Gender, Immigration, and School Victimization

This article was downloaded by: [Anthony Peguero]On: 27 December 2011, At: 13:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Victims & OffendersPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

Gender, Immigration, and SchoolVictimizationDixie J. Koo a , Anthony A. Peguero b & Zahra Shekarkhar ca Department of Criminal Justice, California StateUniversity–Fullerton, Fullerton, California, USAb Department of Sociology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USAc Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Available online: 27 Dec 2011

To cite this article: Dixie J. Koo, Anthony A. Peguero & Zahra Shekarkhar (2012): Gender,Immigration, and School Victimization, Victims & Offenders, 7:1, 77-96

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2011.629773

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2011.629773

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Victims and Offenders, 7:77–96, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564886.2011.629773

Gender, Immigration, andSchool Victimization

Dixie J. Koo

Department of Criminal Justice, California State University–Fullerton, Fullerton,California, USA

Anthony A. Peguero

Department of Sociology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Zahra Shekarkhar

Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville,Florida, USA

Abstract: Research demonstrates that the psychological well-being, health, andeducational progress and success are negatively influenced by school victimization. It isalso known that gender, generational status, and race and ethnicity are linked to dis-tinct school experiences for youth. What remains uncertain is how the intersection ofgender, generational status, and race and ethnicity are linked to the school victimiza-tion of the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population—youth in immigrant families.Logistic regression analyses, drawing on the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002,suggest complex results that are relevant to these issues. For example, findings indi-cate that there is a parallel between assimilation and school victimization, especiallyfor Latina and African American female youth. The implications of the evident gender,generational, and racial and ethnic disparities in school victimization are discussedmore generally.

Keywords: adolescent victimization, gender differences, school violence

INTRODUCTION

Victimization can have serious and long-lasting detrimental effects onchildren. Dropping out, suicide, drug use, and future involvement withdelinquency (and adult criminality) have been associated with youth vic-timization (Finkelhor, 2008; Gottfredson, 2001; Macmillan & Hagan, 2004).School victimization of youth is particularly alarming because schools are

Address correspondence to Anthony A. Peguero, Virginia Tech, Sociology, 560 McBryde(0137), Blacksburg VA 24061. E-mail: [email protected]

77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

78 D. J. Koo, A. A. Peguero, and Z. Shekarkhar

institutions of socialization and are supposed to be safe learning environ-ments (Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Rigby, 2003; Ttofi & Farrington, 2008;Verdugo, 1999). Because schools are institutions of education and socializa-tion, understanding and addressing the violence that occurs in schools isessential for establishing a safe and healthy learning environment for allyouth (Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Rigby, 2003; Ttofi & Farrington, 2008;Verdugo, 1999). However, the likelihood of school victimization varies bygender and race.

A 2001 report released by the American Association of University WomenEducational Foundation (AAUW) finds that gender not only plays a significantrole in the likelihood of school victimization but also that school victimiza-tion is less acknowledged and the effects are more severe for female students.Additionally, the occurrence of violence and victimization within schools is onlymagnified for youth in immigrant families because school is where childrenof immigrants learn not only about U.S. values, beliefs, and behaviors butalso about their role in American society (Lee, 2005; López, 2003; Peguero,2009). In other words, it is within schools that youth in immigrant familiesare exposed to mainstream American culture and where they learn and formbeliefs about what society and persons outside of their families expect fromthem. Although findings indicate that as the children of immigrants assimi-late the likelihood of victimization also increases (Peguero, 2009), the genderdistinctions in that pattern of assimilation and victimization remain unknown.

This study extends the literature about youth violence and victimization byexamining the intersection of gender, generational status, and race and eth-nicity in relation to the likelihood of school victimization. First, a discussionabout the importance of understanding the role of gender in school victim-ization is presented. The subsequent section describes the pertinent researchthat emphasizes the significance of immigration as a factor in school victimiza-tion. The next section makes use of logistic regression techniques on nationallyrepresentative data regarding students’ educational and school experiencesto explore the links between gender, generational status, race and ethnic-ity, and school victimization. Finally, the importance of understanding of thevictimization of a growing population of immigrant family youth is discussed.

Gender and School VictimizationBecause schools are institutions of education and socialization, under-

standing and addressing the violence that occurs in schools is essentialfor establishing a safe and healthy learning environment for all youth(Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Rigby, 2003; Ttofi & Farrington, 2008; Verdugo,1999); however, the likelihood of victimization is stratified by gender amongstudents (AAUW, 2001; Cullen, Unnever, Hartman, Agnew, & Turner, 2008;Marsh, Evans, & Weigel, 2009; Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). The 2001 report

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

School Victimization 79

released by the AAUW finds that female students face a variety of harmfulexperiences such as bullying and harassment, which are detrimental for edu-cational progress. Research, however, indicates that male students report morevictimization while on school grounds in comparison to female students (Devoe,Peter, Noonan, Snyder, & Baum, 2005; Gottfredson, 2001).

The lack of attention paid to female students’ victimization, particularlywithin school, may be detrimental to their overall development—resulting ina higher incidence of depression, dropping out, substance abuse, early par-enthood, delinquency, and criminal behavior (AAUW, 2001; Finkelhor, 2008;Hand & Sanchez, 2000; Young, Boye, & Nelson 2006). School policies tend tofocus attention and interventions on physical aggression in boys and fail to con-sider the distinct social world of female youth (AAUW, 2001; Hand & Sanchez,2000; Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). Although the exposure to school victimiza-tion is known to be stratified by gender, it remains unclear how immigrationand gender are related to school victimization.

Segmented Assimilation and School VictimizationSegmented assimilation theory contends that the process of assimilation

results in various social, economic, and educational outcomes (Rumbaut, 1997;Zhou, 1997). “Straight-line” assimilation theorists propose that immigrantsand youth in immigrant families are involved in a process that involvesassimilating to the dominant host culture and that progressing through theassimilation process facilitates upward mobility for immigrants (Alba & Nee,2003; Kaznitz et al., 2009). Under a “straight-line” assimilation perspective,the assimilation process consists of immigrants learning the dominant hostgroup’s values, beliefs, and behaviors in social institutions—such as schools—which then translates to upward mobility. Segmented assimilation theorists,however, contend this conceptual approach does not appropriately depict thecurrent experiences of immigrants or their children in the United States.With a segmented assimilation conceptual framework, the process of assim-ilating and incorporating the dominant group’s values, beliefs, and behaviorsin schools, for example, could result in educational progress of youth in immi-grant families or continuing marginalization and failure (Cammarota, 2004;Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2005; Lee, 2005; López, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001,2006; Valenzuela, 1999; Zhou & Bankston, 2001). Segmented assimilation the-orists propose that the assimilation process is “segmented,” with divergenttrajectories for immigrants and their children. There are pathways of progressas well as a “downward” path toward failure and marginalization.

It is the concept of downward assimilation that raises significant policy,research, and social concerns about the economic, social, and educationalexperiences of youth in immigrant families. The deterioration of publicschools, the rise in drug use and violence, and the adversarial discourse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


about immigration—all of these can negatively impact educational progressand success (Chavez, 2008; Kozol, 1991, 2005; Lee, 2005; Suárez-Orozco &Suárez-Orozco, 2001; Waters, 1999). Youth in immigrant families, indeed,become more at risk for dropping out—reflecting a diminishing trend ofeducational achievement (Lee, 2005; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001) as they advance through the assimilationprocess. In a recent article Peguero (2009) found that immigration statusplayed a role in school victimization—and as the children of immigrantsassimilated, the likelihood of violent victimization at school also increased.Peguero (2009), however, did not examine the moderating role of gender inexamining the relationship between immigration and school victimization.This is particularly important to address because research findings revealthat gender, generational status, and race and ethnicity are key factors thatinfluence the trajectory of success or failure for youth in immigrant families(Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2005; Lee, 2005; López, 2003; Madriz, 1997; Portes &Rumbaut, 2001; Waters, 1999; Zhou, 1997). What remains uncertain is howthe intersection of gender and immigration is related to school victimization.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Even though it is evident that school victimization can be detrimental for over-all well-being and educational progress, there is little research examining theintersection of gender, generational status, and race and ethnicity in relation-ship to school victimization. Thus there are two central questions that remainunaddressed from previous research: How is generational status related tofemale and male school victimization? And does that relationship reflect a pat-tern of assimilation and increased school victimization for both female andmale youth?

DATA AND METHODS

Data for this research is drawn from the base year of the EducationLongitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002). ELS:2002 is a longitudinal sur-vey administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the NationalCenter for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education.ELS:2002 is “designed to monitor the transition of a national sample ofyoung people as they progress from tenth grade through high school and onto postsecondary education and/or the world of work” (NCES, 2004, p. 7).These data include information about the experiences and backgrounds of stu-dents, parents, and teachers, and descriptions of the schools those studentsattended.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


As with most (if not all) samples, the analytical sample is smaller thanthe original sample size of students. This study first focused on 12,040 publicschool students in the base year ELS:2002 sample. Using only public schoolstudents who identified being African American, Latino, Asian American, andwhite resulted in the sample dropping to 11,320. Data from students who onlyparticipated in the abbreviated survey (which did not include measurementsfrom the parents’ survey that indicate information on student immigrationgenerational status) are coded as missing and excluded from the analyses.Thus this research uses a subsample of the ELS:2002 consisting of 9,870(5,040 female and 4,830 male) first, second, and third-plus generation Latino,Asian American, African American, and white female public school students.

School VictimizationStudents were asked if they had been exposed to various forms of vic-

timization at school during the 2001–2 academic year. School victimization ismeasured by three items that include (1) someone threatened to hurt me atschool, (2) someone hit me, and (3) someone used strong-arm or forceful meth-ods to get money or things from me. Dichotomizing victimization data is acommon practice because incident victimization data are highly skewed due tohow rare criminal victimization is, especially multiple criminal victimizations.Similar to previous student victimization research (Peguero, 2009; Schreck,Miller, & Gibson, 2003; Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009), this study collapsed thevictimization incident data into a dichotomous variable, indicating whether ornot violent victimization occurred.

Race, Ethnicity, and Generational Status

In the ELS:2002 survey design, Latino, Asian American, and AfricanAmerican students self-report their race and ethnicity and are oversampledto obtain a sufficient representation for statistical analyses of these groups.The sample weights used in these analyses are calculated by NCES (2004)to compensate for the survey design and for nonresponse bias and to presentfindings that are nationally representative. All of the analyses in this studyincorporated sample weights. The importance of weights is an essential factorin results that reflect a nationally representative population of Latino, AsianAmerican, and African American tenth grade students (NCES, 2004).

Generational status is measured as a set of dummy variables indicatingwhether the student is first, second, or third-plus generation. Immigrationand birthplace information are acquired from the parents’ survey. First-generation students are children who are born outside the United States;second-generation students are born in the United States and have at leastone parent born outside the United States; and third-plus generation studentsare born, as are both of their parents, in the United States.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


Student and School Characteristics

Previous studies have established student and school characteristics asso-ciated with the likelihood of student victimization and the school experiencesof the children of immigrants. Student (i.e., socioeconomic status, educationalachievement, school involvement, misbehavior, and male friends) and school(i.e., size, poverty, region, and locale) characteristics have been linked toeither victimization at school or the children of immigrants’ school experiences(Cullen et al., 2008; Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2005;Marsh et al., 2009; Peguero, 2008, 2009; Peguero & Bondy, 2010; Portes &Rumbaut, 2001; Schreck et al., 2003; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001;Ttofi & Farrington, 2008; Waters, 1999; Wilcox et al., 2009; Young et al., 2006);thus, these control measures are included in this study.

For socioeconomic status, the NCES preconstructed measure of a student’sfamily socioeconomic status is a standardized (z-score) variable based on fiveequally weighted, standardized components: father’s/guardian’s education,mother’s/guardian’s education, family income, father’s/guardian’s occupa-tional prestige, and mother’s/guardian’s occupational prestige (NCES, 2004).Student educational achievement is measured by using the standardized mea-sure developed by RTI and NCES. ELS:2002 included a reading and mathcomposite score based on standardized tests developed by the EducationalTesting Service (ETS). The composite score is the average of the math andreading standardized scores, restandardized to a national mean of 50 and stan-dard deviation of 10. School involvement measures if the student is involvedin the following four categories of extracurricular participation: (1) academic(e.g., honor society, band, yearbook, etc.), (2) school club, (3) intramural sports,and (4) interscholastic sports. Student misbehavior is a constructed scale thatcounts the number of misbehaving acts the student self-reported while inschool (0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = more than twice): (1) cutting orskipping classes, (2) getting into a physical fight at school, and (3) gettinginto trouble for not following school rules. Students also indicate the genderof their three closest friends in school. School size is measured as the totalstudent enrollment of the school. School poverty is based on the proportionof students receiving free or reduced-price lunches. Region measures whetherschools are located in the midwest, south, west, and east (the reference cate-gory). Locale is measured in three categories: suburban, rural, and urban (thereference category).

ANALYTIC STRATEGY AND RESULTS

Because ELS:2002 is designed as a cluster sample in which schools are sam-pled with unequal probability and then students are sampled or “nested”within these selected schools, the subsample of the ELS:2002 data violates the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


assumption of independent observations. Stata offers procedures designed tocontrol for the nesting of observations within aggregate units and formulatedspecifically for design-based survey analysis. This study accounts for this non-independence by using survey estimation techniques. These survey estimatorseffectively adjust for clustering of observations within schools.

The analyses proceeded in several steps. Table 1 presents the descrip-tive information by gender. Table 2 displays the intergroup logistic regressionresults of the relationships between immigration and school victimization forfemale youth. First, school victimization is regressed on race and ethnicity,as well as student and school characteristics, in the baseline model 1 withwhite female students as the reference group. In model 2, generational sta-tus is added to the analysis. In model 3 of the analysis, the intersection ofgenerational status, race, and ethnicity are analyzed—with white third-plusgeneration female students as the reference group. In order to better under-stand the relationships between gender, immigration, and school victimization,

Table 1: Descriptive statistics for study variables by gender.

Female Male

Range M SD M SD

School victimization 0–1 .25 .43 .39 .48∗Generational Status

First generation 0–1 .12 .33 .11 .32Second generation 0–1 .15 .36 .16 .36Third-Plus generation 0–1 .72 .44 .73 .44

Race and EthnicityLatino/a 0–1 .17 .37 .16 .37Asian American 0–1 .11 .31 .11 .31African American 0–1 .15 .35 .15 .36White 0–1 .57 .49 .57 .49

Student CharacteristicsSocioeconomic status −2.11–1.98 −.07 .73 −.05 .71Educational achievement 21.50–79.94 50.10 9.66 .49 10.22School involvement 0–4 1.56 1.18 1.39 1.10∗Misbehavior 0–6 .82 1.18 1.23 1.42∗Male friends 0–3 .50 .65 2.25 .97∗

School FactorsSize 1–7 3.85 1.80 3.88 1.75Poverty 1–7 3.66 1.81 3.66 1.80Midwest region 0–1 .24 .42 .22 .41South region 0–1 .38 .48 .38 .48West region 0–1 .20 .40 .20 .40Northeast region 0–1 .16 .36 .17 .38Suburban locale 0–1 .50 .50 .50 .50Rural locale 0–1 .22 .41 .23 .42Urban locale 0–1 .27 .44 .26 .43

∗p ≤ .001Notes: Significant differences between males and females are denoted with asterisks.Significance tests are based on chi-square tests (for dummy variables) and Welch’s t-tests(for continuous variables), and verified with nonparametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

Tab

le2:

Log

istic

reg

ress

ion

co

effi

cie

nts

,(st

an

da

rde

rrors

),a

nd

od

ds

ratio

forf

em

ale

sch

oo

lvic

timiz

atio

n.

Mo

de

l1M

od

el2

Mo

de

l3

B(SE

)O

RB(

SE)

OR

B(SE

)O

R

Imm

igra

nt

Ge

ne

ratio

n,

Ra

ce

,an

dEt

hn

icity

Firs

tG

en

era

tion

−.25

7(.1

78)†

.773

Latin

a−.

408(

.256

)∗.6

64A

sian

Am

eric

an

2.02

3(1.

069)

∗7.

565

Afr

ica

nA

me

rica

n−.

667(

.492

)†.5

13W

hite

.125

(.36

4)1.

134

Sec

on

dG

en

era

tion

−.16

6(.1

57)

.846

Latin

a−.

280(

.241

)†.7

55A

sian

Am

eric

an

2.16

5(1.

070)

∗8.

720

Afr

ica

nA

me

rica

n−.

377(

.506

).6

85W

hite

−.10

1(.2

53)

.903

Ra

ce

an

dEt

hn

icity

Latin

a−.

154(

.135

)†.8

56−.

045(

.158

).9

55.0

42(.

189)

1.04

3A

sian

Am

eric

an

−.28

1(.1

72)†

.754

−.11

4(.2

06)

.891

−2.3

07(.

815)

∗.0

99A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

.211

(.12

6)†

1.23

5.2

12(.

126)

∗1.

236

.247

(.13

0)∗

1.28

1St

ud

en

tFa

cto

rsSo

cio

ec

on

om

icst

atu

s−.

079(

.068

).9

23−.

086(

.068

).9

17−.

090(

.068

)†.9

13Ed

uc

atio

na

la

ch

ieve

me

nt

−.03

4(.0

04)∗∗

∗.9

65−.

035(

.004

)∗∗∗

.965

−.03

5(.0

04)∗∗

∗.9

65

Sch

oo

lin

volv

em

en

t.1

38(.

035)

∗∗∗

1.14

9.1

35(.

035)

∗∗∗

1.14

5.1

33(.

036)

∗∗∗

1.14

2M

isbe

ha

vio

r.4

51(.

031)

∗∗∗

1.57

0.4

48(.

031)

∗∗∗

1.56

6.4

47(.

032)

∗∗∗

1.56

4M

ale

frie

nd

s.3

27(.

058)

∗∗∗

1.38

7.3

25(.

058)

∗∗∗

1.38

5.3

26(.

058)

∗∗∗

1.38

6Sc

ho

olF

ac

tors

Size

.010

(.02

6)1.

010

.015

(.02

7)1.

015

.016

(.02

7)1.

016

%Fr

ee

orr

ed

uc

ed

lun

ch

−.03

6(.0

28)†

.964

−.03

5(.0

28)†

.964

−.03

5(.0

28)†

.965

Mid

we

stre

gio

n.1

36(.

127)

1.14

5.1

19(.

127)

1.12

7.1

16(.

128)

1.12

3So

uth

reg

ion

.081

(.12

3)1.

084

.059

(.12

4)1.

061

.053

(.12

4)1.

055

We

stre

gio

n−.

103(

.148

).9

02−.

121(

.149

).8

85−.

121(

.148

).8

85Su

bu

rba

nlo

ca

le.1

99(.

108)

∗1.

220

.192

(.10

8)∗

1.21

2.1

93(.

108)

∗1.

2137

6R

ura

llo

ca

le.2

18(.

139)

†1.

244

.212

(.13

8)†

1.23

6.2

19(.

138)

†1.

2458

56

∗∗∗ p

≤.0

01;∗

∗ p≤

.01;

∗ p≤

.05;

† p≤

.1

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


generational female group analyses are presented in Table 3, with whitefemale students as the reference group. Tables 4 and 5 reflect the sameanalytical plan, but for male school victimization.

Descriptive StatisticsTable 1 presents the descriptive statistics by gender for this study’s sam-

ple. In this study, 25% of female and 39% of male tenth-grade students reportschool victimization. There are also significant gender distinctions in schoolinvolvement, school misbehavior, and number of male friends. Females havehigher levels of school involvement (M = 1.56, SD = 1.18) in comparison tomales (M = 1.39, SD = 1.10); lower levels of school misbehavior (M = .82,SD = 1.18) in comparison to males (M = 1.23, SD = 1.42); and fewer closefriends that are male at school (M = .50, SD = .65) in comparison to males(M = 2.25, SD = .97).

Immigration and Female School VictimizationTable 2 displays the findings from the logistic regression analysis of immi-

gration and female school victimization. As presented in model 1 of Table 2,Asian American and Latina females are less likely (while African Americanfemales are more likely) to be victimized at school in comparison to whitefemales. In model 2 of the same analysis, generational status is added. First-generation females are less likely to be victimized at school in comparisonto third-plus generation females. Additionally, being an Asian American orLatina female is no longer associated with decreased odds of being a vic-tim of violence at school; however, being an African American female is stillassociated with an increased likelihood of school victimization. In model 3 ofthe same analysis, the intersection of race, ethnicity, and generational statusare now included, with third-plus generation white females as the referencegroup. First generation African American females, as well as first and sec-ond generation Latina females, are less likely to be a victim of violence atschool. On the other hand, first and second generation Asian American femaleshave increased likelihoods of school victimization. Additionally, third-plus gen-eration African American females have an increased—while third-plus AsianAmerican females have a decreased—odds of school victimization.

Table 3 displays the findings from within group logistic regression anal-ysis of immigration and female school victimization generational status. Forfirst-generation female students, there are student and school factors that arelinked to the likelihood of school victimization. First-generation Latina andAsian American female students are less likely to be a victim of school violencethan first-generation white female students. Increased socioeconomic statusand educational achievements are insulating student factors against school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

Tab

le3:

Log

istic

reg

ress

ion

co

effi

cie

nts

,(st

an

da

rde

rrors

),a

nd

od

ds

ratio

forf

em

ale

sch

oo

lvic

timiz

atio

n.

Firs

tGe

nera

tion

Sec

ond

Ge

nera

tion

Third

-Plu

sG

ene

ratio

n

B(SE

)O

RB(

SE)

OR

B(SE

)O

R

Ra

ce

an

dEt

hn

icity

Latin

a−1

.213

(.52

8)∗

.297

.134

(.33

0)1.

143

.048

(.19

3)1.

049

Asia

nA

me

rica

n−1

.008

(.50

0)∗

.364

.179

(.33

9)1.

197

−2.3

04(.

823)

∗.0

91A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

−.87

8(.6

63)

.415

.015

(.53

6)1.

015

.246

(.13

5)∗

1.27

9St

ud

en

tFa

cto

rsSo

cio

ec

on

om

icst

atu

s−.

535(

.227

)∗∗.5

85−.

234(

.188

).7

90−.

017(

.077

).9

82Ed

uc

atio

na

la

ch

ieve

me

nt

−.02

2(.0

16)†

.977

−.03

0(.0

13)∗

.970

−.03

7(.0

05)∗∗

∗.9

62

Sch

oo

lin

volv

em

en

t.2

64(.

122)

∗1.

302

.026

(.09

2)1.

026

.140

(.04

1)∗∗

∗1.

150

Misb

eh

avi

or

.601

(.10

9)∗∗

∗1.

824

.288

(.08

4)∗∗

∗1.

334

.468

(.03

6)∗∗

∗1.

597

Ma

lefr

ien

ds

.271

(.17

9)1.

312

.321

(.17

5)†

1.37

9.3

31(.

065)

∗∗∗

1.39

3Sc

ho

olF

ac

tors

Size

−.07

7(.0

86)

.925

.017

(.06

3)1.

017

.024

(.03

1)1.

024

Pove

rty

−.02

4(.0

90)

.975

−.11

4(.0

73)†

.891

−.02

0(.0

32)

.980

Mid

we

stre

gio

n−.

189(

.469

).8

27−.

212(

.381

).8

08.1

80(.

146)

1.19

8So

uth

reg

ion

−.18

0(.4

50)

.834

−.23

4(.3

34)

.790

.103

(.14

4)1.

108

We

stre

gio

n.2

44(.

416)

1.27

7−.

611(

.317

)∗.5

42−.

129(

.186

).8

78Su

bu

rba

nlo

ca

le−.

422(

.298

)†.6

55.5

25(.

273)

∗1.

692

.227

(.13

0)∗

1.25

6R

ura

llo

ca

le−1

.120

(.54

8)∗

.325

.671

(.41

4)∗

1.95

6.2

71(.

160)

∗1.

312

∗∗∗ p

≤.0

01;∗

∗ p≤

.01;

∗ p≤

.05;

† p≤

.1

86

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

Tab

le4:

Log

istic

reg

ress

ion

co

effi

cie

nts

,(st

an

da

rde

rrors

),a

nd

od

ds

ratio

form

ale

sch

oo

lvic

timiz

atio

n

Mo

de

l1M

od

el2

Mo

de

l3

B(SE

)O

RB(

SE)

OR

B(SE

)O

R

Imm

igra

nt

Ge

ne

ratio

n,R

ac

e,

an

dEt

hn

icity

Firs

tG

en

era

tion

.177

(.15

6)1.

194

Latin

o−.

188(

.232

)∗.8

28A

sian

Am

eric

an

.039

(.44

3)1.

799

Afr

ica

nA

me

rica

n.5

87(.

369)

†1.

040

Wh

ite.3

65(.

339)

1.44

1Se

co

nd

Ge

ne

ratio

n.0

14(.

138)

1.01

4La

tino

−.31

3(.2

07)

.730

Asia

nA

me

rica

n−.

076(

.436

).9

26A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

.356

(.37

7)†

1.42

8W

hite

.153

(.23

7)1.

166

Ra

ce

an

dEt

hn

icity

Latin

o−.

173(

.123

)†.8

40−.

208(

.140

).8

11.0

25(.

169)

∗1.

025

Asia

nA

me

rica

n−.

249(

.145

)∗.7

79−.

327(

.175

)∗.7

20−.

213(

.399

).8

07A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

−.47

8(.1

22)∗∗

∗.6

19−.

479(

.122

)∗∗∗

.619

−.52

5(.1

29)∗∗

∗.5

91St

ud

en

tFa

cto

rsSo

cio

ec

on

om

icst

atu

s.0

83(.

061)

†1.

087

.086

(.06

1)†

1.09

1.0

72(.

061)

†1.

075

Edu

ca

tion

ala

ch

ieve

me

nt

.004

(.00

4)1.

004

.004

(.00

4)1.

004

.004

(.00

4)1.

004

Sch

oo

lin

volv

em

en

t.0

87(.

035)

∗∗1.

091

.088

(.03

5)∗∗

1.09

2.0

89(.

035)

∗∗1.

093

Misb

eh

avi

or

.488

(.02

8)∗∗

∗1.

630

.490

(.02

8)∗∗

∗1.

632

.489

(.02

8)∗∗

∗1.

631

Ma

lefr

ien

ds

.001

(.03

9)1.

001

.002

(.03

9)1.

002

.004

(.03

9)1.

004

Sch

oo

lFa

cto

rs1

Size

−.02

9(.0

24)

.970

−.03

1(.0

25)

.969

−.03

2(.0

25)

.967

%Fr

ee

orr

ed

uc

ed

lun

ch

−.00

1(.0

25)

.996

−.00

1(.0

25)

.996

−.00

1(.0

25)

.996

Mid

we

stre

gio

n.0

67(.

113)

1.07

0.0

72(.

113)

1.07

5.0

80(.

114)

1.08

4So

uth

reg

ion

−.22

8(.1

08)∗

.795

−.22

4(.1

08)∗

.798

−.21

5(.1

09)∗

.806

We

stre

gio

n−.

034(

.128

).9

65−.

028(

.128

).9

72−.

029(

.129

).9

71Su

bu

rba

nlo

ca

le.1

06(.

098)

1.11

2.1

12(.

098)

1.11

8.1

12(.

098)

1.11

8R

ura

llo

ca

le.2

43(.

123)

∗1.

275

.250

(.12

3)∗

1.28

4.2

45(.

123)

∗1.

278

∗∗∗ p

≤.0

01;∗

∗ p≤

.01;

∗ p≤

.05;

† p≤

.1

87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

Tab

le5:

Log

istic

reg

ress

ion

co

effi

cie

nts

,(st

an

da

rde

rrors

),a

nd

od

ds

ratio

form

ale

sch

oo

lvic

timiz

atio

n.

Firs

tGe

nera

tion

Sec

ond

Ge

nera

tion

Third

-Plu

sG

ene

ratio

n

B(SE

)O

RB(

SE)

OR

B(SE

)O

R

Ra

ce

an

dEt

hn

icity

Latin

o−.

079(

.437

).9

23−.

004(

.317

).9

95.1

32(.

178)

∗1.

027

Asia

nA

me

rica

n−.

479(

.408

).6

19.0

66(.

311)

1.06

8−.

071(

.417

).9

01A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

.097

(.51

3)1.

102

.253

(.44

0)1.

288

−.53

1(.1

39)∗∗

∗.5

87St

ud

en

tFa

cto

rsSo

cio

ec

on

om

icst

atu

s−.

073(

.182

).9

29.0

59(.

157)

1.06

1.0

75(.

073)

1.07

8Ed

uc

atio

na

lac

hie

vem

en

t.0

24(.

013)

∗1.

025

.003

(.01

2)1.

004

.001

(.00

5)1.

003

Sch

oo

lin

volv

em

en

t.2

75(.

111)

∗∗1.

317

.143

(.09

5)†

1.15

3.0

57(.

041)

1.05

9M

isbe

ha

vio

r.5

68(.

090)

∗∗∗

1.76

4.5

10(.

075)

∗∗∗

1.66

6.5

46(.

033)

∗∗∗

1.72

7M

ale

frie

nd

s−.

078(

.121

).9

24.1

35(.

112)

1.14

5−.

008(

.046

).9

94Sc

ho

olF

ac

tors

Size

−.06

0(.0

79)

.941

−.01

8(.0

67)

.981

−.06

3(.0

29)∗

.938

%Fr

ee

orr

ed

uc

ed

lun

ch

−.02

8(.0

84)

.971

−.02

4(.0

65)

.975

−.01

4(.0

30)

.985

Mid

we

stre

gio

n.4

70(.

395)

1.60

1−.

617(

.417

)†.5

39.1

36(.

129)

1.14

6So

uth

reg

ion

−.74

3(.3

64)∗

.475

.007

(.30

6)1.

008

−.18

4(.1

29)†

.831

We

stre

gio

n−.

102(

.368

).9

03−.

111(

.308

).8

94.0

78(.

161)

1.08

2Su

bu

rba

nlo

ca

le.3

52(.

303)

1.42

2.4

24(.

238)

∗1.

528

−.03

7(.1

21)

.962

Ru

rall

oc

ale

.464

(.46

9)1.

590

.177

(.35

3)1.

194

.008

(.14

4)1.

008

∗∗∗ p

≤.0

01;∗

∗ p≤

.01;

∗ p≤

.05;

† p≤

.1

88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


victimization. Increased school involvement and misbehavior are both studentfactors linked to higher likelihoods of school victimization for first-generationfemale students. For locale, first-generation female students in suburban andrural locales are less likely to be victimized at school than their counterpartsat urban schools.

For second-generation female students, there are student and school fac-tors linked to the likelihood of school victimization. Increased educationalachievement insulates second-generation female students from school victim-ization, and increased school misbehavior is associated with higher likelihoodsof school victimization. Male friendships are a risk factor of school victimiza-tion, and second-generation female students who attend poorer schools are lesslikely to be a victim of school violence. Second-generation female students inthe West are less likely to be a victimized at school than their counterpartsin the Northeast, and students in suburban and rural locales are more likelyto be victimized at school than their counterparts at urban locales. It is alsoimportant to note that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the likelihoodof female second-generation school victimization.

Immigration and Male School VictimizationTable 4 displays the findings from the logistic regression analysis of immi-

gration and male school victimization. As presented in model 1 of Table 4,Latino, Asian American, and African American males are less likely to bevictimized at school in comparison to white males. In model 2 of the sameanalysis, immigrant generational status is added to the analysis. Generationalstatus is not associated with male victimization; however, being a Latinomale is no longer related to a decreased likelihood of school victimization.In model 3 of the same analysis, the intersection of race, ethnicity, and gen-erational status are now included, with third-plus generation white malesas the reference group. First-generation Latino males are less likely to be avictim of violence at school. On the other hand, first- and second-generationAfrican American males have increased likelihoods of school victimization.Additionally, third-plus generation Latino males have increased—while third-plus African American males have decreased—odds of school victimization.

Table 5 displays the findings from within group logistic regression analy-sis of immigration and male school victimization by generational status. Forfirst-generation male students, there are student and school factors that arelinked to the likelihood of school victimization—increased educational achieve-ment, school involvement, and misbehavior. First generation male students inthe South are less likely to be a victim of violence at school in comparison totheir counterparts in the Northeast. It is also important to note that there areracial and ethnic disparities in the likelihood of male first-generation schoolvictimization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


For second-generation male students, increased school involvement andmisbehavior are associated with higher likelihoods of school victimization.Second-generation male students in the Midwest are less likely to be vic-tims of school violence in comparison to their counterparts in the Northeast.Second-generation male students in suburban locales are more likely to expe-rience school victimization than their counterparts in urban locales. Onceagain, there are racial and ethnic disparities in the likelihood of schoolvictimization.

DISCUSSION

This study examined if and how the intersection of gender, generational sta-tus, and race and ethnicity are related to the likelihood of school victimization.As a result, there are complex and important findings from this study explor-ing the school victimization of youth in immigrant families as well as therelated gender disparities. In summation, there are three important find-ings that need to be highlighted and further discussed. First, the patternof assimilation in relation to school victimization appears to be gendered.Second, there are also racial and ethnic school victimization disparities inthe intersection of gender and generational status. Third, the general patternof assimilation and increased likelihood of victimization for youth in immi-grant families raise theoretical and research questions as well as serious policyconcerns.

This study reveals that the intersection of gender, race and ethnicity,and generational status are unfortunately related to school victimization ina complex way. Generational status was not a risk factor for white girls, butwas clearly a factor for racial and ethnic minority girls. In general, AsianAmerican girls have a significantly lower risk of violent victimization andAfrican American girls have a significantly higher risk of violent victimiza-tion compared to white girls. Once generational status is considered, however,first- and second-generation Asian American girls have an increased risk ofviolent victimization compared to third-plus generation white girls. For boys,the impact of generational status is limited. First-generation Latino boyshave a decreased risk of victimization while third-plus generation Latino boyshave an increased risk of school victimization. First- and second-generationAfrican American male students have an increased likelihood of victimizationin comparison to third-plus generation white male students.

Although school victimization is a serious social and educational prob-lem that continues to receive attention and resources, most of that attentionfocuses on exploring male students’ victimization while leaving knowledge offemale students’ victimization limited (AAUW, 2001; Madriz, 1997; Young,Boye, & Nelson, 2006). It appears that Asian American immigrant girls aremore vulnerable to violent victimization than their male Asian American

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


immigrant counterparts. This gendered vulnerability may reflect high ratesof dating violence or a greater tendency for Asian American immigrant girlsto befriend or date boys of different racial ethnicities. Dating violence, unfor-tunately, was not a part of the ELS:2002 study. Interestingly, educationalachievement serves as a buffer to violent victimization among girls of allgenerational statuses; thus, smarter girls are less likely to be subjected toviolent victimization. The current research did not examine who the perpe-trators of violence were, even though boys typically comprise the majorityof perpetrators of violent attacks on girls. It is also important that futureresearch examine why educational achievement buffers victimization for girls.Are smarter girls less likely to date, to be unsupervised, or to carefully choosetheir friends and dating partners? Greater school involvement for both boysand girls was related to higher rates of violent victimization, which may reflectgreater times at risk due to unsupervised extracurricular activities on schoolgrounds.

Previous studies have also revealed a pattern of gendered outcomes thatmay provide insight on why violent victimization is gendered and shows spe-cific generational and racial/ethnic patterns. For instance, female youth inimmigrant families tend to have higher levels of achievement than their malecounterparts (Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2005; Portes & Rumbaut 2001, 2006;Rumbaut 1997; Zhou & Bankston, 2001). On the other hand, male youth inimmigrant families also face an increased number of detrimental hurdles andbarriers within schools in comparison to their female counterparts—such asnegative perspectives and expectations of school, unfair treatment, and schooldiscipline (Cammarota, 2004; López, 2003).

Also as previous research suggested, the role of race and ethnicity is animportant factor that segments the assimilation process, particularly withinschools. The race or “color” of the majority of contemporary immigrantssets them apart from the conventional historical trend of white Europeanimmigrants. For the current wave of immigrants, many of them have neverexperienced prejudice associated with a particular skin color or racial typein their country of origin (Alba & Nee, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006;Waters, 1999). Youth in immigrant families have confronted a historical realityof racial and ethnic discrimination in U.S. schools (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001,2006; Waters, 1999).

These findings have important implications for immigration, schools, andsafety. Female and racial and ethnic minority youth often perceive distincttreatment by school faculty, counselors, and administrators (Cammarota, 2004;Lee, 2005; López, 2003; Peguero & Bondy, 2010; Valenzuela, 1999). Moreover,because there is heated debate over immigration policy and an increasingrhetoric that villainizes immigrants and their children in the United States(Chavez, 2008), it is imperative school policies also focus on ensuring the safetyof their students as well as treating their students fairly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

These findings have three important implications for school programming.First and foremost, the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, and gen-erational status indeed matters in the likelihood of school victimization.Previous research has suggested that many anti–school violence policiesoften do not appreciate the particular vulnerabilities of marginalized popu-lations (Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Muschert & Peguero, 2010). Of course,school administrators should be mindful of implementing practices that pro-tect all youth; however, it is also vital to seek out and ensure the safetyof girls and immigrant students. An abundance of research suggests thatmarginalized populations, such as immigrant youth, are less likely to seek outand report violence to school administrators and officials (Khashu, Almo, &Rahman, 2006).

Second, because previous evidence and this study’s findings generally indi-cate that there is a parallel between assimilation and youth violence (Portes &Rumbaut, 2001, 2006; Zhou & Bankston, 2001), educators and policy mak-ers should question the “Americanization” process occurring within schools.In other words, schools administrators and faculty—who are attempting tounderstand and address the obstacles and barriers of success facing today’schildren of immigrants—might be well served to question the assimilation pro-cess occurring within U.S. schools. It is often assumed to facilitate educationalprogress and success for all who come to the United States; however, that isnot always the case.

Finally, it is alarming to find that Asian American immigrant girls are sig-nificantly more susceptible to victimization at school. Most of the research thatconsiders Asian American females’ victimization is predominately centeredon the phenomena of sexual violence (Bhuyan, Mell, Senturia, Sullivan, &Shiu-Thorton, 2005; Hishinuma et al., 2005; Yick & Berthold, 2005). Often,Asian American female victims of violence indicate that they rationalize orlink their victimization to “karma,” feeling in some way responsible and des-tined for their suffering. This way of conceptualizing victimization contrastswith the Western perspective, where victimization is viewed as an act carriedout by a distinct entity for individualistic or selfish goals of power or author-ity (Bhuyan et al., 2005; Hishinuma et al., 2005). School administrators mustappreciate that Asian American immigrant females have increased exposureto victimization at school but are less likely to report it.

Future research can certainly build on the limitations associated withthis study. Research has demonstrated that the impact of youth violenceand victimization varies by gender, race, and ethnicity (Cammarota, 2004;Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2005; Lee, 2005; López, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001,2006; Valenzuela, 1999; Zhou & Bankston, 2001). Thus, examining the longi-tudinal gendered effects of violence and victimization on youth in immigrant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


families is needed. Even though detrimental outcomes linked to youth victim-ization are apparent, the specific consequences for youth in immigrant familiesremain uncertain. Although the focus of this study deals with the relationshipbetween generational status and school victimization, exploring school andcommunity factors of school violence for the children of immigrants should beaddressed in future work. School violence researchers have stated that the sit-uational contexts of school violence and its relationship to youths’ conflicts inthe community are symbiotic (Brunson & Miller, 2009; Hagan, Hirschfield, &Shedd, 2002; Mateu-Gelabert & Lune, 2007). Also, to further understand theprocess of assimilation, researching the community context of immigration(i.e., economic, social, and political factors) in relation to school experiencesand violent victimization should be considered (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, 2006;Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001).

CONCLUSION

The research on the social, economic, and educational progress and successof youth in immigrant families should be more focused on the variety of theschooling experiences that culminate in academic success. Schools are an insti-tution of socialization for all students but also one of “Americanization” foryouth in immigrant families. School is where youth in immigrant familieslearn not only about U.S. values, beliefs, and behaviors but also about theirsocial and cultural role in American society. As noted, it is important to high-light that U.S. schools also have a long and persistent history of gender, racial,and ethnic discrimination. Of course, no youth should be exposed to violenceand victimization while at school; however, the occurrence of school victim-ization for an already vulnerable population of youth in immigrant familieshas serious implications for U.S. society. Currently, 20% of all youth in U.S.schools have at least one immigrant parent; by 2030 the number of youth inimmigrant families in the U.S. school system is expected to rise to 33% (UnitedStates Census Bureau, 2008). Thus, addressing the violence toward youth inimmigrant families is imperative because they are part of this country’s future:its parents, its labor force, its leaders, and its voters.

REFERENCES

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (AAUW). (2001).Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school hall-ways. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women EducationalFoundation.

Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation andcontemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brunson, R., & Miller, J. (2009). Schools, neighborhoods, and adolescent conflicts: Asituational examination of reciprocal dynamics. Justice Quarterly, 26, 183–210.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


Bhuyan, R., Mell, M., Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., & Shiu-Thorton, S. (2005). Womenmust endure according to their karma: Cambodian immigrant women talk aboutdomestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(8), 902–921.

Cammarota, J. (2004). The gendered and racialized pathways of Latina and Latinoyouth: Different struggles, different resistances in the urban context. Anthropologyand Education Quarterly, 35(1), 53–74.

Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and thenation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Hartman, J. L., Agnew, R., & Turner, M. G. (2008).Gender, bully victimization, and juvenile delinquency: A test of general straintheory. Victims and Offenders, 3, 1–19.

DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T., & Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of schoolcrime and safety: 2005 (NCES 2006–001/NCJ 210697). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Esbensen, F., & Carson, D. (2009). Consequences of being bullied: Results from a lon-gitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multi-site sample of Americanstudents. Youth & Society, 41(2), 209–233.

Espelage, D., & Swearer, S. (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecologicalperspective on prevention and intervention. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Feliciano, C., & Rumbaut, R. (2005). Gendered paths: Educational and occupationalexpectations and outcomes among adult children of immigrants. Ethnic and RacialStudies, 28(6), 1087–1118.

Finkelhor, D. (2008). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime and abuse in the lives ofyoung people. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gottfredson, D. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hagan, J., Hirschfield, P., & Shedd, C. (2002). First and last words: Apprehendingthe social and legal facts of an urban high school shooting. Sociological MethodsResearch, 31, 218–254.

Hand, J. Z., & Sanchez, L. (2000). Badgering or bantering: Gender differences in experi-ence of, reactions to, sexual harassment among U.S. high school students. Gender &Society, 14(6), 718–746.

Hishinuma, E., Chang, J., Goebert, D., Else, I., Nishimura, S., Choi-Misailidis, S.,Andrade, N., Mayeda, D., & Jones, L. (2005). Prevalence of victims of violenceamong ethnically diverse Asian/Pacific Islanders. Violence and Victims, 20(5),561–575.

Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. H., Waters, M. C., & Holdaway, J. (2009). Inheriting the city:The children of immigrants come of age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Khashu, A., Almo, C., & Rahman, I. (2006). Translating justice: A guide for New YorkCity’s justice and public safety agencies to improve access for residents with limitedEnglish proficiency. New York: Vera Institute.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling inAmerica. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Lee, S. (2005). Up against whiteness: Race, school and immigrant youth. New York:Teachers College Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


López, Nancy. (2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender disparity in urbaneducation. New York: Routledge

Macmillan, R., & Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood: Adolescentvictimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in later life. Journal ofResearch on Adolescence, 14(2), 127–158.

Madriz, E. (1997). Latina teenagers: Victimization, identity, and fear of crime. SocialJustice, 24(4), 39–55.

Marsh, S., Evans, W. P., & Weigel, D. J. (2009). Exploring models of resiliency by genderin relation to adolescent victimization. Victims and Offenders, 4(3), 230–248.

Muschert, G. W., & Peguero, A. A. (2010). The Columbine effect and school anti-violencepolicy. Research in Social Problems & Public Policy, 17, 117–148.

Mateu-Gelabert, P., & Lune, H. (2007). Street codes in high school: School as aneducational deterrent. City & Community, 6, 173–191.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). Educational longitudinalstudy: 2002 base year data file user’s manual. Washington, DC: US Departmentof Education.

Peguero, A. A. (2008). Is immigrant status relevant in school violence research? Ananalysis with Latino students. Journal of School Health, 78(7), 397–404.

Peguero, A. A. (2009). Victimizing the children of immigrants: Latino and AsianAmerican student victimization. Youth and Society, 41(2), 186–208.

Peguero, A. A., & Bondy, J. M. (2010). Immigration and students’ relationship withteachers. Education and Urban Society, 43, 165–183.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant secondgeneration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,48, 583–590.

Rumbaut, R. (1997). Assimilation and its discontents: Between rhetoric and reality.International Migration Review, 31, 923–960.

Schreck, C. J., Miller, J. M., & Gibson, C. (2003). Trouble in the school yard: A study ofthe risk factors of victimization at school. Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 460–484.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects,and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims andOffenders, 3, 289–312.

United States Census Bureau. (2008). Current population survey. Washington, DC:Author.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.–Mexican youth and the politics ofcaring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Verdugo, R. (1999). Safe schools: Theory, data, and practices. Education and UrbanSociety, 31(3), 267–274.

Waters, M. C. (1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and Americanrealities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011


Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46,245–269.

Yick, A., & Berthold, S. (2005). Conducting research on violence in Asian Americancommunities: Methodological issues. Violence and Victims, 20(6), 661–677.

Young, E., Boye, A., & Nelson, D. (2006). Relational aggression: Understanding,identifying, and responding in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 297–312.

Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant childrenand children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 63–95.

Zhou, M., & Bankston, C. L. (2001). Family pressure and the educational experience ofthe daughters of Vietnamese refugees. International Migration, 39(4), 133–151.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ant

hony

Peg

uero

] at

13:

04 2

7 D

ecem

ber

2011

Gender, Immigration, and School Victimization

Documents

Transcript of Gender, Immigration, and School Victimization