Less bang for the buck? Cultural capital and immigrant status effects on kindergarten academic...

University of Pennsylvania

From the SelectedWorks of Grace Kao

2009

Less Bang for the Buck? Cultural Capital andImmigrant Status Effects on KindergartenAcademic OutcomesElizabeth Lee, Hamilton College - ClintonGrace Kao, University of Pennsylvania

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/grace_kao/35/

http://www.upenn.edu

http://works.bepress.com/grace_kao/

http://works.bepress.com/grace_kao/35/

Less bang for the buck? Cultural capital and immigrant

status effects on kindergarten academic outcomes

Elizabeth M. Lee *, Grace Kao

Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States

Available online 25 April 2009

Abstract

Using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), a nationally repre-

sentative sample of kindergarteners in 1998–99, we examine how participation in extracurricular activities

varies by race and immigrant status. While all minority children have lower levels of participation, we find

that Asian, Hispanic, and Black children of immigrants are particularly disadvantaged even after accounting

for differences in parent income and educational background. Teachers rate non-White children of

immigrants lower on reading test scores even after controlling for their socioeconomic status and their

test scores. Surprisingly, Asian children of immigrants fare especially badly, in contrast to often-cited

academic successes for this group. Teacher evaluations of reading ability are also correlated with some

forms of extracurricular activity participation, even after adjusting for children’s test scores. Results suggest

modest interaction effects between immigrant status and cultural capital within racial groups. We conclude

that teachers may use evidence of activity participation to signal academic mobility and promise but that

these effects vary by race and immigrant status.

# 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The population of children in the United States is increasingly diverse along race, ethnic, and

immigrant lines. Currently, immigrant children account for almost 25% of the school-aged

population, while minority children account for 39% of the population under 18 (O’Hare, 2004).

With the increasing population of children of immigrants in the United States, scholars have

become more interested in their educational attainment (Glick and Hohmann-Marriott, 2007;

Zhou, 1997a). Moreover, researchers examine the extent to which nativity status and race are

associated with these outcomes. Certainly, some differences are attributable to socioeconomic

differences, but socioeconomic status (SES) cannot completely account for the relative

www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Poetics 37 (2009) 201–226

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 773 573 7312; fax: +1 215 573 2081.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.M. Lee), [email protected] (G. Kao).

0304-422X/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2009.02.001

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2009.02.001

disadvantage of some minority and immigrant groups or the success of others (Kao and

Thompson, 2003; Zhou, 1997b). While race, ethnic, and immigrant status differences in

educational achievement outcomes have been documented, we still know little about the process

of stratification as students move through their academic careers (Kao and Tienda, 1995; Kao and

Thompson, 2003).

One mechanism for educational attainment is cultural capital. Some qualitative researchers

have argued that teachers expect parents to perform in a manner consistent with White

middle-class values (Lareau, 2000); parents who comply are able to use cultural capital to

improve their children’s prospects in school. With some exceptions, research on cultural

capital is focused on differences across socioeconomic status groups. However, we know very

little about how cultural capital matters in the case of minority and – especially – immigrant

children. It is possible that immigrant and minority parents are less likely to enroll their

children in the kinds of extracurricular activities that Lareau and others argue matter for

building cultural capital. Moreover, while immigrant parents may not expect activities to

affect teachers’ assessments of their children’s academic ability, teachers may in fact use

children’s participation in such organized forums as a sign of parental investment and upward

mobility. One could easily imagine that the import of these differences is more modest and

less important for attainment for school-aged children than for adolescents. If, however,

teachers differentially assess immigrant students due to their cultural participation when they

are very young, it is likely that these differences will increase as children age. In short,

participation in activities in early childhood may set the stage for future educational and

socioeconomic attainment.

There is currently very little knowledge about whether immigrant minority children

participate in activities that build cultural capital, and if these differences affect teacher

perceptions. Our paper examines these two questions. We utilize the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), a representative sample of the kindergarten

class of 1998–99 to examine participation in activities that build cultural capital and investigate

how this participation is related to teachers’ assessments of children’s abilities in math and

‘‘literacy and language’’ (henceforth referred to simply as reading) across race-ethnic and

immigration groups.

2. Literature review

2.1. Cultural capital and attainment differences

Educational stratification begins in the earliest years of school (Entwisle and Alexander,

1993). Teachers at this early stage play a key role in determining a child’s attainment trajectory as

they assign children to accelerated or gifted programs or provide positive reinforcement to

students they perceive to be smarter and/or better behaved. This differentiation affects children’s

work habits and other future behavior (Alexander et al., 1993). Grades given at this early stage

affect children’s perceptions of their own abilities, as well as their future test scores and other key

outcomes (Entwisle and Alexander, 1993).

At the aggregate level, these differences may contribute to achievement gaps across race,

immigrant, or socioeconomic categories. Such gaps have been extensively documented. Black

and Hispanic children tend to lag behind Whites, and Asian children do better on average (Kao

and Thompson, 2003). Scholars have also found that children of immigrants (and likewise

immigrants who came to the United States before the age of 13, also known as the 1.5 generation)

E.M. Lee, G. Kao / Poetics 37 (2009) 201–226202

perform better in school than their co-race and co-ethnic peers (Kao and Tienda, 1995; Portes and

Rumbaut, 2001 among others, cited in Waters and Jimenez, 2005).1

A number of scholars have used cultural capital theory (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) to

examine questions of attainment gaps across race and SES categories. Various proxies for

cultural capital, such as parents’ education level, have been found to ameliorate differences

between minority and White adolescents (e.g. Kalmijn and Kraaykamp, 1996).2 Likewise,

Dumais finds that participation in certain extracurricular activities increases teacher evaluations

in both math and reading across SES levels (Dumais, 2006a,b). Of particular importance for this

investigation, research has shown that cultural capital has different results by gender and race, i.e.

ascriptive characteristics. DiMaggio (1982) found strong differences in the relationship between

family background and cultural capital outcomes by gender. Kaufman and Gabler (2004) find

that while both boys and girls may reap benefits from cultural capital participation, the type of

activities that carry such benefits may be different by gender. Examining race, Roscigno and

Ainsworth-Darnell (1999) have found that cultural capital may in fact be less efficacious for

Black than White children in terms of advancement. This articulates well with findings in the

sociology of education that indicate that teachers’ biases may affect classroom outcomes, for

example how students are disciplined, or grouped by (perceived) ability (see e.g. Morris, 2005).

There has been little investigation of how cultural capital is utilized by immigrants or children of

immigrants, however. For example, although Perreira et al. (2006) include cultural capital in their

examination of high school completion rates for immigrant and native-born adolescents, their

operationalization of the concept seems closer to social than cultural capital: ‘‘school attachment,

educational aspirations, parental control, and parental closeness’’ (p. 519). Using these somewhat

broad considerations, the authors do find evidence of variation in cultural capital by race/ethnic

group. Specifically, they argue that ‘‘[c]ultural capital and immigrant optimism buffer first

generation Hispanic youth and children of Asian immigrants from the risk of dropping out of high

school. . . [T]he second and third generation children of Hispanic and Black families benefit little, if

at all, from the protective effects of cultural capital and immigrant optimism’’ (p. 533).

Comparisons between children of immigrants and children of native-born parents have

primarily been made based on immigrant group-specific ‘‘cultural characteristics’’ (Zhou, 1997b,

p. 994). This research focuses on attributes such as attitudes towards academic achievement,

social capital and the effects of native language use. For example, Fuligni (1997) finds that

second generation immigrants perceive greater family and community pressure to excel in

school, and also greater peer support for school engagement than those in the third generation.

Similarly, Zhou writes that ‘‘immigrant students who retained strong cultural and family identity

tended to outpace others in school’’ (1997a, p. 80, citing Rumbaut, 1994b, 1996 among others).

Discussion of in-group resources is generally limited to social capital, however, and does not

include what might be called traditional forms of cultural capital (i.e. forms specified by

Bourdieu and subsequent scholars, as discussed below).

As Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell note, ‘‘important micropolitical processes that occur in

schools and classrooms and that may have consequences for whether cultural capital and household

educational resources function similarly . . . for Blacks and Whites’’ have not been sufficiently

considered (1999, p. 159). This highlights the interactional aspect of cultural capital: rather than a

E.M. Lee, G. Kao / Poetics 37 (2009) 201–226 203

1 Such achievement is not always consistent across immigrant or ethnic groups (i.e. ‘‘Hispanic,’’ ‘‘Asian’’), however,

with certain nationality or ethnic groups faring better than others within the broader category (Portes and MacLeod,

1999).2 See below for a more complete discussion of the ways cultural capital has been conceptualized and measured.

simple trade of activity or knowledge for esteem or recognition, the capital and its holder are filtered

through the eyes of the gatekeeper. Thus, drawing from research that indicates (a) that teachers may

respond differently to students depending on race, gender, or class; (b) that cultural capital has

inconsistent rewards for students of different races and genders; and (c) that children of immigrants

are likely to differ in terms of social capital from children of native-born parents, we consider here

how cultural capital utilization may differ by immigration status. Specifically, we draw

comparisons between non-White children of immigrants and White children of native-born parents,

as well as with co-race or ethnic peers of native-born parents.

Because there is little existing research, it is difficult to predict with certainty how outcomes

might vary for a wider array of racial groups and/or for children of immigrants. As noted above,

social capital research on immigrants suggests that second generation children are more heavily

involved with networks of co-ethnics/co-nationals (i.e. tighter links to home community than to

school community). This implies that children of immigrants may be less likely to participate in

more traditional ‘‘American’’ extracurricular activities, such as baseball or scouts. On the other

hand, it is possible that the key to gaining cultural capital ‘‘points’’ is the participation itself,

rather than the type of activity in which one participates—i.e. perhaps it is of less importance

whether the activity is scouts or Thai language lessons, it is simply important that the child be

involved in some kind of after-school activity.

2.2. Definitions of cultural capital

Definitions of cultural capital have been wide-ranging and include a vast number of values and

behaviors. Bourdieu’s original presentation of the concept refers to signals of competency in

high-status fields, particularly appreciation of the arts (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; see also

DiMaggio, 1982; Dumais, 2006a). Others have defined cultural capital as knowledge about a

wide variety of other areas (for comprehensive discussions, see Lareau and Weininger, 2003;

Lamont and Lareau, 1988). The consistent and crucial aspect throughout these theoretical frames

is the mechanism through which cultural capital is utilized: the display of familiarity with and

competency in valued fields of knowledge facilitates favorable interactions with gatekeepers.

These are rewarded with some form of advancement or advantage. It is important to emphasize

that in order to be effective, cultural capital must be of a form that is recognizable to gatekeepers,

such as teachers (Farkas et al., 1990). Indeed, Lamont and Lareau state that ‘‘[f]or any of these

signals to be considered a form of cultural capital, it needs to be defined as a high-status cultural

signal by a relatively large group of people: the institutionalized or shared quality of these signals

makes them salient as markers’’ (p. 156, emphasis added).

The cultural aspect of cultural capital suggests that only certain kinds of knowledge will be

relevant—not simply high-status culture, as has been argued by many, but culture appropriate to the

context(s). Prudence Carter (2003) has suggested that in fact it may not only be high-status cultural

capital that matters, but rather that the relative value will depend on context. Thus, low-status

cultural knowledge will be of equivalent importance in low-status situations.3 This does not tie in to

the discussion to which cultural capital is usually linked, namely reproduction or attainment

through mobility of high status, but it may better elaborate the actual mechanisms of cultural capital

as a theory. In other words, having high-status cultural capital that is not recognizable to gatekeepers

does not accrue benefits to the holder. Thus, it seems reasonable to hypothesize, as we do here, that

immigrants to this country might not be aware of what does or does not constitute high-status


3 See also Lamont and Lareau (1988, p. 157) on this point.

knowledge, activities, etc., and might therefore be less able to procure such opportunities for their

children or on their children’s behalves. Alternately, such parents may be more invested in

‘‘cultivating’’ (Lareau, 2002) other formsofknowledgeoractivity more tied to thehome community

which do not function well as mainstream cultural capital (i.e. recognizable to gatekeepers).

Research focused on social capital has indeed found that many immigrant communities involve

children inethno-culture-specificactivities, often outsideof the schoolorbroadercommunity-based

extracurricular activities undertaken by other local children (Zhou, 1997a).

Most discussions of cultural capital focus on older students and achievement later in life, such as

college acceptance (e.g. Gabler and Kaufman, 2006). In studies of younger age groups, attention is

given to parents’ cultural capital and use thereof, rather than on the child’s interactions (e.g. Lareau,

2002; for exceptions see Dumais, 2006a,b). Of course, children’s lives are structured by the location

and decisions of their parents. The literature on cultural capital reviewed above, however, suggests

that in addition to parents’ leveraging of cultural capital, children’s personal interactions with their

teachers – through which cultural capital is exhibited – influence grades and other forms of

evaluation. These evaluations affect a child’s possibility for future education achievement through

grades and through positive or negative reinforcement. This study therefore speaks to two gaps in

the literature on cultural capital: what types of cultural capital – if any – are important to the

evaluation of young children, and how participation in and results from cultural capital-building

activities vary for children of immigrants and different racial or ethnic groups.

Drawing on the works reviewed above, we make two preliminary predictions. First, given the

relatively low understanding of how cultural capital might be accessed and gained from by

immigrants and their children, it is difficult to predict how outcomes might vary. We therefore

expect simply that cultural capital activities matter differently for children whose parents are

immigrants than for those who are native-born. Second, because there is some evidence that race

also plays a role, we examine differences across race-ethnic groups. Here again, there is little

literature examining the effectiveness of cultural capital theory for children of different races or

ethnicities. For example, Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell (1999) find different outcomes for

Black as compared with White children, but it is inappropriate to extrapolate their findings to

Hispanic, Asian, or other-race children. It is therefore difficult to predict with confidence how such

variation may occur, but we do expect to find different outcomes from cultural capital for non-White

children. Finally, we consider whether any one of three different proxies for cultural capital – one

focused on art lessons, one focused on museums, and one focused on interaction – has a greater

impact than the other.

3. Methods

Data are drawn from Waves 1, 2, and 4 of the ECLS K-3 database. The ECLS database is a

nationally representative sample of children who began kindergarten in 1998–99, with data from

their parents or guardians, teachers, and school administrators. We use information collected

from parents/guardians and teachers. The total N is 17,565. However, due to non-response,

missing data, or group-specific considerations, the N for our analyses is lower.4


4 As shown in Table 1, there are a large number of non-responses for the household income variable—in addition to

those who declined to answer the question, 2869 respondents indicated that they did not know their household income, for

a total of 5130 missing. Since household income is included in all models, this lowers the N for each. Smaller but still

notable figures are also missing from several other variables. Additionally, it should be noted that the N for all group-

specific analyses is dependent upon the sub-population figures for that group (e.g. Hispanic children).

Table 1 presents the measures selected for this study. Teacher assessments of student ability in

math and reading are measured on a 1–5 scale where 1 is low. Each is a composite of multiple

questions from the teacher questionnaire in Wave 2 (spring of kindergarten). The explanatory

measures are selected based on findings from previous research, discussed in greater detail above.

We include the following socio-demographic measures: family income quintile where 1 is lowest

quintile and 5 is highest quintile; parent education, a series of dummy variables for the highest

education level completed by either parent (less than high school, high school only, some college,

and college or beyond); child’s gender (0 for male and 1 for female); and child’s race (Asian,

Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, other race, and White non-Hispanic). Child’s race and gender are

constant variables, parent education is drawn from Wave 1 (fall of kindergarten), and the

household income variable is from Wave 2 (spring of kindergarten) (Tourangeau et al., 2006). To

expand on existing research, however, we add a variable for mother’s immigration status, US-

born or non-US-born ascertained in Wave 4 (spring of first grade), to supplement child’s race.

This allows us to draw comparisons between children of immigrants and children of native-born

parents within race or ethnic groups.

Three variables measuring child participation in cultural capital-building activities are also

considered: art activities, directed activities and cultural activities, measured in Wave 2 (spring

of kindergarten). These variables are grouped to focus on three aspects of previous research on

cultural capital. Many scholars have focused on participation in activities related to ‘high status’

art knowledge (Dumais, 2006a), and if this kind of cultural capital has an effect we would expect

to see participation in at least one type of art activity result in an increase in the teacher’s

perception of the child’s ability. Arts activities include ‘‘crafts classes or lessons, . . . art classes or

lessons, for example, painting, drawing, sculpturing, . . . drama classes, . . . music lessons, for

example, piano, instrumental music or singing lessons, or dance lessons [or] organized

performing arts programs, such as children’s choirs, dance programs, or theater performances’’

(Tourangeau et al., 2006). For each, the parent or guardian was asked whether the child had ever

participated in one or more of this type of activity.5

In addition, we distinguish between the aforementioned activities from directed activities,

which are activities that require a high degree of interaction with other children and more

importantly with adults in a coordinated fashion. Directed activities include participation in

‘‘organized clubs or recreational programs, like scouts, [or] organized athletic activities, like

basketball, soccer, baseball, or gymnastics’’ (Tourangeau et al., 2006). These variables were

selected to reflect Kaufman and Gabler’s emphasis on ‘‘interactional’’ aspects of cultural capital

(2004, p. 147).6 While Bourdieu (1978) refers to a hierarchy of sports participation in terms of

status, we speculate that the generation of cultural capital from sports (as from Scouts and other

clubs) may result from learning to interact with adults, in addition to or in place of the symbolic

class value of the particular sport. If these types of interaction-heavy activities are important, we


5 Although measuring whether a child has ‘‘ever’’ participated in a type of activity is imprecise, if anything the model

should underestimate the importance since presumably many children engage such activities over time, not only in a

single instance.6 Although the inclusion of sports activities may seem unorthodox, our intention here is to emphasize the possible

benefits of the interaction, rather than the cultural content. Thus, if the benefits of cultural capital are improved capacity

for interaction with gatekeepers, we would expect to see similar results whether the activity in question is sport or art. As

Bourdieu notes, ‘‘[i]t can be seen, for example, that golf . . . like caviar or foie gras, has a distributional significance (the

meaning which practices derive from their distribution among agents distributed in social classes). . .’’ (1978, p. 836,

italics in original). Following Bourdieu, there have been several examinations of the ways that sports participation may

build cultural capital (see e.g. Warde, 2006).


Table 1

Frequencies and definitions of variables.

Variable Measurement N Mean or percent

of population

Teacher assessment (Wave 2)

Math ability 1–5 scale where 1 = low 16,208 3.54

Reading ability 1–5 scale where 1 = low 16,351 3.37

IRT Score (Wave 2)

Math 0–123 where 0 = low 16,717 31.64

Reading 0–154 where 0 = low 16,109 38.84

Race and mother’s immigration status (constant, Wave 4)

Black immigrant 1 = child is Black, mother born outside the United States 151 1.00

Black native-born 1 = child is Black, mother born in the United States 1,784 11.84

Hispanic immigrant 1 = child is Hispanic, mother born outside the United States 1,350 8.96

Hispanic native-born 1 = child is Hispanic, mother born in the United States 1157 7.68

Asian immigrant 1 = child is Asian, mother born outside the United States 668 4.43

Asian native-born 1 = child is Asian, mother born in the United States 129 0.86

Other immigrant 1 = child is other race, mother born outside the United States 161 1.07

Other native-born 1 = child is other race, mother born in the United States 639 4.24

White immigrant 1 = child is White, mother was outside the United States 391 2.59

White native-born 1 = child is White, mother was in the United States 8,639 57.33

Gender (constant)

Female 0 = male, 1 = female 8,494 48.84

Household income (Wave 2)

Lowest income quintile 1 = family’s income is in the lowest quintile 2,479 0.20

Low-income quintile 1 = family’s income is in the lowest quintile 2,480 0.20

Middle-income quintile 1 = family’s income is in the lowest quintile 2,372 0.19

Upper income quintile 1 = family’s income is in the lowest quintile 2,387 0.19

Highest income quintile 1 = family’s income is in the lowest quintile 2,553 0.21

Highest parent education level (Wave 1)

Less than high

school dipl.

1 = highest parent education is less than

high school diploma

1,538 0.10

High school only 1 = highest parent education is a high school diploma 3,797 0.24

Some college 1 = highest parent education is some college 5,310 0.31

College degree or

beyond

1 = highest parent education is college degree or beyond 5,313 0.31

Cultural capital-building activities (Wave 2)

No art activities 1 = child has not done any type of art activities 10,438 0.67

One art activity 1 = child has done one type of art activity 3,091 0.20

Two or more art

activities

1 = child has done at least two types of art activities 1,953 0.13

No directed activities 1 = child has not done any type of directed activities 7,943 0.49

One directed activity 1 = child has done one type of directed activity 6,716 0.42

Two or more directed

activities

1 = child has done at least two types of directed activities 1,413 0.09

No cultural activities 1 = child has not done any type of cultural activities 7,526 0.47

One cultural activity 1 = child has done one type of cultural activity 6,012 0.37

Two or more cultural

activities

1 = child has done at least two types of cultural activities 2,528 0.16

would likewise expect to see an increase in the teacher’s assessment of child’s ability in math and

reading.

Finally, we include a measure for traditional cultural capital measures, comprising visits to

museums and concerts. These are designed to measure the effects of activities most traditionally

considered to provide cultural capital benefits. As above, if these are effective, we would expect

to see that participation in these activities would improve teacher assessments.

All regression results are weighted to adjust for unequal selection probabilities at the school

and child levels, so that our estimates are generalizable to the national population of students in

Kindergarten in the 1998–99 academic year (Tourangeau et al., 2006). Descriptive tables are

unweighted.

4. Descriptive figures

Table 1 shows the composition of the population. The sample is almost 60% White children of

native-born mothers, with the next largest group being Black children of native-born mothers

(12%). Although the other percentages are lower than 10%, the sample is large enough to include

sufficient numbers of children in each cell. (Asian children of native-born mothers and Black and

other-race children of immigrant mothers are particularly poorly represented, so results for these

groups must be treated with caution.) In all, approximately 18% of the samples have mothers

born outside the United States. The sample is almost evenly split between boys and girls, and has

been divided into income quintiles. About one-third of the entire sample have participated in at

least one type of art activity, just over half have participated in at least one type of directed

activity, and 37% have participated in at least one cultural activity.

Table 2 shows the unweighted participation rates in arts, directed, and cultural activities by

group. There are major differences in participation between types of activity, and in some cases,

between groups, with minority children and children of immigrants participating at lower levels

than White children and those with native-born parents.

The majority of children across all groups do not participate in any arts activities whatsoever.

Asian children of native-born mothers are the most likely to participate in at least one activity

(25%), followed by White children of native-born mothers (23%). Asian children of both native

and immigrant mothers (22%), Hispanic children of native-born mothers (21%), and other-race

children of immigrant mothers (21%) are almost equally likely to participate in one art activity as

the comparison group of White children of native-born mothers (23%). Black and Hispanic

children of immigrants, however, are considerably less likely on average to participate in arts

activities. For instance, 86% of immigrant Hispanics and 80% of Black immigrants participate in

no art activities, while 71% of native-born Hispanics and 77% of native-born Blacks do so.

Though there is less difference in arts participation between children of immigrants and children

of native-born parents for Black children, the difference by nativity among Hispanics is

pronounced. It is staggering to note that compared to 64% of native-born Whites, 86% of

Hispanic immigrant children do not participate in any art activity. All differences between White

children of native-born mothers and others are significant at the 0.05 level, and most are

significant at the 0.001 level.

Participation in directed activities is similarly stratified. Greater numbers of children

participate on average in at least one activity, but these results are not consistent across groups.

White children of native-born parents are the most likely to participate in at least one activity,

with only 31% taking part in no directed activity at all. Almost half of White children of native-

born parents (47%) are involved in one activity and a sizeable share (22%) take part in two or


more activities. In other words, two-thirds of all White children of native-born parents participate

in at least one activity. White children of immigrant parents have a slightly lower participation

rate, and a similar pattern exists for all non-White children of native-born parents, though with

lower rates of participation overall. However, for all non-White groups there are (a) fewer

children participating and (b) much greater discrepancies between children of immigrants and

children of native-born parents compared to White children. For Black, Hispanic, and Asian

children, children of native-born parents are considerably more likely to participate in directed

activities, both in likelihood of participating in any single activity and in participating in two or

more. This discrepancy is greatest for Asian and Hispanic children. As with art activities,

Hispanic children fare the worst in terms of participation. As with arts activity participation,

differences between White children of native-born mothers and others are highly significant, all

at the 0.05 level and most at the 0.001 level.

Finally, participation in cultural activities is less uneven across groups. More children across

the board are likely to have participated in at least one type of cultural activity, with Hispanic

children of immigrant mothers lagging behind. Differences between children of immigrants and

children of native-born mothers are less stark or clear-cut: White, Asian, and other-race children

have similar participation rates regardless of mother’s immigration status. In contrast, Black and

Hispanic children have larger discrepancies between immigrant and non-immigrant parents, but

Black children of native-born parents participate at lower rates than those of immigrant mothers,

with 48% likely to engage in no cultural activities.

Overall, non-White children are less likely to participate in the kinds of extracurricular

activities that many researchers argue improve access to future educational successes. Children


Table 2

Proportion of youth participating in arts, directed and cultural activities by race-immigrant groups.

Arts activities Directed activities Cultural activities

None One Two+ None One Two+ None One Two+

Native-born White 0.64 0.23 0.12 0.31 0.47 0.22 0.43 0.41 0.16

(0.48) (0.42) (0.33) (0.46) (0.50) (0.41) (0.50) (0.50) (0.37)

Immigrant White 0.66 0.19 0.15 0.40 0.43 0.17 0.40 0.38 0.22

(0.47) (0.40) (0.35) (0.49) (0.50) (0.37) (0.49) (0.49) (0.42)

Native-born Black 0.77 0.16 0.06 0.55 0.33 0.13 0.48 0.37 0.16

(0.42) (0.37) (0.25) (0.50) (0.47) (0.33) (0.50) (0.48) (0.36)

Immigrant Black 0.80 0.15 0.05 0.69 0.22 0.08 0.39 0.45 0.15

(0.40) (0.36) (0.22) (0.46) (0.42) (0.28) (0.49) (0.50) (0.36)

Native-born Hispanic 0.71 0.21 0.09 0.50 0.38 0.12 0.46 0.38 0.16

(0.46) (0.41) (0.28) (0.50) (0.49) (0.32) (0.50) (0.48) (0.37)

Immigrant Hispanic 0.86 0.10 0.04 0.80 0.17 0.03 0.63 0.27 0.10

(0.34) (0.30) (0.19) (0.40) (0.38) (0.17) (0.48) (0.44) (0.30)

Native-born Asian 0.63 0.25 0.12 0.43 0.39 0.17 0.42 0.38 0.20

(0.49) (0.43) (0.33) (0.50) (0.49) (0.38) (0.50) (0.49) (0.41)

Immigrant Asian 0.66 0.22 0.13 0.70 0.25 0.06 0.46 0.35 0.19

(0.48) (0.41) (0.33) (0.46) (0.43) (0.23) (0.50) (0.48) (0.39)

Native-born other 0.70 0.18 0.12 0.47 0.38 0.14 0.51 0.33 0.16

(0.46) (0.38) (0.33) (0.50) (0.49) (0.35) (0.50) (0.47) (0.37)

Immigrant other 0.67 0.21 0.12 0.58 0.31 0.11 0.54 0.28 0.18

(0.47) (0.41) (0.32) (0.50) (0.46) (0.31) (0.50) (0.45) (0.39)

Standard deviations are in parentheses. All participation rate differences between White children of native-born mothers

and others are significant at the 0.05 level.

of immigrants are in most cases even less likely to participate than co-race or ethnic peers whose

mothers were born in the United States. We now turn to analysis of the relative importance of race

and immigration status in the odds of participation.

5. Analytical results

Table 3 shows the results of logistic regression models predicting participation in art and

directed activities based on race/ethnic and immigration variables. For almost all types of

activities, there are pronounced differences in participation rates by mother’s immigration status.

While Hispanic and other-race children of native-born and Asian and other-race children of

immigrant mothers have similar odds of participating in arts activities as White children of

native-born mothers, some children of immigrants have much lower odds than their

corresponding race group or White native-born children. The odds of Black and Hispanic

children with immigrant mothers participating in any art activity are substantially less than those

of White children with native-born mothers (0.61 and 0.53, respectively). This relationship is

reversed for Asian children: children of immigrants have only somewhat lower odds of

participation than the reference group, while children of native-born parents are much less likely

to do so. Children in low-income households and those whose parents have not completed college

have lower odds of participation in arts activities than those in upper income households and

those whose parents have completed college.

The differences in odds of participation in directed activities are more striking and consistent

than those for arts activities. In every race or ethnic category, the odds of immigrants’ children

participating in any directed activity were far lower than their same-race peers of native-born

mothers. For Black, Hispanic, Asian and other-race children the odds of participating in any

directed activity are only 0.15–0.38 those of White children of native-born mothers. In other

words, minority immigrant children are up to six times as likely to not participate in any directed

activity compared to White children of native-born parents. In comparison to their same-race

peers, the odds of participation for children of native-born mothers are one-and-a-half to three

times higher than those of immigrant mothers. As with arts activities, children from low-income

households are considerably less likely and those from upper income households are slightly

more than twice as likely to participate in organized activities, and similar results obtain for

parent education level.

There is less discrepancy by race or immigration status in cultural activity participation.

Black, Asian, and White children of immigrant mothers are more likely than the comparison

group to participate in at least one cultural activity (1.69, 1.04, and 1.06, respectively), as are

Black and Hispanic children of native-born mothers (1.30 and 1.19). Other-race children of

native-born mothers, and Hispanic and Asian children of immigrant mothers are only slightly less

likely to participate, while other-race children of immigrant mothers have by far the lowest odds

of participation (0.63). Race and immigration status thus appear to be weaker predictors of

participation in cultural activities. Odds of participation by household income and parent

education are similar to those in the models for arts and directed activity participation.

Differences between children of immigrants and non-immigrants within race and ethnic

groups are especially important for the discussion at hand. In models not presented here, we used

Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other-race children with native-born mothers as the reference group.

Children of immigrants are considerably less likely to participate in any number of activities than

their peers with native-born mothers, with rare exception (Asian children of immigrants are more

likely to participate in an arts activity than their co-race peers of native-born parents, and Black



Table 3

Predictors of participation in cultural capital activities.

Arts activities Directed activities Cultural activities

Intercept 2.37*** �1.55*** �0.26***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.00)

Race and mother’s immigration status

Black immigrant 0.61*** 0.38*** 1.69***

(0.02) (0.01) (0.01)

Black native-born 0.89*** 0.64*** 1.30***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Hispanic immigrant 0.53*** 0.23*** 0.83***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Hispanic native-born 1.12*** 0.75*** 1.19***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Asian immigrant 0.89*** 0.15*** 1.04**

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Asian native-born 0.54*** 0.29*** 0.86***

(0.03) (0.02) (0.02)

Other immigrant 0.78*** 0.22*** 0.63***

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Other native-born 0.99 0.70 0.86***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

White immigrant 0.95*** 0.55*** 1.06***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

White native-born (ref.)

Gender

Male (ref.)

Female 3.85*** 0.85*** 1.14***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Household income

Lowest income quintile 0.86*** 0.61*** 0.87***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Low-income quintile 0.83*** 0.73*** 0.91***

(0.01) (0.00) (0.00)

Middle-income quintile (ref.)

Upper income quintile 1.07*** 1.24*** 1.08***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.00)

Highest income quintile 1.82*** 2.05*** 1.37***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

Parent education level

Less than high school dipl. 0.19*** 0.26*** 0.34***

(0.01) (0.01) (0.01)

High school dipl. only 0.33*** 0.31*** 0.50***

(0.01) (0.00) (0.00)

Some college 0.60*** 0.50*** 0.73***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

College or beyond (ref.)

N (unweighted) 9806 9805 9809

Standard errors are in parentheses.

Significance level: *p < 05.** Significant at p < 0.01.

*** Significant at p < 0.001.

and Asian children of immigrants more likely to participate in a cultural activity than co-race or -

ethnic peers with native-born mothers). Thus, minority immigrant children are particularly

disadvantaged when it comes to participating in directed activities, compared not only White

children but also within race or ethnic categories.

Next, we examine how arts, directed, and cultural activity participation affects teacher

assessments of math and reading ability. Table 4 presents our results for math and reading. Model

1 includes controls for race-immigrant status, gender, highest parent education and household


Table 4

Coefficients from OLS models predicting teacher assessment of child’s math and reading skills.

Math Reading

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Intercept 2.38*** 2.37*** 2.02*** 1.97***

(0.03) (0.04) (0.03) (0.03)

Race and mother’s immigration status

Black immigrant 0.01 0.00 �0.16** �0.15*

(0.07) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06)

Black native-born 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01

(0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)

Hispanic immigrant �0.05 �0.05 �0.10*** �0.09**

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)

Hispanic native-born �0.06* �0.06* �0.03 �0.02

(0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)

Asian immigrant �0.04 �0.03 �0.18*** �0.15**

(0.06) (0.06) (0.05) (0.05)

Asian native-born 0.07 0.07 �0.01 0.00

(0.12) (0.12) (0.10) (0.10)

Other immigrant �0.20* �0.19* �0.31*** 0.29***

(0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08)

Other native-born �0.11** �0.10* �0.03 �0.03

(0.04) (0.04) (0.03) (0.03)

White immigrant �0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03

(0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04)

White native-born (ref.)

Gender

Male (ref.)

Female 0.12*** 0.12*** 0.13*** 0.13***

(0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01)

Household income

Lowest income quintile �0.13*** 0.12*** �0.12*** �0.10***

(0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)

Low-income quintile �0.03 �0.02 0.00 0.01

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Middle-income quintile (ref.)

Upper income quintile 0.00 0.01 0.04* 0.04*

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Highest income quintile 0.00 �0.01 0.01 0.01

(0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02)


Less than high school dipl. �0.17*** �0.18*** �0.10** �0.09*

(0.04) (0.04) (0.03) (0.03)

income. Model 2 adds cultural capital-building activities to the demographic and test score

variables. To ensure that we are seeing the effect of cultural capital on teacher assessment rather

than simply teacher assessments of actual math and reading performance, we also include

students’ test scores for math and reading in both models. Perhaps students whose parents enroll

them in after-school activities are also those who receive high-test scores, meaning that teachers

are accurate in assessing students’ capacities. This would lend support to a more cognitive model

that argues that gains from such activities simply increase the students’ mental abilities (for

example, arguments that music lessons improve IQ; Schellenberg, 2004).

When we examine race and mother’s immigration status variables in relation to assessment of

math skills as presented in Model 1, it is clear that Hispanic native-born, and other-race immigrant

and native-born children all receive lower teacher assessments than White children of native-born

mothers, after accounting for household income, parent education, and test scores. In addition, girls

are assessed more positively by teachers. Income affects teacher evaluations—students from the

lowest income quintile fare less well than those in the comparison group. Interestingly, this is the

only significant difference between income quintiles, suggesting little if any advantage for children

whose families are in the higher income quintiles. Finally, children whose parents have not

completed high school or who have received only their high school diploma are at a disadvantage in


Table 4 (Continued )

Math Reading

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

High school dipl. only �0.07** 0.07** �0.10*** �0.08***

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Some college �0.02 �0.02 �0.03 �0.02

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)


IRT Test Score 0.04*** 0.04 0.04*** 0.04***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Cultural capital

No art activities (ref.)

One art activity �0.01 �0.01

(0.02) (0.02)

Two+ art activities �0.02 0.02

(0.02) (0.02)

No directed activities (ref.)

One directed activity 0.01 0.05***

(0.02) (0.01)

Two+ directed activities 0.00 0.07**

(0.03) (0.02)

No cultural activities (ref.)

One cultural activity 0.00 0.03*

(0.02) (0.01)

Two+ cultural activities �0.04 0.00

(0.02) (0.02)

Adj. R-squared 0.31 0.32 0.42 0.42

N (unweighted) 9376 8977 9234 8826

Standard errors are in parentheses.* Significant at p < 0.05.

** Significant at p < 0.01.*** Significant at p < 0.001.

assessment, while those who have at least one parent who has completed some college do not show

significant difference from those whose parent has received a college degree.

Our results for reading assessment are similar to those described above, but immigrant

disadvantage relative to their same-race native-born counterparts is more apparent. Other-race

children with immigrant mothers fared the worst, 0.31 points below White children with native-

born mothers. Black, and Hispanic children of immigrant mothers also ranked well below the

reference group, scoring 0.16 and 0.10 points lower respectively than White native-born children.

Asian children of immigrants fared even less well, at 0.18 points below the reference group. Also

as before, income and gender variables have strong effects on teacher evaluations. Girls are

assessed 0.13 points above boys in reading, holding all other factors constant. Lowest income

quintile children are below the comparison group by 0.12, and those in the upper income quintile

are slightly above the reference group. The effect of parent education is also statistically

significant, with children whose parents have not completed any college at a disadvantage.

Model 2 for math and reading adds measures of cultural capital activities (i.e. participation in

arts, directed, and cultural activities). Turning first to math assessments, we see that adding

cultural capital measures affects teacher assessment for students only marginally, and none of the

cultural capital activity measures are themselves significant. There is furthermore little to no

change in the impact of the socio-demographic variables, with only a 0.01 shift in either direction

for any parent education, income quintile, or race and immigration variable. It should also be

noted that the difference between the two scores (i.e. Models 1 and 2) is not significant at the 0.05

level for either math or reading (see Paternoster et al., 1998).

Cultural capital activities are statistically significant in the models for teacher assessments of

reading, however. Participation in art or directed activities increases the teacher’s assessment of a

child’s reading abilities by 0.03 (one cultural activity), 0.05 (one directed activity), 0.07 (two or

more directed activities) points. Both coefficients for directed activities are statistically

significant, as are the coefficients for one cultural activity. Adding these measures to the model

moderates the effect of household income only slightly, reducing from 0.12 to 0.10 the effect of

the lowest income quintile. Similarly, the coefficients for parent education are reduced somewhat

by the inclusion of cultural capital variables. The addition of activity participation also moderates

several of the race–immigration effects somewhat, primarily for Asian and other-race children of

immigrant parents. However, children with immigrant mothers continue to be given lower

evaluations than their peers with native-born mothers, significant across all race-ethnic groups.

These increases in assessment could serve to moderate negative outcomes for children of

immigrants in teacher judgment that remain after accounting for other factors.7 In reading

assessment particularly, children of immigrants appear to be at a disadvantage to their native-born

peers and – especially – to White children of native-born mothers. Black, Hispanic, and particularly

Asian and other-race immigrant children all receive lower teacher assessments for reading ability

after controlling for test scores, household income, parent education, and gender. In math

assessments, immigrant status is less important, with the only significant differences seen in a more

negative assessment for Hispanic native-born and other-race children of immigrant and native-born

parents.

Evaluating the models above, it seems clear that (a) both minority and immigration status are

correlated with lower teacher evaluations, even after accounting for other socio-demographic


7 It should be noted that in models not shown here, we included a variable for parent language use (i.e. whether parents

speak English or some other language with the child). It was not significant for either math or reading, neither in these

aggregated models nor in subsequent models by ethnic group.

factors and test scores; and (b) participation in cultural capital-building activities can serve to

improve teacher assessment of child ability over and above tested academic ability. We do not yet

know, however, if participation in cultural capital activities matters differently for children of

immigrant parents than for children of native-born parents.

To answer this question, we ran separate models for each race or ethnic group, and included

mother’s immigrant status as an independent variable. We do this to avoid estimating three-way

interactions. Model 1 includes socio-demographic variables only, Model 2 adds cultural capital

activities, and Model 3 adds an interaction term for immigration status by each type of activity.

Looking at Table 5A (math), Model 1, we see that immigration status is not significant for any


Table 5A

Coefficients from OLS models predicting teacher assessment of math ability (Whites, Blacks).

White Black

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Intercept 2.45*** 2.42*** 2.41*** 2.25*** 2.20*** 2.21***

(0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.11) (0.11) (0.12)

Gender

Male (ref.)

Female 0.11*** 0.11*** 0.11*** 0.12** 0.12** 0.12**

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05)

Immigrant status

Child of imm. mother �0.01 0.04 0.06 �0.09 �0.09 �0.12

(0.05) (0.05) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.16)

Household income

Lowest income �0.11** �0.10** �0.10** �0.11 �0.11 �0.11

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)

Low income �0.05 �0.04 �0.03 0.14 0.12 0.13

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08)

Middle income (ref.)

Upper income �0.02 �0.01 �0.01 0.13 0.13 0.13

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)

Highest income 0.00 �0.01 �0.01 �0.05 �0.07 �0.06

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10)


LT high school dipl. �0.19** �0.18** �0.18** �0.18 �0.14 �0.15

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10)

High school dipl. only �0.05 �0.04 �0.04 �0.16* �0.13 �0.14

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)

Some college �0.02 �0.01 �0.01 �0.09 �0.06 �0.07

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)


IRT Test Score 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Cultural capital


One art activity �0.01 �0.01 0.06 0.05

(0.02) (0.02) (0.06) (0.06)

Two+ art activities 0.03 0.03 �0.14 �0.14

(0.03) (0.03) (0.08) (0.08)


Table 5A (Continued )

White Black



One directed activity 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.08

(0.02) (0.02) (0.05) (0.05)

Two+ directed activities 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.13

(0.03) (0.03) (0.11) (0.12)


One cultural activity 0.04 0.04 0.00 �0.01

(0.02) (0.02) (0.05) (0.05)

Two+ cultural activities �0.05 �0.05 0.04 0.05

(0.03) (0.03) (0.07) (0.07)

Interaction terms

Immigration � one art �0.09 0.08

(0.13) (0.23)

Immigration � two art �0.03 0.05

(0.14) (0.26)

Immigration � one directed �0.10 0.00

(0.10) (0.19)

Immigration � two directed �0.06 �0.33

(0.17) (0.31)

Immigration � one cultural 0.13 0.10

(0.11) (0.18)

Immigration � two cultural �0.02 �0.04

(0.14) (0.23)

Adj. R-squared 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.30 0.30

N (unweighted) 5996 5696 5696 1010 968 968

Coefficients from OLS models predicting teacher assessment of math ability (Hispanics, Asians and other race)

Hispanic Asian Other

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Intercept 2.09*** 2.22*** 2.23*** 2.46*** 2.43*** 2.21*** 2.38*** 2.45*** 2.45***

(0.10) (0.10) (0.11) (0.15) (0.16) (0.19) (0.15) (0.15) (0.16)

Gender

Male (ref.)

Female 0.09* 0.10* 0.10* 0.14* 0.10 0.13 0.17** 0.20*** 0.21***

(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)

Immigrant status

Child of imm. mother 0.04 0.00 0.01 �0.11 �0.09 0.19 �0.13 �0.13 �0.19

(0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.09) (0.14) (0.08) (0.08) (0.13)

Household income

Lowest income �0.10 �0.11 �0.10 �0.01 0.03 0.03 �0.16 �0.15 �0.14

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.09) (0.10) (0.10)

Low income �0.08 �0.10 �0.09 0.33** 0.38** 0.33** �0.10 �0.07 �0.07

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.11) (0.12) (0.11) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)


Upper income �0.01 0.02 0.02 0.28** 0.31** 0.32** �0.05 0.00 0.00

(0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11)

Highest income 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.22* 0.22** 0.21* �0.06 �0.03 �0.03

(0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.10) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11) (0.12) (0.12)


Table 5A (Continued )


Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3


LT high school dipl. �0.12 �0.20* �0.21** 0.35* 0.35* 0.35* �0.37** �0.43** �0.43**

(0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.16) (0.16) (0.16) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13)

High school dipl. only �0.01 �0.06 �0.08 �0.23 �0.21 �0.14 �0.36*** �0.38*** 0.41***

(0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.13) (0.14) (0.14) (0.09) (0.10) (0.10)

Some college 0.01 �0.03 �0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08 �0.16 �0.17 �0.18

(0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.09)


IRT Test Score 0.04*** 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Cultural capital


One art activity �0.12* �0.14* 0.10 0.18 0.09 0.15

(0.06) (0.07) (0.09) (0.26) (0.08) (0.09)

Two+ art activities �0.25** �0.22* 0.08 0.36 �0.02 �0.03

(0.08) (0.10) (0.10) (0.21) (0.09) (0.09)


One directed activity �0.07 �0.08 �0.01 �0.36* 0.14* 0.15*

(0.05) (0.06) (0.08) (0.16) (0.07) (0.07)

Two+ directed activities �0.01 0.14 0.36 0.18 �0.14 �0.17

(0.09) (0.11) (0.23) (0.31) (0.12) (0.13)


One cultural activity �0.09* �0.12* 0.07 0.55** �0.21** �0.25***

(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.17) (0.06) (0.07)

Two+ cultural activities 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.71** �0.17 �0.22*

(0.06) (0.08) (0.11) (0.25) (0.09) (0.10)

Interaction terms

Immigration � one art 0.01 �0.12 �0.34

(0.12) (0.28) (0.23)

Immigration � two art �0.09 0.37 0.13

(0.16) (0.23) (0.26)

Immigration � one directed 0.09 0.48** �0.08

(0.10) (0.18) (0.20)

Immigration � two directed �0.44* 0.00 0.42

(0.19) (0.47) (0.40)

Immigration � one cultural 0.09 �0.61** 0.22

(0.09) (0.19) (0.18)

Immigration � two cultural �0.23 �0.81** 0.22

(0.13) (0.27) (0.26)

Adj. R-squared 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.38 0.38

N (unweighted) 1419 1380 1380 408 402 402 543 531 531


** Significant at p < 0.01.*** Significant at *p < 0.001.

race-ethnic group. The effects of income quintile are inconsistent, with lowest income quintile

reducing teacher assessment for White children, and highest and middle-income quintiles (both

lower and upper) showing significant, strong positive effects for Asian students. For all other

groups, however, there are no significant effects. Parent education level is significant across

groups, with a particularly strong effect for Asian and other-race children. Further, using the

method suggested by Paternoster et al. (1998), only the differences between White and Hispanic

children’s assessment scores are significant at the 0.05 level.

The effect of cultural capital variables in the math model is also quite inconsistent, and

somewhat surprising. In contrast to the models for reading (below), the addition of these variables

does not impact teacher assessment of children from White native-born families. They also do

not seem to benefit Black or Asian children. Hispanic children, however, seem to reap potentially

negative effects from participation, while other-race children see improved assessments from

participation in a single art or directed activity, but negative results from participating in one

cultural activity. Adding cultural capital variables also heightens the effects of income for Asian

children whose households are in the middle income. For White children, the effect of lowest

household income remains significant and virtually unchanged. Likewise, income effects for

other race-ethnic groups remain non-significant. Finally, in this model none of the assessment

scores are significantly different from White children’s.

Not surprisingly, there are few great shifts in Model 3. As in Model 2, none of the assessment

scores for non-White children are significantly different from those of White children. For White,

Black, Hispanic, and other-race children, there are only marginal if any changes in the

coefficients for cultural capital activities or immigration, and none of the interaction terms are

significant. For Asian children, the addition of interaction terms renders several cultural capital

coefficients significant (one directed activity, and one or two cultural activities). Correspond-

ingly, the interaction terms for these activities are also significant and counteract the effects (both

positive and negative) of participation. Thus, while participation in one and two cultural activities

are 0.55 and 0.71, respectively, the interaction terms for immigration and these activities are

�0.61 and �0.81, respectively, while one directed activity is �0.36 and the corresponding

interaction term is 0.48.

Turning to teacher assessments in reading (Table 5B, Model 1), we see very different results.

Every group but other-race children’s scores are significantly different from White children’s at


Table 5B

Coefficients from OLS models predicting teacher assessment of reading ability (Whites, Blacks).

White Black


Intercept 2.08*** 2.02*** 2.02*** 1.74*** 1.65*** 1.66***

(0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)

Gender

Male (ref.)

Female 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.11*** 0.18*** 0.16*** 0.16***

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)

Immigrant status

Child of imm. mother 0.02 0.03 �0.02 �0.19** �0.20** �0.08

(0.04) (0.04) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06) (0.12)


Table 5B (Continued )

White Black


Household income

Lowest income �0.13*** 0.11*** 0.11*** �0.09 �0.10 �0.10

(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)

Low income �0.02 �0.01 �0.01 0.10 0.07 0.06

(0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)


Upper income 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)

Highest income 0.00 0.01 0.01 �0.05 �0.15 �0.15

(0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)


LT high school dipl. 0.21*** 0.17*** 0.17*** �0.06 �0.02 �0.04

(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)

High school dipl. only �0.09*** �0.07** �0.07** �0.07 �0.02 �0.04

(0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)

Some college �0.03 �0.02 �0.02 �0.06 �0.04 �0.05

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)


IRT Test Score 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Cultural capital


One art activity 0.00 �0.01 0.01 �0.01

(0.02) (0.02) (0.04) (0.05)

Two+ art activities 0.04 0.04 �0.02 �0.03

(0.03) (0.03) (0.06) (0.06)


One directed activity 0.05* 0.05* 0.02 0.04

(0.02) (0.02) (0.04) (0.04)

Two+ directed activities 0.07* 0.07* 0.18* 0.24**

(0.03) (0.03) (0.09) (0.09)


One cultural activity 0.05* 0.05* 0.11** 0.12**

(0.02) (0.02) (0.04) (0.04)

Two+ cultural activities �0.03 �0.03 0.11* 0.09**

(0.02) (0.02) (0.05) (0.05)

Interaction terms

Immigration � one art 0.12 0.18

(0.11) (0.18)

Immigration � two art �0.02 0.07

(0.12) (0.20)

Immigration � one directed 0.00 �0.26

(0.09) (0.14)

Immigration � two directed �0.12 �0.42

(0.14) (0.24)

Immigration � one cultural 0.12 �0.15

(0.10) (0.14)

Immigration � two cultural �0.03 0.12

(0.12) (0.18)



White Black


Adj. R-squared 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.48 0.48

N (unweighted) 6069 5763 5763 1022 978 978

Coefficients from OLS models predicting teacher assessment of reading ability (Hispanics, Asians, and other race)


Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Intercept 1.66*** 1.67*** 1.70*** 2.37*** 2.30*** 2.43*** 2.15*** 2.09*** 2.10***

(0.09) (0.10) (0.10) (0.13) (0.13) (0.17) (0.13) (0.13) (0.14)

Gender

Male (ref.)

Female 0.08* 0.09* 0.09* 0.20** 0.18** 0.19** 0.27*** 0.29*** 0.29***

(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)

Immigrant status

Child of imm. mother �0.08* �0.09* �0.13* �0.08 �0.06 �0.17 0.26***�0.25** �0.29**

(0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.08) (0.13) (0.07) (0.08) (0.11)

Household income

Lowest income �0.08 �0.08 �0.07 0.01 0.07 0.05 �0.02 0.04 0.04

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)

Low income �0.02 �0.01 �0.01 0.25* 0.35** 0.32** 0.09 0.14 0.14

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)


Upper income 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.24* 0.26** 0.26** �0.10 �0.04 �0.04

(0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.10) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.10) (0.10)

Highest income 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.30** 0.26** 0.23* 0.01 0.04 0.03

(0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.09) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10)


LT high school dipl. 0.07 0.04 0.04 �0.07 �0.10 �0.08 �0.33** �0.39** �0.39***

(0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12)

High school dipl. only �0.03 �0.04 �0.06 �0.28* �0.26* �0.25* �0.37***�0.39***�0.40***

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)

Some college 0.02 0.01 �0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 �0.17* �0.16* �0.16*

(0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)


IRT Test Score 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.04*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.03***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Cultural capital


One art activity �0.12* �0.15* 0.18* �0.26 0.17* 0.19*

(0.05) (0.06) (0.08) (0.24) (0.07) (0.08)

Two+ art activities �0.04 0.10 0.15 0.31 0.00 0.02

(0.07) (0.08) (0.09) (0.19) (0.08) (0.08)


One directed activity 0.05 0.03 0.07 �0.25 0.17** 0.16**

(0.04) (0.05) (0.07) (0.15) (0.06) (0.06)

Two+ directed activities 0.12 0.25** 0.34 0.30 �0.15 �0.20

(0.08) (0.09) (0.21) (0.28) (0.10) (0.11)

the 0.05 level. Immigration status has a varied impact across the race and ethnic groups. For

White and Asian children, the term is not significant, indicating no difference between White

children of native-born and immigrant mothers. For Black, Hispanic, and other-race children,

however, the immigration term is significant and negative, indicating that children of immigrants

fare worse in teachers’ assessments of reading ability than children with native-born mothers,

even controlling for academic ability as measured by IRT scores. Compared to their same-race

peers with native-born mothers, other-race children of immigrant mothers fare the worst (�0.26),

while Hispanic children fare the best (�0.08). Strikingly, family income is significant for White

and Asian children, but not for Black, Hispanic, and other-race children. For Whites, the lowest

income quintile is significant and negative, while for Asian children, there is a positive and

significant coefficient for the two middle and the highest income quintiles. Parent education level

is significant only for White, Asian and other-race children, but for Asian children it is only

significant for children whose parents have a high school diploma only while for White and other-

race children it is significant for those who have and have not completed high school.

The effects of immigration status remain in place once cultural capital activities are added

(Table 5B, Model 2). As in the first model, all but other-race children’s scores are significantly

different from White children’s. Black, Hispanic, and other-race children of immigrant mothers

continue to suffer in terms of teacher assessment—the figures and significance levels are virtually

unchanged. We also see that several kinds of cultural capital activity are significant for White

children of native-born parents—participation in any level of directed activity is positive and




Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3


One cultural activity �0.05 �0.11* 0.04 0.01 �0.18** �0.18**

(0.04) (0.05) (0.07) (0.15) (0.06) (0.06)

Two+ cultural activities 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.44 �0.18* �0.20*

(0.06) (0.07) (0.09) (0.23) (0.08) (0.08)

Interaction terms

Immigration � one art 0.08 0.48 �0.15

(0.11) (0.25) (0.20)

Immigration � two art �0.42** �0.19 �0.09

(0.14) (0.21) (0.23)

Immigration � one directed 0.14 0.42* 0.08

(0.09) (0.17) (0.18)

Immigration � two directed �0.46** 0.06 0.54

(0.17) (0.43) (0.35)

Immigration � one cultural 0.20* 0.02 0.06

(0.08) (0.17) (0.16)

Immigration � two cultural �0.07 �0.49* 0.12

(0.12) (0.25) (0.23)

Adj. R-squared 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.42 0.45 0.44

N (unweighted) 1184 1145 1145 411 404 404 548 536 536


** Significant at p < 0.01.*** Significant at p < 0.001.

significant, as is participation in one cultural activity. Participation in arts activities, however, is

not significant. The addition of cultural capital to the model reduces the effect of parent education

and income disadvantages somewhat (from �0.13 to �0.11 for the lowest income quintile, and

�0.21 and �0.09 for less than high school and high school only respectively to �0.17 and

�0.07).

The results are very similar for Black children, for whom participation in two or more directed

and any cultural activities is positive and significant (there were no significant effects in

household income or parent education in the first model, and these remain non-significant in the

second model but are similarly reduced in magnitude). For each other group, however, the effect

of including cultural capital measures is less consistent. Asian and other-race children both see

positive significant effects for participation in one arts activity, and other-race children also see

positive significant results for participation in one directed activity. For Hispanic children,

however, participation in a single arts activity – the only significant effect– results in a lowered

teacher assessment. Similarly, for other-race children, participation in any cultural activity results

in a lowered assessment. Each of these is considerably larger than the effect for White children,

which is significant but only 0.05, while each significant effect for non-White children is greater

than 0.10 (whether positive or negative). Inclusion of these variables also slightly increases the

immigration coefficient for Black and Hispanic children, but reduces it somewhat for other-race

children. Finally, the addition of cultural capital measures to the model impacts the effect of

household income and parent education for Asian and other-race children. For other-race

children, parent education effects are somewhat increased (with the exception of those whose

parents had some college). For Asian children, parent education effects are somewhat reduced,

while lower household income quintile effects are heightened and highest income quintile effects

are reduced.

When the interaction terms for cultural capital and mother’s immigration status are added, we

see that there is virtually no difference for White children. No interaction terms are significant,

and the cultural capital activities remain unchanged. White children thus appear to benefit from

cultural capital activities regardless of mother’s immigration status. Similarly, the interaction

terms for Black and other-race children are not significant (though it is notable that the inclusion

of the interaction terms renders the immigration term no longer significant for Black children). In

each case, the effects and significance levels of cultural capital and immigration coefficients

remain largely the same, with the exception of an increase in magnitude for Black children

participating in two or more directed activities (0.18 in Model 2 and 0.24 in Model 3). Again, this

suggests that these students do not see any effect of cultural capital participation that varies

dependent on mother’s immigration status.

For Hispanic and Asian students, however, we do see significant interaction effects. For

Hispanic children, two additional cultural capital activities become significant when the

interaction between immigration and cultural capital is added—two or more directed activities

(0.25) and one cultural activity (�0.11). Furthermore, three of the interaction terms are

significant: two or more art activities (�0.42), two or more directed activities (�0.46), and one

cultural activity (0.20). This indicates that, indeed, Hispanic children of immigrant mothers

obtain different outcomes for cultural capital participation, distinct even from Hispanic children

whose mothers are US-born. The case is somewhat less clear for Asian children. Although the

immigration and cultural capital variables are not significant (even single art activities, which is

significant in Model 2), two of the interaction terms are significant at the 0.05 level (one directed

and two cultural), suggesting that there may be an interaction effect. As in Model 2, the only

group whose scores are not significantly different from White children’s is other race.


6. Discussion and conclusion

Although scholars have previously theorized about the forms of immigrant group-specific

social capital that may support school achievement, there has been little discussion of immigrant

use of broadly recognized forms of cultural capital. Since cultural capital must be ‘‘widely

shared’’ (Lamont and Lareau, 1988) to be effective, one might argue that children of immigrants

would be at a disadvantage because their parents would be less likely to know what forms of

cultural capital would be helpful and how to provide such ‘‘cultivation’’ (Lareau, 2002) for their

children. Indeed, the data presented here show that children of immigrant mothers are much less

likely to participate in arts, directed, or cultural activities. Teachers give higher reading

assessments to students who participate in directed and cultural activities, even after controlling

for the effects of parent education, household income, and academic ability, indicating that

cultural capital is associated with educational attainment. Further, these results vary both within

race-ethnic groups and across them, indicating that cultural capital effects are inconsistent by

race or ethnic group. Generally, non-White children and children of immigrants are assessed less

well than White children. Cultural capital participation appears to have a positive and significant

effect for White children’s reading assessment. For non-White children, this is less consistent,

and does not ameliorate disadvantages to immigration status where they exist. Moreover, in the

cases of Hispanic and Asian children of immigrants, there indeed appears to be less benefit to

participation in several cultural capital activities (with the exception of Asian children of

immigrants participating in a single directed activity, which boosts both math and reading

assessments). It must also be noted that in some cases, non-White children appear to be assessed

less well by teachers in both math and reading when participating in cultural capital activities. It

is also notable that Asian children’s assessments for reading (see Table 4) are among the worst,

even after considering parent income and education (i.e. worse than both Black and Hispanic

children), and remain lower than the reference group even once cultural capital activities are

considered (tied with Black children of immigrants, and faring worse than Hispanic children of

immigrants). Indeed, the coefficients for immigration–activity interaction terms for Asian

children are particularly strong.

Clearly, this picture does not match that of the later attainment of Asian Americans who

outpace White peers in high school and in college. Similarly, some studies have found that

some immigrant Black populations have higher educational achievement than native-born

Black children and adolescents (Kasinitz et al., 2004, cited in Waters and Jimenez, 2005). It is

beyond the scope of this paper to speculate what changes over the ensuing school years, but we do

see several possibilities. First, participation in extracurricular activities at greater rates in later

years may allow these adolescents to reap benefits in middle- or high school. Second, access to

other forms of capital (such as social capital as discussed above) may balance lack of

participation to such an extent as to render it moot. Third, it is possible that Asian Americans

benefit from the ‘‘model minority myth’’ in teacher assessment: teachers may attribute positive

behavioral and academic traits to Asian children regardless of extracurricular participation

(Morris, 2005).

While participation in arts, directed, and cultural activities is correlated, each of these is at

times associated with higher teacher evaluations of children’s math and reading ability, with

stronger results for reading assessment. However, our evidence also suggests that directed

activities have a more consistently positive effects than cultural or arts activities. This finding is

consistent with both Lareau’s (2000) and Kaufman and Gabler’s (2004) emphasis on the

interactional nature of cultural capital—to be valuable, cultural capital must be applied, and it


must be applied through interaction with the gatekeeper (i.e. the teacher). Thus, activities that

teach children interactional skills would be more likely to boost teacher assessment than those

providing knowledge not necessarily valued in the early years of school, such as drawing or

dance, or experiences for which there may be little outlet for communication, such as visits to a

museum or concert.

We also find that teachers’ subjective evaluations of reading ability of Black, Hispanic, and

Asian immigrant children are more negative even after controlling for SES and children’s test

scores.

These findings suggest that classroom interactions may help to explain discrepancies in

attainment across groups. Although many teacher assessments of a child’s ability are based on

test scores and similar ‘objective’ measures, some portion of a child’s grades are based on ‘‘non-

cognitive’’ factors (Farkas et al., 1990). A number of scholars have suggested that these

subjective measures are formed in student–teacher interactions in the classroom. For example,

Lin et al. (2003) indicate that kindergarten teachers find social aspects of learning, such as ‘‘tells

wants and thoughts, . . . not disruptive of the class, . . . follows directions, . . . and takes turns and

shares,’’ (2003, p. 233) at least as important as academic learning. Farkas et al. (1990) find that

differences in grades across race and ethnic lines may be accounted for by teacher perceptions of

students’ ‘‘work habits’’ (p. 140). They write that ‘‘. . . teacher judgments of student non-

cognitive characteristics are powerful determinants of course grades, even when student

cognitive performance is controlled’’ (p. 140)—in short, regardless of student academic ability as

measured by test scores, teacher assessments are influenced by students’ socio-demographic

characteristics. These studies attest to the importance of classroom interactions, and it is in

precisely these kinds of classroom interactions where children can leverage their own cultural

capital. Although we cannot directly evaluate the importance of the operationalization of cultural

capital in the classroom, our findings support this line of reasoning.

This study has several limitations that make broad extrapolation difficult. First, parents are

asked whether the child has ‘‘ever’’ participated in an activity—we cannot differentiate children

who go to scouts every week from those who have only attended once. We also cannot tell if

interactions with pre-kindergarten caregivers may have affected both extracurricular

participation and math and reading skills. For instance, Magnuson and Waldfogel (2005; see

also Magnuson et al., 2006) find that children from different race backgrounds and immigration

backgrounds receive differing types and quality of pre-K instruction and care—a point well-

worth consideration but beyond the scope of this paper. It is possible that children begin to learn

crucial interactional skills at this very early stage. It is also possible that the length of time lived in

the United States or the child’s own immigration status (i.e. born in the US or abroad) may have

an impact. However, given the already small number of immigrants included in this data set,

further subdivision would make at least some cell sizes too small for adequate analysis.

In sum, we show that participation in cultural capital-building activities varies between White

and minority children, and particularly between children of immigrants and children of native-

born parents, even within racial and ethnic groups. Participation in these activities, and especially

in directed activities that involve high levels of interaction with others, has a strong but

inconsistent impact on teacher evaluations of students’ reading skills, and little positive impact on

assessment of math skills (with the exception of other-race children). None of these differences

can be accounted for entirely by household income, parent education, gender, or students’ tested

academic abilities, suggesting that parent’s immigration status is an important factor in children’s

early school trajectories. Moreover, the effect of cultural capital acquisition varies not only by the

type of activity and arena of assessment (math vs. reading), but also varies by race and ethnic


group. Moreover, non-White children sometimes see negative effects from participation. Finally,

Asian and Hispanic children of immigrant mothers see additional effects specific to immigration

status for both math and reading assessments. These are almost entirely negative, and in most

cases they counteract any benefits gained by participation in cultural capital activities. Our

findings thus point to yet another mechanism that accounts for the differential educational

experiences of minority and immigrant students: kindergarten teacher evaluations are affected by

children’s extracurricular activities, in which minority and immigrant students are less likely to

participate.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from Russell Sage Foundation, the Spencer

Foundation, and the National Science Foundation. We also thank Kristin Turney, Elizabeth

Vaquera, and two anonymous Poetics reviewers. Finally, we thank Frances Woo and Melissa

Gradilla for clerical assistance.

References

Alexander, Karl, Entwisle, Doris R., Dauber, Susan L., 1993. First-grade classroom behavior: its short- and long-term

consequences for school performance. Child Development 64 (3), 801–814.

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1978. Sport and social class. Social Science Information 17 (6), 819–840.

Bourdieu, Pierre, Passeron, J.C., 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Sage, London.

Carter, Prudence, 2003. ‘‘Black’’ cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-income African

American youth. Social Problems 50 (1), 136–155.

DiMaggio, Paul, 1982. Cultural capital and school success: the impact of status culture participation on grades of U.S.

high school students. American Sociological Review 47 (2), 189–201.

Dumais, Susan, 2006a. Early childhood cultural capital, parental habitus, and teachers’ perceptions. Poetics 34, 83–107.

Dumais, Susan, 2006b. Elementary school students’ extracurricular activities: the effects of participation on achievement

and teachers’ evaluations. Sociological Spectrum 26, 117–147.

Entwisle, Doris, Alexander, Karl L., 1993. Entry into school: the beginning school transition and educational stratification

in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology 19, 401–423.

Farkas, George, Grobe, Robert P., Sheehan, Daniel, Shuan, Yuan, 1990. Cultural resources and school success: gender,

ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district. American Sociological Review 55 (1), 127–142.

Fuligni, Andrew J., 1997. The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: the roles of family

background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development 68 (2), 351–363.

Gabler, Jay, Kaufman, Jason, 2006. Chess, cheerleading, chopin: what gets you into college? Contexts 5 (2) pp. 45–39.

Glick, Jennifer, Hohmann-Marriott, Bryndl, 2007. Academic performance of young children in immigrant families: the

significance of race, ethnicity, and national origins. International Migration Review 41 (2), 371–402.

Kalmijn, Mattijs, Kraaykamp, Gerbert, 1996. Race, cultural capital, and schooling: an analysis of trends in the United

States. Sociology of Education 69 (1), 22–34.

Kao, Grace, Tienda, Marta, 1995. Optimism and achievement: the educational performance of immigrant youth. Social

Science Quarterly 76, 1–19.

Kao, Grace, Thompson, Jennifer S., 2003. Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment.

Annual Review of Sociology 29, 417–442.

Kaufman, Jason, Gabler, Jay, 2004. Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of girls and boys in the college

attainment process. Poetics 32, 145–168.

Lamont, Michelle, Lareau, Annette, 1988. Cultural capital: allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical

developments. Sociological Theory 6 (2), 153–168.

Lareau, Annette, 2002. Invisible inequalities: social class and childrearing in Black families and White families.

American Sociological Review 67 (5), 747–776.

Lareau, Annette, 2000. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD.


Lareau, Annette, Weininger, Elliot B., 2003. Cultural capital in education research: a critical assessment. Theory and

Society 32, 567–606.

Lin, Huey-Ling, Lawrence, Frank R., Gorrell, Jeffrey, 2003. Kindergarten teachers’ views of children’s readiness for

school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18, 225–237.

Magnusun, Katherine A., Waldfogel, Jane, 2005. Early childhood care and education: effects on ethnic and race gaps in

school readiness. The Future of Children 15 (1), 169–196.

Magnuson, Katherine, Lahaie, Claudia, Waldfogel, Jane, 2006. Preschool and school readiness of children of immigrants.

Social Science Quarterly 87 (s1), 1241–1262.

Morris, Edward, 2005. ‘Tuck in that Shirt!’ Race, class, gender, and discipline in an urban school Sociological

Perspectives 48 (1), 25–48.

O’Hare, W., 2004. Trends in the Well-Being of America’s Children. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.

Paternoster, Raymond, Brame, Robert, Mazerolle, Paul, Piquero, Alexis, 1998. Using the correct statistical test for the

equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36 (4), 859–866.

Perreira, Krista, Harris, Kathleen Mullan, Lee, Dohoon, 2006. Making it in America: high school completion by

immigrant and native youth. Demography 43 (3), 511–536.

Portes, Alejandro, MacLeod, Dac, 1999. Educating the second generation: determinants of academic achievement among

children of immigrants in the United States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 25 (3), 373–396.

Roscigno, Vincent, Ainsworth-Darnell, James W., 1999. Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: persistent

inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education 72 (3), 158–178.

Schellenberg, E. Glenn, 2004. Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science 15 (8), 511–514.

Tourangeau, K., Nord, Christine, Le., Thanh, Pollack, Judith M., Atkins-Burnett, Sally, 2006. Early Childhood Long-

itudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), Combined User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Fifth-Grade

Data Files and Electronic Codebooks (NCES 2006-032). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for

Education Statistics, Washington, DC.

Waters, Mary C., Jimenez, Tomas R., 2005. Assessing immigrant assimilation: new empirical and theoretical challenges.


Warde, Alan, 2006. Cultural capital and the place of sport. Cultural Trends 15 (2/3), 107–122.

Zhou, Min, 1997a. Growing up American: the challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants.


Zhou, Min, 1997b. Segmented assimilation: issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation.

International Migration Review 31 (4), 975–1008 (special issue).

Elizabeth M. Lee is a graduate student at University of Pennsylvania’s department of sociology. Her research focuses

both on early academic outcomes and on college life. Her dissertation is a qualitative study of low- and middle-income

students at elite colleges. She is the recipient of a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

Grace Kao is Professor of Sociology and Education at University of Pennsylvania, where she has taught for 12 years. She

received her Ph.D. from The University of Chicago. Her research focuses on race, ethnic, and immigrant differences in

educational outcomes among youth. In addition, she has examined interracial romance and friendship among youth. She

currently serves on the editorial boards of Social Science Research, Social Psychology Quarterly and Social Science

Quarterly. She is Past Board Member of the Association of Asian American Studies and currently serves as a board

member of the Population Association of America. Her research has been supported by NICHD, The Spencer Foundation

and the Russell Sage Foundation.


Less bang for the buck? Cultural capital and immigrant status effects on kindergarten academic...

Documents

Transcript of Less bang for the buck? Cultural capital and immigrant status effects on kindergarten academic...