hakuta 2011; Suarez-

Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 1995). In 1974, those students in the study who

exhibited the greatest confidence in their ethnic identification were the Mexican-

oriented students at both the urban and suburban schools. Their stable ethnic

identity, coupled with a supportive family environment, was also associated with abetter academic record at school. Students attributed much of this success to the

ESL program. In addition to easing the students acquisition of English, the program

prevented serious identity anxiety when difficulties did occur; students problems

largely stemmed from socioeconomic forces.

Ethnic identity formation varies significantly across time, people, and place

(Valenzuela 1999). Unlike their suburban counterparts, the 1974 urban Anglo-

oriented students did not have much access or exposure to Anglo-American culture,

as they lived in a predominantly hyper-segregated Latino barrio. Suburbia, on the

other hand, brought with it a greater exposure to Anglo culture. Anglo-oriented

Latino students felt little discomfort in denying their ethnic identity, but this group

also experienced limited academic success. And while a unidirectional Anglo

acculturation was enhanced in the suburban locale, there were feelings of anxiety

and ambivalence associated with the process, especially for some of the Mexican-

oriented students. The elements necessary for retention of Latino culture and

practice of the Spanish language were limited. Nevertheless, despite the absence of

a large Latino ethnic population base such as East Los Angeles, several students

were still strongly Mexican-oriented. For these students, the Expanded Horizons

program helped to mediate the acculturation process. The program helped instill a

sense of ethnic pride in several students, even if they could not speak Spanish and

knew little about their heritage. Thus, the Expanded Horizons program helped

students regain a sense of identity and stability.

A parents influence affects a childs sense of ethnic and cultural identity. Several

students in the 1974 suburban sample were explicitly told by their parents to change

416 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


17/22

their ethnicity. Some parents did this to spare their children the racism the parents

had experienced when they were young. Other parents motives were based on their

own prejudices and, perhaps, even shame of their ethnicity. Parents thus socialized

their children toward the dominant culture. These parental strategies of denial were,

to a large degree, successful in forcing acculturation because their children were inan Anglo suburban environment.

Some of the 1974 suburban parents, on the other hand, based on their own

experiences of racism, told their children to be wary of Anglos and often passed on

their resentment. Racial appearance, in fact, is a significant mediating factor in

acculturation and is found to greatly affect ethnic identity formation (Lopez2011).

The fact that many of these parents and their children had dark skin, with a mestizo

racial appearance, adds weight to these beliefs. These students strategy of

acculturation was thus often stressful and produced, at best, mixed results.

The range of the acculturation spectrum in 1988 had, in fact, narrowed. Studentswere clustered in the middle. A resilient bilingual-bicultural experience seemed to

be the trend now and, perhaps, in the future (Hurtado and Gurin 1995). By 1988,

different forces were in place to affect the process of the students ethnic identity

formation in dynamic ways. The influx of newcomers strengthened existing

programs, such as bilingual education, and resulted in a trend of Mexicanization.

Latino youth were now reclaiming their heritage; students were no longer ashamed

of publicly labeling themselves as Latino or Chicano. A sound, solid ethnic (and

personal) identity in this context enabled students to succeed academically and

achieve (Hakuta2011). Even some of the third- and fourth-generation students andthe mixed-race students in the sample were now claiming their Latino heritage;

some of the lighter-skinned students refrained from calling themselves white.

Unable to speak Spanish, they still sought to affirm their ethnic identity by

following traditions and customs such as eating Latino foods, maintaining an

interest in their native history, and associating with other Latinos. Being ethnic

became fashionable, but it also brought challenges. Some of the mixed-race students

hinted at difficulties with the white aspect of their identities.

While we saw a narrowing of the acculturation spectrum by 1988, we see

movement towards Mexicanization by 2004. Most of the 2004 samplefrom both

urban and suburban areaswas adamantly and clearly embarked on a path of no

assimilation at any cost, espoused by the Chicano Movement. The 2004 sample,

whose acculturation scores were closer to Mexicanization, which would suggest

stronger Mexican identities were actually equally proficient in dominant culture

ideologies of English language acquisition and celebration of U.S. cultures and

traditions. Thus for these students, Spanish language retention and pride in their

Mexican heritage remained constant as they became equally proficient in the

language and traditions of their new adopted country effectively becoming bilingual

and bicultural.

Contributing to this ethnic pride, as noted, the urban area and school became

proportionally more first generation Mexican. Suburbia, to reiterate, was swallowed

by urban sprawl and marginalization and also turned in a strong Mexican direction

generationally and culturally. The spatial separation between the areas remained the

same but the social and cultural worlds were much closer and blended. One sign of

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 417

1 3


18/22

this change is the spate of new Mexican restaurants in the suburban area, some

challenging the exquisite cuisine and dishes once dominated by the Eastside Los

Angeles of the Mexican American world. Of course, in this context of conflict and

change produced over time, it was fairly clear that being Mexican was something to

either be proud of, or more commonly, something to tacitly accept and take forgranted. There were still a few students that struggled with self-identity, but now

their struggle was based on whether they were Mexican enough.

A Final Contemporary Perspective on Change and Continuity

The 2004 follow-up to these two settings clarifies that places and peoples have

changed over the decades. We visited and kept a steady eye on broader social and

cultural developments in these schools and communities. Through the 1990s and

early 2000s, we spoke regularly at the two schools and observed and interviewedstudents along the dimensions of acculturation levels and ecological contrasts of

urban and suburban transformations. As a way of summary, what briefly follows are

some of the dominant developments.

Mexicanization has deepened and expanded, but there is an important difference

to note about this expansion. The students are now mostly second generation as East

Los Angeles and suburban Southeast Los Angeles are no longer the main entry

points for Latino immigrants. As a result, many students are comfortably bilingual

and embrace a bicultural life, evincing a linguistic and cultural fluidity that was non-

existent in previous times. After the Civil Rights Movement and the uphill strugglefor bilingual-bicultural education, all things Latino are au courant. Academic

achievement has not necessarily blossomed in this context, as class and structural

barriers still dominate the process as students too early must join the workforce to

contribute to their own or families keep. Even when they reach high school, students

find work to supplement household incomes and when they reach near adult age

prematurely must step more fully into the workforce.

Significantly, both schools have a high percentage of Latino students, as even the

suburban school has seen its Latino percentage rise such that it is approaching 90%

of the student body (a marked increase from 35% in 1974 and 71% in 1988). As

noted earlier, there is no longer a stigma or embarrassment associated with their

ethnic background. Racial appearance, however, as a carryover from Mexico, has

persisted. Indigenous, darker-appearing students are more likely to experience

disparagement from both fellow Latinos and from members of the dominant race

(Lopez2011; Telles and Ortiz2009).

Discussion and Conclusion

This article illustrates how the individual within the family is nested in the structural

and the cultural milieu of her time and place. All sectors need to come together

when analyzing educational success: social (family stability and support), cultural

(clear strategy, embracing a multicultural orientation), economic (stable SES, even

in working poor) and psychological (self-esteem, stable ethnic identity, role

418 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3


19/22

models). Thus, both cultural and structural conditions must be part of the equation

as is an understanding of how changing contexts affect students attitudes and

approach to their educational attainment. Instead of counter posing these

perspectives in a this-or-that rivalry, we must begin to conceptualize them in a

this-and-that-and-that combinative manner. This approach will synthesize and buildrather than segment and isolate. This longitudinal study has shown how structure

and culture can, in fact, be used in complementary ways within the same analysis.

A multilingual and multicultural strategy is the best acculturation route and one

on which to build other significant elements (Banks and Banks2001). It is a path of

adding and combining, giving recognition and respect to various cultural influences

that enrich individuals multilingual and multicultural heritage. Students who are

bilingual and bicultural can also be good and successful students. A unidirectional

assimilation path is no longer the only route to academic success. Especially

important in this regard is how unidirectional acculturation can be reexamined andrethought to include an almost definitive multicultural strategyone that teaches

respect and interest in cultures other than ones own (Banks and Banks 2001).

Cultural and linguistic accommodation and integration is thus the one area where

public institutions and political leaders can readily make a difference, because

control is in their hands to make schools effective and productive experiences for

the culturally different, politically underrepresented, and economically powerless.

In light of the backlash to multiculturalism and, in particular, to the waves of

immigrants and Latino culture, we must emphasize that multiculturalism does not

signify anti-Americanism. Indeed, a multicultural strategy can benefit Americans ofall backgrounds (Banks 2008; Urrieta 2009). Milton Gordon (1964) long ago

pointed out that we could learn and maintain primary (American) ethnic customs,

practices, attitudes, and relationships and simultaneously cultivate the dexterity to

hold secondary (other culture) ones; this is known as ethnic pluralism or cultural

democracy. Switching back and forth as the occasion warrants, showing a

cosmopolitanism that places us in the world culture, is beneficial because it

encourages resiliency and openness instead of rigidity and myopia.

Latinos are poised for major contributions to the United States in the twenty-first

century. In particular, the example of a bilingual-bicultural American identity will

help steer the U.S. away from a monolithic-centered language and cultural

orientation to one that connects Americans to a global society and economy. It can

also make a major difference in steering Latino youth toward college and career

success.

References

Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2001).Handbook of research in multicultural education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bauman, R. (2008).Race and the war on poverty: From Watts to East L.A . Norman, OK: University ofOklahoma Press.

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 419

1 3


20/22

Cammarota, J. (2004). The gendered and racialized pathways of Latina and Latino youth: Differentstruggles, different resistances in the urban context.Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(1),5374.

Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Chavez, L. (2008).The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation . Palo Alto, CA:Stanford University Press.

Colvin, R. E. (1996). Bilingual education rift divides state teachers union.Los Angeles Times.Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino school

engagement.Harvard Educational Review, 70, 475504.Conchas, G. Q. (2006). The color of success: Race and high-achieving urban youth. New York NY:

Teachers College Press of Columbia University.Conchas, G. Q., & Rodrguez, L. F. (2008).Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school

culture to engage students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Conchas, G. Q., & Vigil, J. D. (2010). Multiple marginality and urban education: Community and school

socialization among low-income Mexican-descent youth.Journal of Education for Students Placedat Risk, 15(12), 5165. doi:10.1080/10824661003634963.

Darder, A., & Torres, R. D. (2004).After race: Racism after multiculturalism. New York, NY: New YorkUniversity Press.

Delgado Bernal, D. (1999). Chicana/o education from the Civil Rights Era to the present. In J. F. Moreno(Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicanao/Chicana education (pp. 77108).Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Education for immigrant families in America.New York: Falmer Press.

Donato, R., Menchaca, M., & Valencia, R. R. (1991). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of

Chicano students: Problems and prospects. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.),Chicano School Failure andSuccess. London: The Falmer Press.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.Feliciano, C. (2006).Unequal origins: Immigrant selection and the education of the second generation .

New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishers LLC.Flores, S. M. & Oseguera, L. (2009). The community college and undocumented immigrant students

across state contexts: Localism and public policy. In R. L. Crowson & E. B. Goldring (Eds.),Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 267298), Vol. 108(1). New York,NY: Teachers College, Columbia.

Gandara, P. (2002). Learning English in California: Guideposts for the nation. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco &

M. M. Perez (Eds.), Latinos remaking America (pp. 339358). Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Gandara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed socialpolicies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Garcia, E. (1999). Chicanos/as in the United States: Language, bilingual education, and achievement.In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education

(pp. 141168). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Garcia, E. (2010). Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for

practice and policy. New York: TC Press.Gonzalez, G. (1990). Chicano education in the era of segregation. Philadelphia: The Balch Institute

Press.Gonzalez, G. (1999). Segregation and the eductaion of Mexican children, 19001940. In J. F. Moreno

(Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education (pp. 5376).Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Gordon, M. (1964).Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hagan, J., Rodriguez, N., & Rodriguez, N. (2002). Resurrecting exclusion: The effects of 1996 U.S.immigration reform on communities and families in Texas, El Salvador, and Mexico. In M.M. Suarez-Orozco & M. M. Perez (Eds.), Latinos remaking America (pp. 190201). Berkeley andLos Angeles: University of California Press.

Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming equal rights: Research andpractice perspectives. Educational Researchers, 40(4), 163174.

420 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824661003634963http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824661003634963


21/22

Hayes-Bautista, D. (2004).La nueva California: Latinos in the golden state . Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Hurtado, A., & Gurin, P. (1995). Ethnic identity and bilingualism. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic

psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and Achievement: The educational performance of immigrant

youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 119.Keller, U., Harker, & Tillman, K. (2008). Post-secondary educational attainment of immigrant and native

youth. Social Forces, 87(1), 121152.Kozol, J. (1992).Savage inequalities. Children in Americas schools. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.

Lopez, N. (2011). Racially stigmatized masculinities: Conceptualizing Latino male schooling in theUnited States. In P. Noguera, A. Hurtado, & E. Fergus (Eds.),Disenfranchisement of Latino males:Contemporary perspectives on cultural and structural factors. New York: Rouledge.

MacDonald, V. M., & Garcia, T. (2003). Historical perspectives on Latino access to higher education:18481990. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding therepresentation of Latina/o faculty, administrators, and students in higher education (pp. 1546).

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The conse-

quences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press.Moore, J. W., & Pinderhughes-Rivera, R. (Eds.). (1993). In the barrios: Latinos and the underclass

debate. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Morales, R., & Bonilla, F. (1993). Latinos in a changing U.S. economy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary

practices.Theory into Practice, 42(4), 341350.Noguera, P. A., Hurtado, A., & Fergus, E. (2011). Understanding the disenfranchisement of Latino men

and boys: Invisible no more. New York: Routledge.

Oboler, S. (1995).Ethnic labels, Latino lives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Ono, K., & Sloop, J. (2002). Shifting borders: Rhetoric, immigration, and Californias proposition 187.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Perez, W. (2011).Americans by heart. New York: Teachers College Press.Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530, 7496.Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty . New York:

Oxford University Press.

Ramirez, M. (1985).Psychology of the Americas: Mestizo perspective on personality and mental health .New York: Pergamon Press.

Robertson, C. (2011)Alabama wins in ruling on its immigration law. Retrieved on December 15, 2011.Fromhttp://nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/alabama-immigration-law-upheld/html.

Rumbaut, R. G., & Komaie, G. (2010). Immigration and adult transitions.The Future of Children, 20(1),4366.

Sanchez, G. J. (1993). Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, culture, and identity in Chicano LosAngeles, 19001945. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sanchez, G. J. (2002). Y tu, que? (Y2K): Latino history in the new millennium. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco & M. M. Perez (Eds.),Latinos remaking America (pp. 4558). Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1990). The American cultural dialogue and its transmission. London:Falmer.

Suarez-Orozco, C. E., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Migration, family life, andachievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, C. E., & Sua

rez-Orozco, M. (2001).

Children of immigration. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Telles, E. E., & Ortiz, V. (2009). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race.New York: Russell Sage.

Trueba, H. T. (1991). From failure to success: The roles of culture and cultural conflict in the academicachievement of Chicano students. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success:

Research and policy agenda for the 1990 s. London: The Falmer Press.

Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422 421

1 3
http://nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/alabama-immigration-law-upheld/htmlhttp://nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/alabama-immigration-law-upheld/html


22/22

Urrieta, L., Jr. (2009). Working from within: Chicana and Chicano activist educators in whitestreamschools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Valencia, R. R. (1999). Educational testing and Mexican American students: Problems and prospects.In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), The elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education(pp. 123139). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2010).Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the1990 s. London: The Falmer Press.

Valencia, R. R., & Aburto, S. (1991). The uses and abuses of educational testing: Chicanos as a case inpoint. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.),Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for

the 1990s. London: The Falmer Press.Valenzuela, A. (1999).Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring . New York:

State University of New York Press.Vigil, J. D. (2002). Personas Mexicanas: Chicano high schoolers in a changing Los Angeles. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.Vigil, J. D. (2007). The projects: Gang and non-gang families in East Los Angeles. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J. D. (2011).From Indians to Chicanos. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears. The world of the new urban poor. New York: VintageBooks.

422 Urban Rev (2012) 44:401422

Conchas 2012. Acculturation and Social Succes

Documents

Transcript of Conchas 2012. Acculturation and Social Succes