Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Latino and Asian American Student Victimization

186

Victimizing the Children of ImmigrantsLatino and Asian American Student Victimization

Anthony A. PegueroMiami University, Oxford, OH

Recent demographic changes have supported the emerging research on one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. population: the children of immi-grants. Because victimization adversely affects youth development, under-standing the victimization of the children of immigrants are of special interest because they are part of this country’s future—its parents, its labor force, and its voters. In addition, segmented assimilation theory guides this study’s examination about the victimization that the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants endure in U.S. public schools. Analyses, which draw from the restricted-use Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002, indeed reveal some important results. For instance, first-generation immigrant students are afraid of the schools they attend. Furthermore, Latino third-plus generation immigrant students have increased risk of victimization by violence at school. This article also discusses the importance of understanding the schooling of the children of immigrants in the U.S. educational system.

Keywords: school; immigration; youth; exposure to violence

The effects of violence, victimization, and fear are incredibly damaging for youth development (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Macmillan,

2001; Macmillan & Hagan, 2004). Because youth have limited mental capacity

Youth & SocietyVolume 41 Number 2

December 2009 186-208© 2009 Sage Publications

10.1177/0044118X09333646http://yas.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Author’s Note: I thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive remarks to develop and strengthen this research article. I express deep gratitude to Vincent J. Roscigno for his encouraging comments throughout this research. I appreciate Eric Stewart’s comments on earlier drafts of this article as well. I am incredibly thankful for the research support and resources offered by the Crime and Justice Summer Institute at the Ohio State University, an extensive and intensive research workshop directed by Lauren J. Krivo and Ruth D. Peterson. I also thank Jennifer M. Bondy for her support associated with this research. Please address correspondence to Anthony A. Peguero, Department of Sociology and Gerontology, 375 Upham Hall, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056; e-mail: [email protected].

Peguero / Victimizing the Children of Immigrants 187

and ability to defend and protect themselves (compared to adults), even minor instances of victimization may result in long-lasting impediments on healthy transitions and development into adulthood (Elias & Zins, 2003; Finkelhor, 1995; Macmillan, 2001; Macmillan & Hagan, 2004). Subsequently, there is much focus and concern about all forms of violence and victimization that occurs in schools because it is an institution of socialization and education (Henry, 2000; Lawrence, 1998; Verdugo, 1999, 2002). Studying the social problem of student victimization is particularly important for a growing immigrant student population due to the current social, economic, and politi-cal debates centered on immigration and immigrants. It is within schools that the children of immigrants learn not only about values, beliefs, and behaviors but also about their social and cultural role in American society (Perreira, Harris, & Lee, 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Thus, it is important to inves-tigate the patterns of student victimization for on one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. school system: the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants.

One fifth of the adolescent population in the United States is represented by Latinos and Asian Americans and that proportion is expected to rise to one third by the year 2050 (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Furthermore, three out of five Latino and four out of five Asian American youth live in families that have at least one parent who is a first-generation immigrant (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel, 2004). As a result, there is a growing body of research that exam-ines the educational and school experiences, health, well-being, and safety of the children of immigrants in the United States. Educational achievement (Hernández & Charney, 1998; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995), attainment (Perreira et al., 2006), and aspirations (Bohon, Kirkpatrick, & Gorman, 2006) indeed vary by immigrant generational status for Latino and Asian American students. However, it remains unclear whether and to what extent the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants are victimized in school.

This study extends the literature on student victimization and the school experiences of the children of immigrants by examining the patterns of victimization for students by immigrant generational status, particularly for Latino and Asian American youth. This study investigates the differences of student victimization between three immigrant generational statuses: (1) the first-generation (foreign-born children with foreign-born parents), (2) the second generation (U.S.-born children with at least one foreign-born parent), and (3) the native born or third or higher generation (U.S.-born

188 Youth & Society

children with U.S.-born parents). This research first presents segmented assimilation theory to frame and understand the experiences of the children of immigrants in U.S. schools. The following is a discussion of the perti-nent research portraying the school experiences of the children of immi-grants. Then, the next section makes use of logistic regression analyses, which employs nationally representative data on students’ educational and school experiences. Finally, the results of this study’s findings and implica-tions about the victimization of Latino and Asian American students and the role of immigrant generational status are discussed.

Literature Review

Segmented Assimilation

Segmented assimilation theory posits that the process of immigrant assimilation results in various social, economical, and educational out-comes (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Rumbaut, 1997; Zhou, 1997). Conventional or straight-line assimilation theorists propose that immigrants are involved in a process that involves assimilating to the dominant host culture and that progressing through the assimilation process typically facilitates upward mobility for immigrants (Gordon, 1964; Lieberson, 1980; Park, 1950). In other words, as immigrants accept and incorporate the behaviors, values, and beliefs of the dominant host society, while leaving their native coun-try’s culture behind, immigrants’ social, economic, and educational mobil-ity will increase as immigrants advance through the assimilation process. Under this conventional paradigm, the assimilation process consists of immigrants learning, incorporating, and practicing the dominant host group’s cultural behaviors in social institutions such as work, communities, and schools. Immigrants who assimilate to the dominant host culture would attain employment, residential, and educational success (Gordon, 1964; Lieberson, 1980; Park, 1950). However, segmented assimilation theorists contend this conceptual approach does not appropriately depict the current processes and experiences of immigrants in the United States.

With a segmented assimilation conceptual framework, the process of assimilating and incorporating the dominant host groups’ culture and norms could result in social, economic, and educational success for immigrants or it could result in marginalization, poverty, and failure (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Rumbaut, 1997; Zhou, 1997). Segmented assimilation theorists propose that the process of assimilation is segmented


into several distinct forms of adaptation: (a) assimilation into the White American middle class, (b) preservation of ethnic cultural traditions and close ethnic ties through social networks in the community also referred to as “ethnic enclaves,” and (c) assimilation into the underclass also referred to as downward assimilation (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Rumbaut, 1997; Zhou, 1997).

The concept of downward assimilation has raised policy, research, and social concerns about the economic, social, and educational experiences of the children of immigrants. Hirschman (1996) argued that due to the dete-rioration of public schools, the rise in drug use and violence, and the adver-sarial culture of many racial and ethnic minority adolescents in schools are exposed to, the opportunities for the children of immigrants to education-ally progress and succeed are incredibly diminished. Indeed, the children of immigrants become more at risk for dropping out (Perreira et al., 2006) and have diminishing educational achievement (Glick & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007) as they advance through the assimilation process.

School and Educational Experiences of the Children of Immigrants

The children of immigrants are marginalized in U.S. schools. Kao and Tienda argued that it is not only the students’ place of birth that is a relevant factor related to their school and educational success but also their parents’ birthplace. There are distinctions between first- and second-generation immigrant students in relationship to their educational and school experi-ences (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Landale, Oropesa, & Llanes, 1998; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001). First-generation immigrant youth are often subjected to negative treatment such as discrimination, ridicule, and harassment from other students, teachers, and school administrators (Olsen, 1988, 2000). Educational optimism declines from first- to third-generation immigrant youth (Kao & Tienda, 1995; Landale et al., 1998). Gebhard (2003) found that first-generation immigrant students are often placed in classes or academic tracks far below the mainstream classes, which in turn hinder their educational advancement and success. Low self-perceptions of academic ability (House, 2001), rejection by peers (French & Conrad, 2001), lack of preparation before entering U.S. schools (Rong & Preissle, 1998), and low expectations and future goals (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001) are all reflective of the detrimental school and educational experiences of immigrant’s children in the U.S. school system.

190 Youth & Society

There is a general societal perception that the educational school system has a long history of racial and ethnic discrimination (Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The race or color status of the majority of contemporary immigrants sets them apart from the conventional historical trend of White European immigrants. For the current wave of immigrants, many of them may never have experienced prejudice associated with a particular skin color or racial type in their country of origin (Portes, 1997; Waters, 1994; Zhou, 1997). The children of immigrants, especially Latinos and Asian Americans (Pang, 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Waters, 1999; Zhou, 1997), have confronted a reality of racial and ethnic marginalization in U.S. schools.

With the growing population of Latinos and Asian Americans in our society, school violence researchers have increased their focus on the unique school violence and victimization experiences of Latino and Asian American students. However, the findings are limited and not always con-sistent. Some findings suggest that Latino students have relatively low risk of victimization at school (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003). Devoe and colleagues report Latino students are more likely to be victimized at school than White American students. Asian American students have low exposure to victimization at school (Devoe et al., 2004; Hanish & Guerra, 2000); however, others have denoted that Asian American students are more likely to be bullied and harassed than Latino students (Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, & Unger, 2004). Due to the current immigration trend within U.S. schools, immigrant gen-erational status may be an important factor to consider in student victimiza-tion research and potentially explain the variation of victimization for Latino and Asian American students across studies.

The Present Study

There are core questions that emerge from the discussion thus far. Are the patterns of student victimization segmented by immigrant generational status? If so, what are the patterns of student victimization for immigrants’ children in our schools, and do they reflect a pattern of downward assimila-tion? In summary, this research examines whether immigrant generational status is associated with the victimization of Latino and Asian American students, particularly for the children of immigrants.


Data and Methods

Sample

Data for this research is drawn from Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002. The data is a longitudinal survey administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the United States Department of Education. Educational Longitudinal Study 2002 (ELS) is “designed to monitor the transition of a national sample of young people as they progress from tenth grade through high school and on to postsecondary education and/or the world of work” (NCES, 2004, p. 7). These data include information about the experiences and backgrounds of students, parents, and teachers, and descriptions of the schools those students attend. The subsample for this analysis included 1,628 Latino, 1,129 Asian American, and 5,626 White American public school students. Some racial and ethnic groups are oversampled in ELS to obtain a sufficient representation for statistical analyses. The sample weights used in my analyses are calculated by NCES to compensate for the sampling design, oversampling, and for nonresponse bias (see NCES, 2004, for further detail). All of the results reported incorporate these sample weights. Data from students who only participated in the abbreviated sur-vey (which did not include parents’ characteristics), multiple responses, and missing data for student victimization are coded as missing and excluded from the analyses. However, a multiple imputation procedure was utilized to handle all other missing data (Allison, 2001), and sampling weights are applied to present findings that are nationally representative.

Variables

Student victimization. Student victimization is operationalized as three distinct types: violence, property crime, and fear. To measure these, stu-dents are asked to specify whether they have been exposed to these forms of victimization while in their school during the first semester or term of the 2001-2002 school year. Victimization by violence is measured by four items: (1) Someone threatened to hurt me at school, (2) Someone hit me, (3) Someone used strong-arm or forceful methods to get money or things from me, and (4) Someone bullied me or picked on me. Property victimiza-tion is measured by two items: (1) I had something stolen from me at school, and (2) Someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings.

192 Youth & Society

Fear is measured by a student self-reporting whether he or she believes the school to be unsafe. The measurements of student victimization are dichot-omized to indicate whether or not the student experienced a form of victim-ization while at school. Descriptions and means for student victimization, as well as other study variables, are reported in Table 1.

Race, ethnicity, and immigrant generational status. There are three racial and ethnic groups considered for this research: Latino, Asian American, and White American. Although ELS survey instrument utilizes the racial and ethnic terms such as Hispanic or Latino/Latina, Asian, and White to classify students’ self-reported racial and ethnic identities, this

Table 1Descriptive Statistics for Latino, Asian American,

and White Public School Students’ Sample

asian Latino american White Total Range M/SD M/SD M/SD M (SD)

Student victimization Violent 0-1 0.37/0.48 0.34/0.47 0.42/0.49 0.41/0.49 Property 0-1 0.42/0.49 0.43/0.49 0.42/0.49 0.43/0.49 Fear 0-1 0.16/0.37 0.13/0.34 0.09/0.29 0.11/0.32Immigrant generational status First generation 0-1 0.28/— 0.46/— 0.02/— 0.13/— Second generation 0-1 0.41/— 0.48/— 0.05/— 0.18/— Third-plus generation 0-1 0.31/— 0.06/— 0.93/— 0.70/—Student characteristics achievement 21.50-79.94 44.73/9.33 51.97/10.26 52.69/9.32 51.01/9.94 Family socioeconomic –2. 1.98 –0.483/0.657 –.049/0.86 0.11/.67 –0.02/0.73 status Female 0-1 0.52/— 0.52/— 0.51/— 0.51/—geographic characteristics Northeast 0-1 0.14/— 0.19/— 0.18/— 0.17/— Midwest 0-1 0.11/— 0.15— 0.32/— .25/— South 0-1 0.32/— 0.19/— 0.37/— 0.33/— West 0-1 0.43/— 0.47— 0.13/— 0.24/— Urban 0-1 0.44— 0.43/— 0.14/— 0.23/— Rural 0-1 0.10/— 0.07/— 0.32/— 0.24/— Suburban 0-1 0.46/— 0.50/— 0.54— 0.53/—N — 1,628 1,129 5,626 8,383


study incorporates distinct terms. This study incorporates the racial and ethnic categories or terms of Latino, Asian American, and White American. It is also acknowledged that the racial and ethnic categories or terms used in this study are contested and debated (see Feagin, 2000; Golash-Boza, 2006; Rodriguez, Guido-DiBrito, Torres, & Talbot, 2000 for further detail). For the purposes of this study, the term Latino encompasses students who identify themselves as Mexican, Cuban, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Central American (Guatemalan, Salvadoran, Nicaraguan, etc.), or South American (Colombian, Argentinean, Peruvian, etc.) origin, decent, ancestry, or culture and who currently reside in the United States; the term Asian American encompasses students who identify themselves as Chinese, Filipino, Philippines, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian (Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai, etc.), South Asian (Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, etc.) origin, decent, ancestry, or culture and who currently reside in the United States; and the term White American encompasses students who identify themselves to be of European origin, decent, ancestry, or culture and who currently reside in the United States.

Immigrant generational status is measured as a set of dummy variables indicating whether the student is a first-, second-, or third-plus generation immigrant (also referred to as U.S. native born). These classifications of immigrant generational status are commonly used in immigration research (Glick & White, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Immigration and birth-place information are acquired from the parents’ survey. As noted earlier, first-generation immigrant students are children who are born outside the United States (or in Puerto Rico), second-generation immigrant students are born in the United States and have at least one parent born outside the United States, and third-plus generation immigrant students are U.S. born with two U.S.-born parents.

Student and geographic characteristics. Previous studies have estab-lished that both student and geographic characteristics associated with student victimization or the school experiences of the children of immi-grants. Student factors such as educational achievement, family socioeco-nomic status (SES), and gender, as well as geographic factors such as region and locale have been found to be linked to student victimization or the school experiences of the children of immigrants (Devoe et al., 2004; Glick & White, 2003; Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, 2002; Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Kozol, 1991; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Stewart, 2003; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995; Welsh, 2001).

194 Youth & Society

A measure of a student’s family SES is included as a means of address-ing the potential confound between that of race and ethnicity. Gender is coded male or female based on the student’s self-report of their biological sex. Male students serve as the reference group. Student achievement is measured using the standardized measure developed by RTI and NCES. ELS included a reading and math composite score based on standardized tests developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The composite score is the average of the math and reading standardized scores restan-dardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10 (see NCES, 2004, for further detail).

School region measures whether schools are located in the West (the refer-ence category), Midwest, Northeast, or South. School locale is measured in three categories: urban, suburban (the reference category), or rural.

Analysis Plan

The analyses proceeded in several steps. Table 1 presents the descrip-tive information for Latino, Asian American, and White American stu-dents separately, as well as for the total student sample. ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests test the statistical mean differences between racial and ethnic groups. Table 2 displays the intergroup logistic regression results of the relationships between student victimization and pertinent factors for Latino, Asian American, and White American students. First, student victimization is regressed on race and ethnicity as well as student and geographic characteristics, in the baseline Model 1 with White American students as the reference group. In Model 2, immigrant genera-tional statuses are added to the analysis. The dummy classifications between race, ethnicity, and immigrant generational are analyzed in Model 2 with White American third-plus generation immigrant students as the reference group. Relative declines or increases across models are displayed at the bottom of each table. Table 3 displays the intergroup logistic regression analyses for each category of student victimization with White American third-plus generation immigrant students as the reference group. To better understand the relationships between student victimization, race, ethnicity, immigrant generational status, and pertinent factors for the children of immigrants, within-group analyses for each category of Latino and Asian American student victimization are pre-sented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, with third-plus generation immi-grant students as the reference group.


Results

Description of Latino, Asian American, and White American Students

Variations between Latino, Asian American, and White American sub-samples are reported in Table 1. There are racial and ethnic differences in

Table 2Logistic Regression Coefficients (Standard Errors) and Odds

Ratio for Student Victimization on Selected Predictors

Model 1 Model 2

B(SE) OR B(SE) OR

Race, ethnicity, and immigrant generational status Latino –.208 (0.061) 0.811*** — — First generation — — –.291 (0.101) 0.747** Second generation — — –.350 (0.085) 0.704*** Third-plus generation — — .063 (0.093) 1.065 asian american –.131 (0.066) 0.877* — — First generation — — –.040 (0.090) 0.960 Second generation — — –.164 (0.092) 0.847* Third-plus generation — — –.546 (0.256) 0.579* White american — — — — First generation — — .214 (0.175) 1.238 Second generation — — .131 (0.119) 1.140Student characteristics achievement –.029 (0.003) 0.971*** –.028 (0.002) 0.971*** Family SeS .053 (0.032) 1.055 .044 (0.032) 1.045 Female –.505 (0.041) 0.603*** –.507 (0.041) 0.601***geographic characteristics Midwest –.018 (0.061) 0.982 –.025 (0.061) 0.974 South –.095 (0.057) 0.908 –.108 (0.057) 0.897* Northeast –.080 (0.065) 0.923 –.085 (0.065) 0.917 Urban –.047 (0.052) 0.953 –.049 (0.053) 0.951 Rural –.053 (0.051) 0.947 –.053 (0.051) 0.947 Log likelihood –9852.64 — –9842.31 —

Note: N = 8,383. The omitted categories are White american (Model 1) or White american third-plus generation immigrant (Model 2), male, Northeast region, and suburban location schools.*p ≤ .05 **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Tab

le 3

Log

isti

c R

egre

ssio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

(S

tan

dar

d E

rror

s) a

nd

Od

ds

Rat

io f

or

Stu

den

t V

icti

miz

atio

n C

ateg

orie

s on

Sel

ecte

d P

red

icto

rs

V

iole

nce

Pro

pert

y C

rim

e F

ear

B

(SE

) O

R

B(S

E)

OR

B

(SE

) O

R

Rac

e, e

thni

city

, and

imm

igra

nt

gen

erat

iona

l sta

tus

L

atin

o

F

irst

gen

erat

ion

–.42

3 (0

.130

) 0.

654*

**

–.35

2 (0

.127

) 0.

703*

* .1

69 (

0.16

3)

1.18

4*

S

econ

d ge

nera

tion

–.

403

(0.1

10)

0.66

8***

–.

212

(0.1

07)

0.80

8*

–.12

1 (0

.155

) 0.

885

Thi

rd-p

lus

gene

rati

on

–.02

4 (0

.117

) 0.

975

.040

(0.

115)

1.

040

.102

(0.

158)

1.

108

a

sian

am

eric

an

Fir

st g

ener

atio

n –.

463

(0.1

27)

0.62

9***

–.

132

(0.1

28)

0.87

5 .1

51 (

0.18

0)

1.16

3*

S

econ

d ge

nera

tion

–.

450

(0.1

30)

0.63

7***

–.

079

(0.1

23)

0.92

3 .3

24 (

0.17

0)

1.38

3*

T

hird

-plu

s ge

nera

tion

–.

837

(0.3

88)

0.43

2*

–.54

2 (0

.371

) 0.

581

–1.3

18 (

0.63

2)

0.26

7*

Whi

te a

mer

ican

F

irst

gen

erat

ion

.284

(0.

228)

1.

328

.083

(0.

226)

1.

086

–.41

1 (0

.400

) 0.

662

Sec

ond

gene

rati

on

.064

(0.

153)

1.

066

.029

(0.

151)

1.

029

.033

(0.

242)

1.

034

Stu

dent

cha

ract

eris

tics

a

chie

vem

ent

–.02

3 (0

.003

) 0.

976*

**

–.01

5 (0

.003

) 0.

984*

**

–.05

5 (0

.004

) 0.

945*

**

Fam

ily

soci

oeco

nom

ic s

tatu

s –.

003

(0.0

42)

0.99

6 .0

18 (

0.04

1)

1.01

9 –.

038

(0.0

67)

0.96

1

Fem

ale

–.55

0 (0

.052

) 0.

576*

**

–.35

6 (0

.051

) 0.

699*

**

–.13

5 (0

.082

) 0.

873

geo

grap

hic

char

acte

rist

ics

M

idw

est

.088

(0.

080)

1.

092

–.09

7 (0

.078

) 0.

907

–.10

6 (0

.123

) 0.

898

S

outh

–.

101

(0.0

75)

0.90

3 –.

079

(0.0

72)

0.92

3 .0

57 (

0.11

1)

1.05

8

Nor

thea

st

.093

(0.

086)

1.

097

–.21

9 (0

.085

) 0.

802*

* –.

096

(0.1

33)

0.90

7

Urb

an

–.13

0 (0

.071

) 0.

877

.044

(0.

068)

1.

045

.122

(0.

101)

1.

131

R

ural

.0

24 (

0.06

3)

1.02

4 –.

034

(0.0

62)

0.96

5 –.

291

(0.1

07)

0.74

7**

L

og li

keli

hood

–5

376.

87

—

–552

5.77

—

–

2737

.75

—

Not

e: N

= 8

,383

. The

om

itte

d ca

tego

ries

are

Whi

te a

mer

ican

thir

d-pl

us g

ener

atio

n im

mig

rant

, mal

e, N

orth

east

reg

ion

and

subu

rban

loca

tion

s.*p

≤ .0

5. *

*p ≤

.01.

***

p ≤

.001

.

196


terms of type of student victimization. About 42% of White American stu-dents report being victimized by violence in comparison to 37% and 34% for Latino and Asian American students, respectively. Again, 16% of Latino students report that their schools are unsafe in comparison to 13% and 9% for Asian American and White American students, respectively. There are immigrant generational status differences between racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, 31% of Latino students are third-plus generation immigrants, compared to Asian American students (6%) and White American students (93%). In addition, the mean family SES for Latino students is 48% below the average of SES for the entire nationally representative sample of family SES. The mean standardized score of achievement for Latino students is 5.27 below the average score for the entire 10th grade in the nationally representative sample. On the other hand, the mean standardized score of achievement for Asian American and White American students are 1.97 and 2.69, respectively, above the average score for the entire 10th grade, nation-ally representative sample. As for geographic characteristics, most Latino and Asian American students attend schools in the West and suburban areas. These aforementioned differences between racial and ethnic groups are sup-ported by ANOVA analyses results and post hoc Bonferroni tests.

Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Intergroup Analyses

Table 2 presents the results from the intergroup logistic regression analysis with the all inclusive measure of student victimization as the dependent variable. As presented in Model 1 of Table 2, while controlling for other variables, race and ethnicity is linked to students’ victimization. Latino and Asian American students are less likely to be victimized in comparison to their White American counterparts. In Model 2 of Table 2, immigrant generational status is added to the analyses. Latino first- and second-generation immigrant students are less likely to be victimized at school in comparison to White American third-plus generation immigrant students. There is no statistical difference between Latino third-plus generation immigrant students’ likelihood of victimization in comparison to their White American counterparts. This finding indicates that Latino third-plus generation immigrant students have similar likelihood of victimization as White American third-plus generation immigrant students. Asian American second- and third-plus generation immigrant students are less likely to be victimized in comparison to White American third-plus generation immi-grant students.

198 Youth & Society

Table 3 displays the results from the intergroup logistic regression analysis with each category of student victimization as the dependent vari-able (White American third-plus generation immigrant students serve as the reference group). Latino first- and second-generation immigrant students are less likely to be a victim of violence or property crime at school in comparison to White American third-plus generation immigrant students. Latino first-generation immigrant students are more likely to report their schools as unsafe in comparison to White American third-plus generation immigrant students. There is no statistical difference between Latino third-plus generation immigrant students’ likelihood of any form of student vic-timization in comparison to their White American counterparts. Asian American first-, second-, and third-plus generation immigrant students are less likely to be victimized by violence at school in comparison to White American third-plus generation immigrant students. Asian American first- and second-generation immigrant students are more afraid at school in comparison to White American third-plus generation immigrant students. On the other hand, Asian American third-plus generation immigrant stu-dents are less likely to believe that their schools as unsafe in comparison to White American third-plus generation immigrant students.

Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Within-Group Analyses

To better examine the relationships linked to the victimization of the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants, within-group analyses results with each category of victimization are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Latino first- and second-generation immigrant students are both less likely to be victim of violence or property crime while at school in comparison to Latino third-plus generation immigrant students. However, Latino first-generation students are more likely report their schools as unsafe in comparison to their Latino third-plus generation immigrant coun-terparts. Asian American first- and second-generation immigrant children are more likely to be exposed to violence and property crime while at school, as well report that their schools as unsafe, than Asian American third-plus generation immigrant students.

Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Student and Geographic Characteristics

For student characteristics, as educational achievement scores increase for Latino students, the likelihood to be a victim of violence at school and

Tab

le 4

Log

isti

c R

egre

ssio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

(S

tan

dar

d E

rror

s) a

nd

Od

ds

Rat

io f

or

Lat

ino

Stu

den

ts’ V

icti

miz

atio

n o

n S

elec

ted

Pre

dic

tors

V

iole

nce

Pro

pert

y C

rim

e F

ear

B

(SE

) O

R

B(S

E)

OR

B

(SE

) O

R

Imm

igra

nt g

ener

atio

nal s

tatu

s

Fir

st g

ener

atio

n

–.34

7 (0

.164

)

0.70

6*

–.38

1 (0

.161

) 0.

682*

* .0

97 (

0.23

7)

1.07

9*

Sec

ond

gene

rati

on

–.36

8 (0

.147

) 0.

691*

* –.

285

(0.1

46)

0.75

1*

–.23

5 (0

.163

) 0.

787

Stu

dent

cha

ract

eris

tics

a

chie

vem

ent

–.01

7 (0

.007

) 0.

982*

* .0

04 (

0.00

6)

1.00

4 –.

053

(0.0

91)

0.94

7***

F

amil

y so

cioe

cono

mic

sta

tus

.102

(0.

100)

1.

108

–.10

4 (0

.099

) 0.

900

–.01

3 (0

.188

) 0.

969

F

emal

e –.

402

(0.1

23)

0.66

8***

–.

399

(0.1

19)

0.67

0***

–.

336

(0.1

09)

0.71

4*g

eogr

aphi

c ch

arac

teri

stic

s

Mid

wes

t .1

31 (

0.20

5)

1.14

0*

–.02

5 (0

.198

) 0.

974

. 095

(0.

242)

1.

125*

S

outh

–.

162

(0.1

45)

0.85

0 –.

227

(0.1

41)

0.79

6*

–.14

2 (0

.214

) 0.

868

N

orth

east

.1

01 (

0.18

9)

1.10

7 –.

243

(0.1

88)

0.78

3*

–.32

3 (0

.265

) 0.

724

U

rban

–.

246

(0.1

28)

0.78

1*

.139

(0.

124)

1.

149

.231

(0.

171)

1.

298*

R

ural

–.

478

(0.2

32)

0.61

9*

–.10

0 (0

.234

) 0.

904

–.53

3 (0

.339

) 0.

588

L

og li

keli

hood

–

945.

06

—

–98

6.92

—

–6

23.0

7 —

Not

e: N

= 1

,628

. The

om

itte

d ca

tego

ries

are

thir

d-pl

us g

ener

atio

n im

mig

rant

, mal

e, N

orth

east

reg

ion,

and

sub

urba

n lo

cati

ons.

*p ≤

.05.

**p

≤ .0

1. *

**p

≤ .0

01.

199

Tab

le 5

Log

isti

c R

egre

ssio

n C

oeff

icie

nts

(S

tan

dar

d E

rror

s) a

nd

Od

ds

Rat

io f

or A

sian

A

mer

ican

Stu

den

ts’ E

xpos

ure

to

Sch

ool V

iole

nce

on

Sel

ecte

d P

red

icto

rs

V

iole

nce

Pro

pert

y C

rim

e F

ear

B

(SE

) O

R

B(S

E)

OR

B

(SE

) O

R

Imm

igra

nt g

ener

atio

nal s

tatu

s

Fir

st g

ener

atio

n .4

77 (

0.12

0)

1.61

1*

.583

(0.

198)

1.

493*

1.

485

(0.6

43)

3.01

9*

Sec

ond

gene

rati

on

.453

(0.

107)

1.

572*

.4

42 (

0.28

5)

1.51

9*

1.53

1 (0

.646

) 3.

377*

*S

tude

nt c

hara

cter

isti

cs

ach

ieve

men

t –.

001

(0.0

09)

0.

999

–.00

4 (0

.009

) 0.

996

–.04

8 (0

.012

) 0.

953*

**

Fam

ily

soci

oeco

nom

ic s

tatu

s –.

178

(0.1

19)

0.83

7**

–.12

6 (0

.115

) 0.

882

.016

(0.

144)

1.

016

F

emal

e –.

850

(0.1

66)

0.41

9***

–.

549

(0.1

65)

0.57

7***

–.

322

(0.2

22)

0.72

4*g

eogr

aphi

c ch

arac

teri

stic

s

Mid

wes

t –.

259

(0.2

65)

0.69

8*

– 0.

709

–.85

1 (0

.368

) 0.

426*

*

Sou

th

–.29

7 (0

.254

) 0.

672

–.10

7 (0

.240

) 0.

898

–.08

6 (0

.310

) 0.

917

N

orth

east

.2

19 (

0.23

9)

1.12

7*

–.42

1 (0

.234

) 0.

656*

–.

862

(0.3

39)

0.42

2**

U

rban

–.

419

(0.2

40)

0.59

3***

–.

245

(0.1

82)

0.78

2*

.214

(0.

253)

1.

239*

R

ural

–.

066

(0.3

67)

0.93

5 –.

633

(0.3

57)

0.30

6*

–1.3

92 (

0.61

1)

0.24

8*

Log

like

liho

od

–63

1.64

—

–

685.

40

—

–3

78.5

0 —

Not

e: N

= 1

,129

. The

om

itte

d ca

tego

ries

are

thir

d-pl

us g

ener

atio

n im

mig

rant

, mal

e, N

orth

east

reg

ion,

and

sub

urba

n lo

cati

ons.

*p ≤

.05.

**p

≤ .0

1. *

**p

≤ .0

01.

200


belief that their schools are unsafe decreases. As educational achievement scores increase for Asian American students, their belief that their schools are unsafe decreases. Latina and Asian American female students are less likely to be victimized in comparison to their male counterparts. Although geographic characteristics are generally not relevant factors for the inter-group analyses of student victimization, it is pertinent for Latino and Asian American students.

Latino students in the Midwest are more likely to be victimized by vio-lence and report their schools as unsafe in comparison to Latino students who attend schools in the West. On the other hand, Asian American stu-dents in the Midwest are less likely to be victimized by violence at school and report their schools as unsafe in comparison to Asian American stu-dents who attend schools in the West. Latino students in the South and Northeast are less likely to be a victim of a property crime while at school than their Latino counterpart in the West. Asian American students in the Northeast are more likely to be victimized by violence, but less likely to be a victim of property crime while at school and less likely to report their schools as unsafe in comparison to Asian American students who attend schools in the West.

Latino students who attend urban and rural schools are less likely to be victimized by violence in comparison to Latino students who attend subur-ban schools. Asian American students who attend urban schools are less likely to be victim of a violence or property crime in comparison to Asian American students who attend suburban schools. Asian American students who attend rural schools are less likely to be victim of a property crime and report their schools as unsafe in comparison to Asian American students who attend suburban schools. Both Latino and Asian American students in urban schools are more likely to report their schools as unsafe in compari-son to their suburban counterparts.

In sum, there are important results related to the victimization of the children of immigrants that need to be highlighted and emphasized. Latino and Asian American students’ victimization patterns are distinct from White American students. Furthermore, immigrant generational status is not a relevant factor toward the likelihood of victimization at school for White American students, whereas it is relevant for Latino and Asian American students. Latino first- and second-generation immigrant students are less likely to be victimized at school, suggesting that Latino third-plus generation immigrant students are more likely to be victimized. It appears that as Latinos move through the assimilation process the likelihood of victimization increases. Within-group analyses reveal that first- and

202 Youth & Society

second-generation Asian American immigrants are more likely to be vic-timized but less likely when compared to White American students. Finally, in general, Latino and Asian American first-generation immigrant students believe the schools they attend are unsafe.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study set out to examine whether immigrant generational status is a relevant factor in the victimization of students. This study finds that the role of immigrant generational status is linked to the victimization of the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants; however, these rela-tionships are quite complex. Segmented assimilation is particularly relevant to this study’s findings by providing insight on the importance of the chil-dren of immigrants’ victimization at school. Immigrant generational status matters toward the victimization of Latino and Asian American students.

Segmented assimilation theorists argue that because economic and social mobility are directly linked to the social, economic, historic, and political context, the assimilation process for some immigrants will result in improved life chances for upward mobility, whereas some others will experience downward social and economic mobility (Alba & Nee, 2003; Portes & Zhou, 1993). Although previous findings suggest that an increas-ing immigrant population is not associated with an increase in community violence and crime (Martinez, Nielsen, & Lee, 2004; Nielsen, Lee, & Martinez, 2005; Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005), few studies have examined the victimization that the immigrants’ children endure within schools. For the children of Latino immigrants, as Latino students move through the assimilation process, they become more likely to be vic-timized. The victimization pattern for the children of Asian American immigrants is distinct. Intergroup analyses demonstrate that Asian American students of all immigrant generational statuses accounted for in this study are less likely to be victimized by violence, although within-group analysis of Asian American children indicates that first- and second-generation chil-dren are more likely to be victimized. However, it is also clear that Latino and Asian American first-generation immigrant students are more likely to afraid while at school.

Schools are an institution of socialization for all students but also one of Americanization for the children of immigrants. School is where the chil-dren of immigrants learn not only about U.S. values, beliefs, and behaviors but also about their social and cultural role in American society (Perreira


et al., 2006; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). In other words, it is within schools that the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants are exposed to mainstream American culture and where they learn and form beliefs about what society and persons outside of their families expect from them. The children of Latino and Asian American immigrants’ educational and social development, progress, and mobility within the American educa-tional system can seriously be impeded by their victimization and fear occurring at school. This study’s research findings of the patterns of victim-ization for the children of immigrants are particularly disconcerting for an already vulnerable and marginalized Latino and Asian American youth and student population.

Although Latino youth represent one of the fastest growing segments in the Unites States, Latino youth are at risk of health and educational margin-alization. Latino adolescents continue to be overrepresented among those at risk for poor behavioral and general physical and mental well-being, par-ticularly third-plus generation immigrant youth (Vega et al., 1998; Vega & Rumbaut, 1991). Furthermore, Latino students have the lowest rates of college enrollment, the highest rates of high school and college attrition, relatively lower achievement scores, educational attainment, and aspirations in comparison to White American students (Davalos, Chavez, & Guardiola, 1999; Kao & Tienda, 1995; Kaufman, Alt, & Chapman 2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995), and Latino students are 3 times more likely to drop out in comparison to White American students (Kaufman et al., 2001). Perreira et al. (2006) revealed that Latino third-plus generation immigrant students are a group with the highest risk of dropping out. In addition, in relationship to the exposure to violence, Morenoff and Astor (2006) reported that as immigrant youth spend more time and longer resi-dence in the United States, they have an increased exposure and involve-ment to crime and violence. For this particular research study, it appears that as the children of Latino immigrants become more likely to be victim-ized at school as they move through the assimilation process or become Americanized.

The stereotype of the “model immigrant” is often assigned to Asian American immigrant children; however, that perception is argued to be detrimental. Although Asian Americans are stereotypically portrayed as academic and economic achievers, Asian Americans often live in poverty, underserved by human services, underpaid, and often subjected to discri-mination and harassment (Segal, 2002). Research findings reveal that there is a low enrollment of Asian American special education students and it may due to teacher expectations and the “model minority syndrome” by

204 Youth & Society

assuming that Asian American students do not need help or assistance (Watanabe, 1998). In addition, Asian American students indicate that they are being “pushed” into particular academic subjects, such as math and science, for them to be accepted by school administrators, faculty, and staff; otherwise, Asian American students are harassed, put down, and discrimi-nated against (Pang, 2006; Tseng, 2006). The feeling of alienation is a common phenomenon for Asian American students (Pang, 2006; Yang, 2004). Steinberg and colleagues (1996) argued that Asian American immi-grant children in the United States are socialized to value dating and friends over academics, which can translate into a decrease in academic achieve-ment. Although first- and second-generation Asian American immigrant children surpass the educational success of White American students, Asian American third-plus generation immigrant students’ drop-out rate is much higher and mirrors that of White Americans (Feliciano, 2001).

Previous findings have indicated that the children of immigrants are particularly vulnerable to detrimental social and economic experiences in the United States (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Hernández & Charney, 1998; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Tellez & Estep, 1997). The relationship between the children of immigrants and their school educational experiences are complex and deserve further attention, especially in the current social and political climate of immigration in the United States. This study reveals that the victimization of the children of Latino and Asian American immigrants is a significant social problem in this country’s public schools. As a result, school administrators, educators, and policy makers should acknowledge students’ immigrant status and act accordingly toward addressing the needs, safety, and care for this vulnerable population.

Future research can address, and build from, the limitations associated with this study. First, examining the longitudinal effects of student victim-ization for the children of immigrants is essential. Second, researching the roles of the family and community characteristics toward understanding the factors linked to the victimization of immigrants’ children should be addressed in future work. To best understand the role of immigration with students’ school experiences, the social, political, and economic environment of immigration, as well as family factors, should be considered (Glick & White, 2003; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Sampson et al., 2005; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995). This study reveals that geogra phic location matters in the victimization of Latino and Asian American students. Furthering the investigation of local and community factors in relation to the impact of immigration-related characteristics on children’s lives and their victimization is essential for a growing immigrant student population.


There is a strong relationship between students feeling safe in their learning environments and educational success (Kozol, 1991; Verdugo, 1999; Verdugo & Schneider, 1999). Latino and Asian American first-generation immigrant youth are attending schools that they believe to be unsafe. Furthermore, Latino third-plus generation immigrant youth and Asian American first- and second-generation immigrant youth are at higher risk of victimization while at school. This study raises important questions about the types of policies and programs that promote safe learning environments to acquire the educational skills necessary to attain economic stability and success during adulthood, particularly for the children of immigrants. When students are victimized at school, it is a clear reflection of that school’s inability to provide a healthy learning environment that facilitates educa-tional progress and success (Kozol, 1991; Verdugo, 1999; Verdugo & Schneider, 1999). This rings especially true for an already marginalized Latino and Asian American student population. Establishing and fostering safe and healthy learning environments for all youth, particularly for the children of immigrants, should remain a priority in a democratic society and a country founded by immigrants.

References

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

Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bohon, S., Kirkpatrick, M. J., & Gorman, B. (2006). College aspirations and expectations

among Latino adolescents in the United States. Social Problems, 53, 207-225.Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J. S. (2004). The health and well-

being of young children of immigrants, Urban Institute. Retrieved February 23, 2009, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311139_ChildrenImmigrants.pdf

Davalos, D. B., Chavez, E. L., & Guardiola, R. J. (1999). The effects of extracurricular activity, ethnic identification, and perception of school on student dropout rates. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 61-77.

DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T., et al. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004 (NCES 2005-002/NCJ 205290). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Elias, M. J., & Zins, J. E. (2003). Bullying, other forms of peer harassment, and victimiza-tion in the schools: Issues for school psychology research and practice. In M. J. Elias & J. E. Zins (Eds.), Bullying, peer harassment, and victimization in the schools (pp. 1-6). New York: The Hawthorne Press.

Feagin, J. (2000). Racist America: Roots, current realities and future reparations. New York: Routledge.

Feliciano, C. (2001). The benefits of biculturalism: Exposure to immigrant culture and dropping out of school among Asian and Latino youths. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 865-879.

206 Youth & Society

Finkelhor, D. (1995). The victimization of children in a developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 177-193.

Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as victims of violence: A national survey. Pediatrics, 4, 413-425.

French, D., & Conrad, J. (2001). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 225-244.

Gebhard, M. (2003). Getting past “see spot run.” Educational Leadership, 60, 35-39.Glick, J., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). Academic performance of young children in immi-

grant families: The significance of race, ethnicity, and national origins. International Migration Review, 41, 371-402.

Glick, J., & White, M. J. (2003). The academic trajectories of immigrant youths: Analysis within and across cohorts. Demography, 40, 759-784.

Golash-Boza, T. (2006). Dropping the hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American through racial-ized assimilation. Social Forces, 85, 29-60.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.Gottfredson, D., & Gottfredson, G. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs:

Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3-39.Hanish, L., & Guerra, N. (2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in predicting chil-

dren’s victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 201-224.Henry, S. (2000). What is school violence? An integrated definition. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 16-30.Hernández, D. J., & Charney, E. (1998). From generation to generation: The health and well-

being of children in immigrant families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Hirschman, C. (1996). Studying immigrant adaptation from the 1990 population census: From

generational comparisons to the process of “Becoming American.” In A. Portes (Ed.), Second generation (pp. 54-81). New York: Russell Sage.

House, D. (2001). The relationship between academic self-concept and school withdrawal. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 125-137.

Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231-1252.

Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 1-19.

Kaufman, P., Alt, M., & Chapman, C. (2001). Dropout rates in the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Crown.Landale, N. S., Oropesa, R. S., & Llanes, D. (1998). Schooling, work, and idleness among

Mexican and Non-Latino white adolescents. Social Science Research, 27, 457-480.Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and

cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37-53.Lawrence, R. (1998). School crime and juvenile justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Black and white immigrants since 1880. Berkeley:

University of California Press.Macmillan, R. (2001). Violence and the life course: Consequences of victimization for personal

and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1-22.Macmillan, R., & Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood: Adolescent

victimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in later life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 127-158.


Martinez, R., Nielsen, A., & Lee, M. (2004). Segmented assimilation, local context and deter-minants of drug violence in Miami and San Diego: Does ethnicity and immigration matter? The International Migration Review, 38, 131-158.

Morenoff, J., & Astor, A. (2006). Immigrant assimilation and crime: Generational differences in youth violence in Chicago. In R. Martinez & A. Valenzuela (Eds.), Immigration and crime: Race, ethnicity and violence (pp. 36-63). New York: New York University Press.

Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39, 315-336.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Educational longitudinal study: 2002 base year data file user’s manual. Washington, DC: Author.

Nielsen, A., Lee, M., & Martinez, R. (2005). Integrating race, place, and motive in social disorganization theory: Lessons from a comparison of black and Latino homicide types in two immigrant destination cities. Criminology, 43, 837-872.

Olsen L. (1988). Crossing the schoolhouse border: Immigrant children in California. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 211-218.

Olsen, L. (2000). Learning English and learning America: Immigrants in the center of a storm. Theory into Practice, 39, 196-202.

Pang, V. (2006). Fighting the marginalization of Asian American students with caring schools: Focusing on curricular change. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 9, 67-83.

Park, R. (1950). Race and culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Perreira, K. M., Harris, K. M., & Lee, D. (2006). Making it in America: High school comple-

tion by immigrant and native youth. Demography, 43, 511-536.Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and opportunities.

International Migration Review, 31, 799-825.Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.

Berkeley: University of California Press.Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its

variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74-91.Rodriguez, A., Guido-DiBrito, F., Torres, V., & Talbot, D. (2000). Latina college students:

Issues and challenges for the 21st century. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 37, 511-527.

Rong, X., & Preissle, J. (1998). Educating immigrant students: What we need to know to meet the challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rumbaut, R. (1997). Ties that bind: Immigration and immigrant families in the United States. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N. S. Landale (Eds.), Immigration and the family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants (pp. 3-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sampson, R., Morenoff, J., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 224-231.

Segal, U. (2002). A framework for immigration: Asians in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Education Review, 67, 1-40.

Steinberg, L., Brown, B. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Stewart, E. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575-613.

Suarez-Orozco C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

208 Youth & Society

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

Tellez, K., & Estep, M. (1997). Latino youth gangs and the meaning of school. The High School Journal, 81, 69-82.

Tseng, V. (2006). Unpacking immigration in youths’ academic and occupational pathways. Child Development, 77, 1434-1445.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Current population survey. Washington, DC: Author.Vega, W., Kolody, B., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., Alderate, E., Catalano, R., & Carveo-Anduaga, J.

(1998). Lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders among urban and rural Mexican Americans in California. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 771-778.

Vega, W., & Rumbaut, R. (1991). Ethnic minorities and mental health. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 351-383.

Verdugo, R. (1999). Safe schools: Theory, data, and practices. Education and Urban Society, 31, 267-276.

Verdugo, R. (2002). Race-ethnicity, social class, and zero-tolerance policies: The cultural and structural wars. Education and Urban Society, 35, 50-76.

Verdugo, R., & Schneider, J. (1999). Quality schools, safe schools: A theoretical and empirical discussion. Education and Urban Society, 31, 286-308.

Watanabe, A. (1998). Asian American and Pacific Islander American families with disabilities. In V. O. Pang & L. Cheng (Eds.), Struggling to be heard: The unmet needs of Asian Pacific American children (pp. 151-163). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Waters, M. (1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation black immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review, 28, 795-820.

Waters, M. (1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. New York: Russell Sage.

Welsh, W. (2001). Effects of student and school factors on five measures of school disorder. Justice Quarterly, 18, 911-948.

Yang, K. (2004). Southeast Asian American children: Not the “model minority.” The Future of Children, 14, 127-133.

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

Anthony A. Peguero is an assistant professor of sociology at Miami University. His research interests are in the areas of youth exposure to violence and victimization, the educational and school experiences of the children of immigrants, and the inequalities evident within schools

Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Latino and Asian American Student Victimization

Documents

Transcript of Victimizing the Children of Immigrants: Latino and Asian American Student Victimization