13© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 L.J. Crockett, G. Carlo (eds.), Rural Ethnic Minority Youth and Families in the United States, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20976-0_2

Chapter 2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptual Challenges, and Future Directions

Katherine Jewsbury Conger , Ben T. Reeb , and Sut Yee Shirley Chan

These two quotations exemplify just one of the challenges of studying racial–ethnic minority (REM) youth in rural America. Not only are the youth themselves quite diverse, but the settings they and their families inhabit are diverse as well. That diversity includes the historical, cultural, economic, and social conditions of the rural settings, as well as the family history and racial, ethnic, and cultural heritage of each child. Our goal is to describe how social scientists go about making sense of the dynamic interplay between the multiple environments and complex life

K. J. Conger (*) • B. T. Reeb Department of Human Ecology, Family Research Group , University of California , Davis , CA , USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

S. Y. S. Chan Department of Psychology , Asian American Center on Disparities Research, University of California , Davis , CA , USA e-mail: [email protected]

“Rural and urban taxonomies, researchers, policy analysts, and legislation generally view all rural areas as uniform in character. However, there are, in fact, huge variations in the demography, economics, culture, and environmental characteristics of different rural places.” Hart, Larson, and Lishner ( 2005 , p. 1149) “Of the 353 most persistently poor counties in the United States—defi ned by Washington as having had a poverty rate above 20 percent in each of the past three decades—85 percent are rural. They are clustered in distinct regions: Indian reservations in the West; Hispanic communities in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a band across the Deep South and along the Mississippi Delta with a majority black population; and Appalachia, largely white, which has supplied some of America’s iconic imagery of rural poverty since the Depression- era photos of Walker Evans.”

Gabriel ( 2014 )

14

experiences that shape the individual development and well-being of REM children and adolescents, and their families, living in rural America today. We start by outlin- ing the changes taking place in rural America and describing the complex and mul- tidimensional concept of rurality. Next, we propose a conceptual model, which brings together two parallel streams of research that have been developing over the past 2–3 decades. The fi rst represents the research being conducted by rural sociolo- gists, economists, and demographers who address the complex changes happening across rural regions of the United States, and the second represents the increasing awareness of the myriad issues that need to be addressed in furthering our under- standing of the development of REM youth.

A Changing Rural America

Depending on what part of the country you are in, when you hear the word “rural,” it can conjure images of small towns set in rolling fi elds of corn in the Midwest, farms dotting the landscape in the Deep South, two-lane roads leading to isolated ranches, or the vast irrigated fi elds in the West. However, “rural” has come to repre- sent a wide range of individuals and families as well, from Latino migrants working in meatpacking plants in the Midwest to African American farmers in the “Southern Black Belt” (Wimberley & Morris, 1997 ) to miners in small towns in the valleys of West Virginia.

Sociodemographic Changes The story of rural America at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century can be summarized with one word: change (as long-time inhab- itants cope with larger farms but fewer farmers, the loss of well-paying manufactur- ing jobs in exchange for lower-paying positions in agricultural and food processing, a widespread shift from full- to part-time employment, and signifi cant declines in mining and timberwork as businesses lose ground or close completely) (McCrate, 2011 ). Over the past three plus decades, social scientists have documented a chang- ing economy characterized by diminishing employment opportunities and the out- migration of young, college-educated workers, or “brain drain,” from many of the nation’s rural regions (see Carr & Kefalas, 2009 ). However, in other places, change may have a more positive connotation as retirees move into slower-paced rural areas, bringing with them an infusion of economic resources and an increased demand for goods and services (Hamilton, Hamilton, Duncan, & Colocousis, 2008 ).

Historically, rural America (outside of the South and the Southwest) has repre- sented a racially and ethnically homogeneous segment of our nation, inhabited almost exclusively by white people. However, along with the economic shifts in recent decades are the changing faces encountered on the Main Streets of small town rural America, with many more faces of color (i.e., brown, black, and tan faces) in some regions, such as the Midwest, than in the past (Brown & Schafft, 2011 ). These sociodemographic changes vary dramatically by region of the country. Some rural areas have become destination communities for ethnic minority workers

K.J. Conger et al.

15

and their families by providing fi nancial opportunity and steady jobs; other areas have populations that are older and whiter, have fewer jobs, and are in decline. Many more diverse rural areas are also stagnating, with many residents living at or below the poverty line (see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Lichter & Graefe, 2011 ; Sherman, 2009 ).

Poverty is often quite high in rural settings (see Duncan, 1999 ; Gabriel, 2014 ; Lyson & Falk, 1993 ), but is also highly variable depending on the decline or growth of jobs in an area. In keeping with the focus on diversity, Lichter and Brown ( 2011 ) identifi ed “10 common conceptions of rural America that refl ect both its social and economic diversity and changing spatial and social boundaries” (p. 37). The ten conceptions include factors such as economic issues, cultural issues, and mobility issues and range from “rural areas as cultural touchstone (the idyllic repository of American values)” to “rural America as food basket”; they also include “rural America as dumping ground” (areas seen fi t to house prisons, slaughterhouses, feedlots, landfi lls, and hazardous and toxic waste sites). Indeed, in many regions, rural America has “become a dumping ground for urban America” (Lichter & Brown, 2011 , p. 18).

Defi ning Rural America

One might think that defi ning rural is quite straightforward; indeed, agencies of the local, state, and federal government often use a rural/non-rural designation in deter- mining how money and resources are allocated (see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Hart et al., 2005 ). Despite the popular portrayal of rural and non-rural as a simple categorical, often dichotomous, variable, the concepts associ- ated with this distinction are much more complex and multifaceted (e.g., Crockett, Shanahan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2000 ). Moreover, understanding the complex nature and type of a rural setting has important implications for both adult and youth choices and opportunities (Hamilton et al., 2008 ).

One of the biggest challenges in conceptualizing rural America is that the con- cept of rurality is not easily or consistently defi ned by any governmental or research entity and is often viewed only as those areas of the country that are not urban (for detailed discussion, see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ). “Rural” is variously defi ned as the number of people per square mile, by a region’s location relative to a larger popula- tion center or by distance to services such as health care and grocery stores (Hart et al., 2005 ). Indeed, even within the US government, there is little agreement on the defi nition of “rural”; the USDA, the US Census, and the Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) do not agree on what constitutes rural/urban/suburban or metropoli- tan/nonmetropolitan (see Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Hart et al., 2005 ). Often, when two categories are used, the variability within both urban and rural areas is drasti- cally underestimated: “Depending on how categories are combined, the rural popu- lation can vary from 10 % to 28 % of the nation’s total (i.e., a population of 29–79 million)” (Hart et al., 2005 , p. 1150).

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

16

While most common defi nitions of “rural” use population size and density along with other factors such as commute distances to major cities, there are many other aspects of rurality such as access to education, jobs, health care, and social services. In addition, social scientists and policy makers need to consider a variety of charac- teristics, such as economics, culture, demographics, and physical features of the environment, that help defi ne specifi c types of rural settings and, in turn, help us make important distinctions within the broad term of “rural.” These distinctions are important for researchers attempting to understand the effect of context or place on youth, in particular, REM youth. Hart et al. ( 2005 ), who looked at defi nitions in relation to health research and policy, even suggest that researchers need to use specifi c defi nitions depending on the research or policy questions: “Careful atten- tion to the defi nition of ‘rural’ is required for effectively targeting policy and research aimed at improving the health of rural Americans” (p. 1149).

The Four Rural Setting Types Hamilton et al. ( 2008 ) suggest that a more inclu- sive defi nition provides a better way of thinking about and classifying rural areas in the United States. Using an extensive survey of different regions in the United States, they found that rural areas were diverse and complex and that this diversity could be better represented by typologies that incorporated economic, political, and environmental changes, in conjunction with the diversity of inhabitants. In other words, the defi nition was neither simple nor one dimensional! Through interviews conducted with 7842 rural residents in nine states, Hamilton et al. ( 2008 ) identifi ed four types of rural settings which incorporate economic, demographic, community, and environmental factors. In addition, they addressed the key issue of how resi- dents saw the future of their rural region. The four types that emerged are as follows: (1) amenity-rich rural America (such as the rural Colorado Rocky Mountain region where population grew 71 % between 1990 and 2005 and poverty was low [10 %]), (2) declining resource-dependent rural America (such as rural Kansas where the population has continued to drop, especially among young adults aged 25–34), (3) chronically poor rural America (such as Appalachia, Mississippi, and Alabama, which saw a large out-migration of young adults and has an average poverty rate of 26 %), and (4) amenity/decline rural America (represented by the Pacifi c Northwest and the Northeast—regions with natural amenities but declining economies).

We believe the four categories developed by Hamilton et al. ( 2008 ) may prove to be a useful tool in capturing the evolving sociodemographic complexity of rural regions of contemporary America and attempting to advance our understanding of the lives of REM youth in rural places. Understanding these issues is crucial if we, as developmental researchers, are to address some of the unique challenges of (a) conducting research on REM youth in rural settings, (b) identifying and accessing representative samples, and (c) producing comparable results from studies across different regions of the country. In addition to the inherent diffi culties of adequately defi ning rural places, there are specifi c challenges regarding the multiple theoretical perspectives and concepts such as generational status, culture, language use, and ethnic identity that must be considered when designing and implementing research on REM youth in rural America; the next section addresses these issues.

K.J. Conger et al.

17

Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Challenges

The second stream of research used to inform this chapter draws from a wide array of theoretical perspectives and concepts used to examine youth development, social processes, and contexts in disciplines such as sociology, economics, psychology, demography, ethnic studies, political science, anthropology, and human develop- ment. For this section, we reviewed over 200 articles, chapters, and books focused on ethnic minority youth and families (e.g., Gershoff, Mistry, & Crosby, 2014 ; Parke, 2013 ; Quintana et al., 2006 ). Our review demonstrates that in order to address the complexity of studying REM youth in today’s society, researchers, educators, and policy makers need to take into account family history, culture, interpersonal processes, and social contexts while remaining mindful that all of these elements may change over time. Many researchers have addressed this complexity by using an ecological approach that considers the processes and conditions that govern the course of human development across the life span (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006 ; Marks, Godoy, & Garcia Coll, 2014 ; Rosa & Tudge, 2013 ).

Before turning to the theoretical perspectives that inform our conceptual model, we address some of the concepts and issues that we have found repeatedly in the literature and that are central to any examination of REM child and adolescent development (hereafter referred to as REM youth development) in rural places; we start by considering the issue of race and ethnicity.

Studying Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth: Why Race and Ethnicity Matter

“The distinction between racial and ethnic criteria of group membership, although analyti- cally important, should not be understood to mean that the groups to which they refer are mutually exclusive. . . . Nonetheless, phenotypical differences (that is, anatomical features such as skin color and body and facial shape) between groups have been far more salient in the United States as an organizing principle in social relations than cultural ones, and groups socially defi ned as racial ethnics [sic] have historically been at a considerable disad- vantage in their treatment in American society (Leiberson and Waters 1988; Omni and Winant 1986). Moreover, family life has been profoundly affected by the experience of and response to such structured disadvantage.”

Taylor ( 2002 , p. 3)

In order to conduct reliable and valid research on REM youth in America, researchers need to consider a variety of factors that defi ne and affect their research population. To begin, researchers should be aware that a simple designation of REM group status is never truly simple. Clear defi nitions of each component—race, ethnicity, and minority—need to be discussed, defi ned, and agreed upon by researchers from multiple disciplines interested in understanding the factors that affect REM youth in America and how REM youth affect those factors in return. We do not attempt a comprehensive review here of the literature on these three

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

18

factors; however, we briefl y discuss why it is crucial for researchers to develop a common or shared understanding about the key defi nitions in order to create results that may be compared across studies and disciplines and over time.

Researchers working in this area need an understanding of the differences and similarities that exist among ethnic minority groups and across heterogeneous racial groups, as well as the need for REM youth to be studied in their own right and not always in comparison to majority youth (for a detailed discussion, see Fuller & García Coll, 2010 ). In most studies that include race as a factor, the majority group (i.e., White American) is often used as the reference group for minority group com- parisons; this is a problematic method because it obscures the incredible diversity between ethnic groups that, for the purposes of the study, have been aggregated into racial group categories. In particular, researchers (and reviewers) need to acknowl- edge that truly representative research is challenging due to the vast number of ethnic minority groups in the United States as well as the potential intragroup dif- ferences within any ethnic minority group designation, which are often left unex- plored (see García Coll et al., 1996 ). For example, it is estimated that, in 2014, there are about 54 million Hispanic/Latino individuals in the United States; for ease of reading, the term Latino will be used throughout for individuals of Spanish cultural heritage (Carlo, 2014 ). Of those 54 million, Mexican origin individuals comprised 34 million (66.6 %) of the total. The next largest group at 5 million (9.3 %) were of Puerto Rican origin; the remaining 25 % comprised 21 different groups (Brown, 2014 ). This illustrates the potential for fi nding signifi cant intragroup differences within the fastest-growing ethnic minority group in the United States, namely, Latinos. Similar diversity is seen within the Asian American population; they make up about 5 % of the US population and are comprised of more than 14 different REM groups such as Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Cambodian, Asian Indian, and Korean (Le, 2014 ). Over half of the Asian American population lives in metropoli- tan areas, but some groups with agricultural roots (such as Cambodians and Hmong) may be more likely to live in rural areas. There are also strong historical ties to the land among African Americans in the South and Latinos in the Southwest; these ties underlie some of the continuing involvement in agriculture and food production among these groups in rural America (Irwin & O’Brien, 1998 ; Mohl, 2003 ). Thus, identifying the heterogeneity of ethnic minority children and families is a complex undertaking and may present particular challenges for researchers interested in REM youth in rural settings (see Brown & Swanson, 2003 ). For example, some REM youth and families may be reluctant to disclose ethnic group membership in fear of consequences related to immigration status. Researchers will need to carefully defi ne their sampling frame and obtain unambiguous information from study participants as to their ethnic identity in order to interpret their results with confi dence and clarity (see methodology discussion by Quintana et al., 2006 ).

Furthermore, researchers are starting to acknowledge that studying REM youth in America, regardless of context, requires that we explicitly acknowledge and thoughtfully measure race or racial identity. Although most acknowledge that racial group membership does not have a solid basis in biology or genetics (see American Sociological Association, 2003 ; Smedley & Smedley, 2005 ), Taylor ( 2002 ) and

K.J. Conger et al.

19

many others (e.g., Arroyo & Zigler, 1995 ; Brody et al., 2006 ; Sellers & Shelton, 2003 ) conclude that racial group membership (categorizing individuals by physical characteristics, especially skin color) has infl uenced social relations and economic opportunities for youth and families throughout the history of the United States. Simply put, race is a social and cultural address which affects the attitudes, expecta- tions, and experiences of minority and majority youth alike, and concepts such as racial identity, racial privilege, and racial discrimination must be considered in order to understand the ongoing dynamics and consequences of race and racial identity for youth development (e.g., Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006 ; Crocker, Blaine, & Luhtanen, 1993 ; Pahl & Way, 2006 ). Indeed, an examination of news stories in 2014 reveals the ongoing issue of black, brown, and white relations in the United States. Examples include (1) the racial animus toward Barack Obama, the fi rst black President of the United States (see Segura & Valenzuela, 2010 ), (2) the public reactions to and media coverage of the death of young black youth at the hands of white police offi cers (such as the 2014 case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri), and (3) ongoing efforts to disenfranchise African Americans and Latinos (i.e., people of color) from participation in the political process (e.g., Cobb et al., 2012 ).

“Though slavery ended nearly 150 years ago, young black men have been treated as second- class citizens by politicians and police ever since. You would think the election and re- election of our fi rst black president would’ve signifi ed that the United States has defeated racism and prejudice. On the contrary, President Barack Obama’s election has brought rac- ism to the forefront, as many refuse to acknowledge, respect or work with him as com- mander in chief, as if a black man couldn’t possibly be worthy to lead our nation.” (Sistrunk, August 30, 2014 )

Given the racialization of many ethnic minorities in the United States, research- ers will want to design studies to obtain both the ethnic identity and racial identity of study participants and their family members; this information will assist in the investigation of issues such as racial discrimination and economic stratifi cation (Dressler, Oths, & Gravlee, 2005 ). This approach is in keeping with the policies and practices of the US government which added and allowed respondents to identify membership in multiple racial and ethnic identity categories, including mixed race, on the US Census in the year 2000. The same approach is explicitly acknowledged by many researchers who have worked to include these considerations in their research (see Quintana et al., 2006 ; Weisner & Duncan, 2014 for detailed discus- sions). By disentangling ethnic identity and racial identity, researchers will be in a better situation to advance the understanding of the etiology of health disparities among diverse populations.

Finally, researchers need to convey a clear message regarding the use of the term “minority .” Often confused with a numerical count, the terms minority and major- ity, as used by social scientists in studies of youth and families in the United States, refer to status based on the relative access to power, prestige, and resources within society. Minority status , or social standing , is also used within social stratifi cation theory to represent the experiences of less privileged groups relative to more privi- leged groups (for a discussion, see García Coll et al., 1996 ). Baca Zinn ( 1983 ) states

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

20

that, “Racial–ethnic families are distinctive not only because of their ethnic heritage but also because they reside in a society where racial stratifi cation shapes family resources and structures in important ways” (p. 20). Thus, there needs to be a clear understanding that minority youth and families have had a long history of discrimi- nation and unequal status in the United States (e.g., Harris & Worthen, 2003 ; Taylor, 2002 ), and social scientists need to address this fact in studies of REM youth and families. Furthermore, social scientists also need to keep in mind that “minority” status is not necessarily static but may shift as some racial–ethnic groups obtain more power, prestige, and resources and that this may change perceptions of and expectations for members of particular groups. For example, the “model minority” designation of Asian American (such as Japanese, Chinese, and Asian Indian) stu- dents’ educational achievements puts pressure on all students identifi ed as members of this group (e.g., Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) even though the histories and experiences of various Asian American groups may vary widely (e.g., Chao, 2001 ; Chao & Tseng, 2002 ; Chou & Feagin, 2008 ; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006 ).

Theoretical Perspectives

In preparing this chapter, we consulted a number of theoretical perspectives that have been used to study family processes and individual development in context, with a specifi c focus on research on REM youth and families. Based on our review of the literature and relevant theoretical frameworks, we propose a conceptual model that represents the reciprocal nature of the transactions between individuals and the multiple contextual elements and environments in which they are embedded over the life course. Individual characteristics, social and family processes, and con- texts are represented not in a linear, time-ordered fashion, or causal model, but in a continuous feedback loop that illustrates the interconnected nature of—and dynamic interaction between—individuals and contexts. Figure 2.1 presents the overarching conceptual model of REM Youth in Context (REMYC) , and Table 2.1 presents specifi c variables and concepts relevant to understanding REM youth in rural American today. As shown in Fig. 2.1 , the four principal constructs in the REMYC model are (1) racial–ethnic minority status (i.e., youth characteristics, experiences, and social location), (2) economic and social contexts (i.e., ecological micro-/ meso-/macro-contexts of youth and family including the specifi c rural settings as discussed in this chapter), (3) transactional relations of youth (i.e., interpersonal relations over the life course), and (4) youth development (i.e., individual develop- mental outcomes).

Building a theoretical foundation and related set of constructs that will enable researchers to conduct basic and applied research on the linkages between youth, important individuals in their lives, and economic and social conditions will further the understanding of REM youth development and factors associated with better or worse outcomes. Quintana et al. ( 2006 ) stated the issue concisely, “The need for a

K.J. Conger et al.

21

• Interpersonal Relations Over the Life Course

• Individual Developmental Outcomes

• Micro to Macro Contexts of Youth and Family

• Youth Characteristics, Experiences & Social Location

Racial Ethnic Minority

Status

Economic & Social

Contexts

Transactional Relations & Processes

Youth Development

Fig. 2.1 Racial–ethnic minority youth development in context (REMYC) conceptual model. See Table 2.1 for a detailed list of concepts based on existing research and recommendations for future directions

Table 2.1 Concepts related to the racial–ethnic minority youth in context (REMYC) model

Concept Indicators

Youth characteristics, experiences, and social location Racial–ethnic minority group membership

Race; ethnicity; minority status; legal status of youth; legal status of parents; siblings; and extended family members

Personality Personality and temperament of youth Generational status Generational status of youth and parents Family structure Household composition; presence of extended family members Racial–ethnic identity Racial–ethnic identity formation in youth; negative

stereotypes; salience of identity Bicultural identity Bicultural identity formation; acculturation; enculturation;

assimilation; marginalization Language profi ciency and preference

English profi ciency; bilingual capability; preferred language; language barriers in parent–child communications; language spoken at home

Cultural considerations Importance of family, respeto , collectivistic orientation, fi lial piety

Experiences of discrimination Racial–ethnic discrimination experienced by youth and parents; racial–ethnic socialization practices

Family socioeconomic status Family income; family assets; parent education and occupation status

(continued)

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

22

Table 2.1 (continued)

Concept Indicators

Migration history Timing of arrival in current rural location Economic and social contexts Rural setting type Amenity rich; declining resource dependent; chronically poor;

amenity poor Rural/urban classifi cation US Census classifi cation Locality concerns Local economy; political climate Racial history in regional area Historical patterns of race relations in regional area;

neighborhood violence; racial segregation; racial–ethnic composition

Education system Type of school system (public or private); quality of education; funding structure of educational institutions; racial–ethnic composition of students

Religion Churches; relief programs run by religious organizations Social services/community resources

Access to community resources; availability of social services; language assistance in accessing services

Family economic status Parent employment history; employment opportunities; migration patterns based on employment (voluntary or involuntary); support and resources shared with extended family members

Family health care Access to health care; service utilization Cultural considerations Institutional racial–ethnic discrimination; historical patterns of

migration in regional area Transactional relations and processes Socialization agents during childhood and adolescence

Parents; siblings; extended family; mentors

Interactions with parents and siblings

Parent–child interactional processes; siblings interactional processes; quality of parents’ mental and physical health

Interaction outside of family Peers/schoolmates; teachers; coaches; authority fi gures including religious leaders, police, community leaders; parent–teacher interactions

Role of youth in family Youth as caregiver to siblings or other family members Cultural considerations Parent–child racial–ethnic socialization; parent–child emotion

socialization; youth and parents’ cultural attitudes and beliefs; youth as cultural broker and interpreter for siblings and parents; racial–ethnic and cultural expectations of normative development

Individual developmental outcomes Self-concept and self-schema Individualistic vs. collective; racial identity; ethnic identity Emotion and motivation Self-regulation and control; social–emotional development Personality Psychological mastery; problem-solving skills; locus of

control Physical health Physical health status; cognitive development; risky behaviors Mental health Psychological well-being; cultural adaptation Educational outcomes Academic motivation, achievement, and attainment

K.J. Conger et al.

23

stronger theoretical foundation seems particularly acute for investigations of com- plex interactions involving context and development. . . . we need to have a theory of context that predicts the ways development is infl uenced by contextual factor.” (p. 1138). A relevant and comprehensive theoretical framework also needs to acknowledge the ongoing changes of the contextual factors themselves, such as the changing demographics and rural economy discussed previously. The following sections focus on the individual characteristics, family processes, and other social and community contexts relevant to understanding the complex processes infl uenc- ing REM youth development.

Social and Economic Contexts

One theoretical framework frequently used in research on REM youth is the eco- logical approach to studying development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006 ; Marks et al., 2014 ). Consistent with Quintana et al. ( 2006 ), we believe that under- standing REM development requires identifying and examining the transactional nature of associations between context and development over time. Toward that end, we propose that the interconnectedness of individuals proposed by ecological systems theory could be complemented by incorporating theoretical linkages between economic factors, family relations, and youth outcomes presented in the Family Stress Model (FSM) (Conger et al., 2012 ; Conger & Conger, 2002 ). Specifi cally, the FSM has identifi ed economic hardship (e.g., can’t make ends meet, work instability) and low income as salient markers of stress that impact marital, sibling, and parent–child relationships, which, in turn, affect the health and well- being of youth and their families.

In addition to the FSM, we utilize ideas from family systems (Cox & Paley, 1997 ), social stratifi cation (see García Coll et al., 1996 ), cumulative stress (Vernon- Feagans & Cox, 2013 ), stage–environment fi t (Eccles et al., 1993 ), and transac- tional systems theory (Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003 ). In addition, we draw from the interactionist model (Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ) which incorporates the dynamic relationship between social causation (the role of environmental condi- tions in predicting parental behaviors and child outcomes) and social selection (the notion that individual characteristics affect both parental behaviors and youth outcomes) as explanations for developmental processes and outcomes over time. Also included are the midrange theories designed to study specifi c aspects of the REM experience such as biculturalism (e.g., LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993 ; Whitesell, Mitchell, Kaufman, Spicer, & The Voices of Indian Teens Project, 2006 ), racial–ethnic identity (e.g., Fuligni, Witkow, & Garcia, 2005 ; Quintana et al., 2006 ), and acculturation and adaptation (e.g., Berry, 2003 ). Taken together, these theoretical approaches provide a framework for a comprehensive understanding of the social and cultural processes that link these youth and families to one another and to their economic and social contexts.

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

24

Poverty and Economic Hardship

Socioeconomic status (SES) , economic stress, and poverty are important factors to consider in research on families living in rural regions of America (Conger, 2011 ). In general, rural children are more likely to live in poverty than their urban counter- parts, and this is especially true for REM rural youth (e.g., Bauer et al., 2012 ; Conger et al., 2002 ; Duncan, 1999 ; Lee, 2011 ; Walker & Reschke, 2004 ). The use of large-scale surveys and aggregate data is very useful in quantifying the nature and scale of the socioeconomic problems faced by many rural families. However, the experience of poverty by children and their families is complex and multidimen- sional. A special issue of Children and Society (Crivello, Camfi eld, & Porter, 2010 ) focused on “the daily lives of individual children experiencing economic and other forms of disadvantage, within the context of resource-poor families, communities and countries…” (p. 256). Perspectives from multiple social science disciplines including sociology, human development, psychology, and economics all contribute to the understanding of the social–emotional, physical, and psychological conse- quences of living with poverty and help us better identify possible causal linkages and points of intervention for researchers, program providers, and policy makers (e.g., Conger et al., 2012 ; Spicer & Sarche, 2012 ; Vernon-Feagans, Garrett-Peters, Marco, & Bratsch-Hines, 2012 ).

Indeed, the literature consistently fi nds that living in poverty and economic hard- ship can have immediate as well as long-term effects on the individual health and well-being of children and adults (e.g., Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997 ; Conger et al., 2012 ; Donnellan, Conger, McAdams, & Neppl, 2009 ; Maholmes, 2012 ). For example, there is evidence that poverty or economic disadvantage can disrupt par- ent–child interactions and family relationships, which, in turn, impact both child and adult development (e.g., Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ; Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010 ; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007 ; Martin et al., 2010 ; McLoyd, 1990 ). Moreover, fi ndings from research on child and adolescent mental and physical health demonstrate clear connections between (1) poverty and mental health (e.g., Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2004 ; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2001 ; McLeod & Shanahan, 1996 ), (2) SES and cognitive development (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2004 ; Burnett & Farkas, 2009 , Hoff, 2003 ), and (3) social class position and physical health and well-being (e.g., Evans & English, 2002 ; Mistry, Vandewater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002 ; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002 ).

While it is important to consider the SES of a family on its own and in compari- son to other REM groups, to fully understand the impact of income and social sta- tus, SES must also be considered relative to where a family resides within the social structure of a community and within a region of the country. For example, youth growing up in a rural region that is declining will have fewer opportunities than youth living in a region that is resource rich and growing (see Hamilton et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, residential and social class locations (i.e., social address) may be experienced quite differently by members of different racial–ethnic groups; there- fore the social address of REM youth must be carefully defi ned and validated.

K.J. Conger et al.

25

For example, Whitesell et al. ( 2006 ) make the case that measures of income and education used in most studies to establish a family’s social and/or economic stand- ing may not be a useful measure when evaluating the standing of American Indian families: “We did not include traditional measures of SES in this study; these mea- sures have a somewhat different meaning in the reservation context and generally demonstrate little variance” (p. 1490). In addition, Spicer and Sarche ( 2012 ) discuss the disparate distribution of revenues from gaming , which has largely impacted only a few tribes; “the majority of tribes do not benefi t in signifi cant ways from these opportunities” (p. 481). Furthermore, researchers need to keep in mind whether a rural area is growing or declining, as this typically affects adult employment oppor- tunities that, in turn, infl uence parents’ abilities to pay for fees, equipment, and transportation necessary for youth to engage in school and community activities; a hidden opportunity cost of poverty (Conger et al., 2012 ; Lichter & Graefe, 2011 ).

Contextual factors also include a consideration of work opportunities, housing discrimination, and spatial history (i.e., residential patterns) which vary widely across regions of the country such as the Black Belt in the South, mining towns in Appalachia, Latino farmworkers in the Midwest and West, and tribal reservations for American Indians (e.g., Harris & Worthen, 2003 ; Saenz & Torres, 2003 ; Spicer & Sarche, 2012 ). The disciplines of Ethnic Minority Studies and US History pro- vide strong evidence that researchers need to consider both historical context and contemporary trends in work, housing, and residential patterns to understand the experiences and consequences of particular REM groups in different parts of the country (e.g., see Brown & Swanson, 2003 ; Hart et al., 2005 ; Lichter & Graefe, 2011 ; Parke, 2013 ). For instance, the timing of arrival of a particular racial–ethnic minority group in the United States, and the specifi c region of the country where they settle, may alter the experiences of adults and their children. One specifi c example is the varied experiences of Vietnamese immigrants who came to the United States at two distinct historical periods. The fi rst wave were considered Vietnamese “elites” who were welcomed and resettled in the United States in the 1970s after the Vietnam war; the second wave were characterized as “boat people” who were disenfranchised economic and political refugees looking for opportuni- ties in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Kibria, 2002 ). A similar story can be told by Cubans coming to America in the twentieth century. Although Cubans have resided in the United States since the early 1800s, immigration patterns altered signifi cantly in the 1960s. The fi rst wave of post-revolution Cuban immi- grants were more likely to be well educated, mostly white elites who were viewed as political refugees fl eeing Communism. However, later waves of immigrants— especially those of the 1980s Mariel boatlift—who were less well educated, less skilled, and often darker skinned, came for economic reasons and were not auto- matically granted refugee status (Perez, 2002 ). Thus, information about family migration histories can help explain both residential patterns in and current eco- nomic conditions of REM youth and their families (Kibria, 2002 ; Min, 2002 ; Smokowski, Evans, Cotter, & Guo, 2014 ). Investigating the history of residential and economic discrimination in rural areas is, in many ways, subject to the method- ological challenges raised by Duncan and Raudenbush ( 2001 ) regarding the

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

26

linkages between urban neighborhoods and adolescent development. In particular, they highlight the challenge of obtaining “ neighborhood-level measures ” and of allowing for concurrent and reciprocal infl uences between youth and their contexts. In the case of studying REM families, the methodological and conceptual chal- lenges are even more complex, as neighborhoods, towns, and entire regions need to be considered.

Transactional Relations and Processes

In their review of the evolving bioecological model of human development, Rosa and Tudge ( 2013 ) explicitly remind researchers to look at proximal family pro- cesses as central to understanding the mutual infl uences between the developing individual and his or her environments over time. These mutual infl uences are used by Marks et al. ( 2014 ) to structure their integrative model of developmental compe- tencies of immigrant youth. Of particular note is their focus on the resilience and competencies of immigrant youth, as opposed to the more typical focus on defi cits and risky behaviors. The authors identify three key competencies that should be included in studies of REM youth in rural (and urban) settings including the follow- ing: (1) biculturalism and the positive aspects of learning to operate across two cultures and adopting the positive characteristics of each one (see Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002 ; LaFromboise et al., 1993 ), (2) developing a healthy eth- nic identity and not accepting the negative attributes of your REM group assigned by the larger “majority” culture and media (e.g., Cheung & Sin-Sze, 2012 ; Taylor, 2002 ; Yip, Seaton, & Sellers, 2006 ), and (3) bilingualism which represents the chal- lenges as well as positive aspects of learning to operate in two languages in the United States (e.g., Iddings & Katz, 2007 ; Kempert, Saalbach, & Hardy, 2011 ). Similarly, from sociology and family studies come concepts such as familism, com- munalism, fi lial piety, and school belongingness which should be considered in order to gain an understanding of connections or social bonds between individuals, families, schools, and communities (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2005 ; Hernandez et al., in press ; LaFromboise et al., 1993 ; Schwartz et al., 2010 ). Also important to include is socialization by parents, siblings, and other agents regarding family obligations and cultural attitudes (e.g., Cole, Tamang, & Shrestha, 2006 ; Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallaom, 2008 ). Another factor to consider is racial–ethnic socialization by par- ents of minority youth regarding salient issues, such as racial discrimination, which may be particularly salient for Latino and African American youth (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006 ; Schwartz, 2007 ; Yip et al., 2006 ).

Researchers will also want to include the normative biological, cognitive, and social developmental milestones and transitions of children and adolescents such as becoming a sibling, entering school, attaining puberty, and transitioning from mid- dle childhood to adolescence and, eventually, to adulthood (Steinberg, 2013 ). In addition, studies need to include individual characteristics such as personality (e.g., Donnellan et al., 2009 ; Huntsinger & Jose, 2006 ), identity development

K.J. Conger et al.

27

(e.g., Phinney, 1990 ; Phinney & Kohatsu, 1997 ), and, specifi cally, ethnic identity as well as individual and collective self-concept (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2005 ; Whitesell et al., 2006 ) which interacts in a reciprocal fashion with family processes and, more broadly, with community and political institutions during the course of development (Crockett & Silbereisen, 2000 ; Schulenberg, Maggs, & Hurrelman, 1997 ). Researchers also will want to include parenting as a central proximal process in the model. One challenge will be to obtain culturally informed assessments of parent- ing styles and behaviors that allow for comparisons across studies while taking into account unique elements of parenting within and between REM groups (e.g., Chao, 2001 ; Crockett, Veed, & Russell, 2010 ; Lansford, 2012 ; Parke et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, researchers will want to take relationships with siblings and extended family members into account when designing studies of REM youth (see Kramer & Conger, 2009 ).

Addressing the Challenges

Given the breadth of these challenges, it is not surprising that most researchers have focused on a fi nite set of factors and characteristics and have limited the number of ethnic minority groups being compared when designing and conducting studies. Indeed, a full review of all relevant studies and concepts is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, in order to facilitate future research directions, it may be useful to think about concepts held in common across theoretical perspectives, as well as across REM groups, such as those presented in Table 2.1 . In other words, we need to construct a set of shared concepts that can be used by all researchers interested in REM youth development across time and context. For example, racial–ethnic iden- tity is a central concept that has been used by psychologists, educators, sociologists, and ethnic studies scientists in numerous investigations and has been shown to be relevant to academic motivation and achievement, self-concept, and occupational pathways (e.g., Fuligni, 1997 ; Fuligni et al., 2005 ; Fuller & García Coll, 2010 ; Kiang, Yip, Gonzales‐Backen, Witkow, & Fuligni, 2006 ; Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, Fryberg, Brosh, & Hart-Johnson, 2003 ; Tseng, 2006 ). Incorporating shared con- cepts, such as racial–ethnic identity , in addition to unique, study-specifi c concepts such as the effect of tribal gaming on American Indian youth, would greatly facili- tate future research comparability and enhance the strength of fi ndings that could be relevant for future programs and policies (e.g., Brody, Kogan, & Grange, 2012 ; Granger, Tseng, & Wilcox, 2014 ; Tienda & Haskins, 2011 ).

Furthermore, the typical intergroup comparisons found in many studies would be enhanced by understanding more about the within-group variability of each racial– ethnic group. Intragroup variability deserves both acknowledgment and increased research attention; there has been a signifi cant “disregard for the diversity inherent in some of the minority group categories in use” (García Coll et al., 1996 , p. 1892). One example of this is the “ immigrant paradox” which has recently received increased research attention and furthered our understanding of why more recent

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

28

immigrants may (or may not) look better educationally and psychologically, com- pared to more established, more acculturated immigrant youth, despite the higher likelihood of living in poverty and poor conditions (see discussions by Fuller & García Coll, 2010 ; García Coll & Marks, 2012 ; Marks et al., 2014 ; Parke, 2013 ). Fuller and García Coll ( 2010 ) fi nd that this paradox is more “nuanced” than previ- ously thought and provide a clear illustration of why more research is needed regarding what is happening within REM immigrant groups, as well as how racial– ethnic immigrants are functioning relative to other groups such as the “majority” Caucasian group typically used for comparison. This may be particularly salient in some rural regions of the country as the ratio of ethnic minority families to white majority families begins to change, such as areas in the Midwest which have expe- rienced a recent infl ux of Mexican origin workers in the agri-food processing indus- try (Brown & Schafft, 2011 ; Saenz & Torres, 2003 ). Indeed, it also would be wise to gain a better understanding of within-group variability among the white rural/ nonmetro population, given the wide range of socioeconomic status conditions, cul- tural heritages, family backgrounds, and contexts in which both majority and minor- ity groups now live (see Lee, 2011 ; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2012 ).

Conclusion and Future Directions

Our review of theories and concepts has highlighted some of the challenges and opportunities that researchers and policy makers have in developing a coherent framework for conducting research regarding racially/ethnically diverse youth in today’s society. However, this complexity should not deter social scientists from conducting studies and developing theory that will contribute to our understanding of REM youth and families in rural America. To recap the central issues, we feel that in order to facilitate comparisons not only across studies but among and within racial–ethnic minority groups living in the United States today, research in this area will benefi t from general agreement on certain operational defi nitions and on some common characteristics and factors that impact REM youth’s lives. This is particu- larly important, as illustrated in the many conceptual challenges presented in the other chapters in this volume. Furthermore, researchers need to acknowledge the sociodemographic diversity in rural settings (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Hart et al., 2005 ) and come to some agreement on how to incorporate this variability in mean- ingful ways (e.g., as a predictor and moderator of social processes and developmen- tal outcomes), not simply as a control. Just as researchers try to account for neighborhood effects on children and families in diverse urban/metropolitan set- tings (e.g., DeCarlo Santiago, Wadsworth, & Stump, 2011 ; Duncan & Raudenbush, 2001 ; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2002 ; Sastry, 2012 ), researchers interested in understanding the effects of rural settings on REM youth need to take the variability of rural contexts into account (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2008 ; Hart et al., 2005 ; Vernon- Feagans et al., 2012 ).

K.J. Conger et al.

29

One important concept shared by REM youth across the United States is related to the importance of family or tribe. Throughout our brief overview of the “major” minority groups in the United States, the role of family/tribe/community is central to the socialization and experiences of these REM youth (see Schwartz et al., 2010 ). This is one concept that needs to be included when studying any group, no matter how small the group or remote the location. Do these youth have family members to turn to? Did they migrate with family or come alone? Do they come to a com- munity where there is already a core group of people from their racial–ethnic group? Timing of their family’s arrival to the region also impacts their experiences and the reception they receive in rural communities. Researchers need to include questions that obtain information regarding historical and contemporary residence patterns of racial–ethnic minority groups in the rural areas of interest. For example, were eth- nic minorities always present in a particular rural area, suggesting established pat- terns of cross-ethnic interaction, or do recent arrivals of REM youth, and their families, happen to coincide with a worsening economy for long-term residents? The changing racial–ethnic composition of rural communities may spark resent- ment among long-term residents, leading to sentiments such as fear of being taken over, losing one’s place in a community, or no longer feeling “at home” in their home town. And if college-educated white youth move out—a.k.a. the brain drain discussed by Carr and Kefalas ( 2009 )—just as ethnic minority youth are moving in, how does that reshape race relations, and even age relations (e.g., older white folk being cared for by younger brown folk)? Furthermore, this shift may present lan- guage challenges not only for immigrant families learning English but for long- term residents who must adjust to hearing Spanish, Russian, Cantonese, Portuguese, and other non- English languages spoken on the streets and in the markets of a com- munity that used to be English-language only. As researchers strive to understand the experiences of REM youth in rural settings, they also will want to be mindful of the attitudinal and behavioral impact of increasing racial and ethnic diversity on residents of rural communities that were once racially homogeneous (Andreeva & Unger, 2014 ).

In addition to the racial and cultural conditions of rural areas, economic condi- tions are an important consideration for many racial–ethnic minority parents as they look to fi nd stable employment and develop some degree of fi nancial security for their families. For example, an amenity-rich rural setting such as those that currently attract retirees might also be attractive to parents as a stable place to raise children. Alternatively, low-SES families may have little means to leave a rural place where there is economic hardship and declining job opportunities such as in many of the small farming communities in the Southeast and coal-mining towns in Appalachia. Research fi ndings are unequivocal in that poverty and economic hardship can have negative consequences for individuals and families (e.g., Maholmes, 2012 ). Thus, it is important to understand what factors infl uence the transmission of hardship or success from one generation to the next and how those factors relate to social posi- tion and life course development in various types of rural communities (e.g., Conger et al., 2012 ; Gonzales et al., 2008 ). These processes may be particularly important to include in studies of REM youth, who tend to experience higher rates of poverty

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

30

and barriers to upward social mobility. Researchers, practitioners, and policy mak- ers alike would benefi t from a more complete understanding of the individual and social factors that may enable individuals to improve their economic status, and thus their life chances, compared to previous generations in their family. These factors all play a role in predicting the experiences and the consequences of being REM youth living in rural America today.

Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA020270), the National Science Foundation (1327768), and the Interdisciplinary Frontiers in Humanities and Arts initiative at UCD and by the Department of Human Ecology, the UC Davis Center for Poverty Research, and a Research Project Award from the California Agricultural Experiment Station (Project # CA-D-HCE-7709-H) to the fi rst author.

References

Ackerman, B. P., Brown, E. D., & Izard, C. E. (2004). The relations between persistent poverty and contextual risk and children’s behavior in elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 40 , 367–377. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.367 .

Altschul, L., Oyserman, D., & Bybee, D. (2006). Racial–ethnic identity in mid-adolescence: Content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child Development, 77 , 1155– 1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00926.x .

American Sociological Association. (2003). The importance of collecting data and doing scientifi c research on race . Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Andreeva, V. A., & Unger, J. B. (2014). Determinants of host society acculturation and its relation- ship with health behaviors and outcomes: A new research and intervention framework. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/ s10903-014-0104-x

Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 , 903–914. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.903 .

Baca Zinn, M. (1983). Feminist rethinking from racial–ethnic families. In M. Baca Zinn & B. T. Dill (Eds.), Women of color in U.S. society (pp. 18–26). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bauer, K. W., Widome, R., Himes, J. H., Smyth, M., Rock, B. H., Hannan, P. J., et al. (2012). High food insecurity and its correlates among families living on a rural American Indian reservation. American Journal of Public Health, 1029 , 1346–1352. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300522 .

Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 , 492–516. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005005 .

Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10472-004 .

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Age and ethnic variations in family process mediators of SES. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 161–188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brody, G. H., Chen, Y. F., Murry, V. M., Ge, X., Simons, R. L., Gibbons, F. X., et al. (2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A fi ve-year longitu- dinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77 , 1170–1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00927.x .

K.J. Conger et al.

31

Brody, G. H., Kogan, S. M., & Grange, C. M. (2012). Translating longitudinal, developmental research with rural African American families into prevention programs for rural African American youth. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 551–568). New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780199769100.013.0031 .

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (Handbook of child psychology 6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470147658. chpsy0114 .

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7 , 55–71. doi: 10.2307/1602387 .

Brown, A. (2014, June 26). U.S. Hispanic and Asian populations growing, but for different rea- sons. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-asian-populations-growing-but-for-different-reasons/

Brown, D. L., & Schafft, K. A. (2011). Rural people and communities in the 21st century: Resilience and transformation . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brown, D. L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Challenges for rural America in the 21st century . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Burnett, K., & Farkas, G. (2009). Poverty and family structure effects on children’s mathematics achievement: Estimates from random and fi xed effects models. The Social Science Journal, 46 , 297–318. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2008.12.009 .

Carlo, G. (2014). Central and South American immigrant families. In M. J. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), The social history of the American family: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 172– 178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carr, P. J., & Kefalas, M. J. (2009). Hollowing out the middle: The rural brain drain and what it means for America . Boston: Beacon Press.

Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72 , 1832–1843. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00381 .

Chao, R. & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59–93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cheung, C., & Sin-Sze, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance children’s achieve- ment? The role of parent-oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 , 820– 832. doi: 10.1037/a0027183 .

Chou, R. S., & Feagin, J. R. (2008). The myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing rac- ism . Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Cobb, R. V., Greiner, D. J., Quinn, K. M., Nickelsburg, J., Timmons, J. F., Groh, M., et al. (2012). Can voter ID laws be administered in a race-neutral manner? Evidence from the city of Boston in 2008. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7 , 1–33.

Cole, P. M., Tamang, B. L., & Shrestha, S. (2006). Cultural variations in the socialization of young children’s anger and shame. Child Development, 77 , 1129–1520. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00931.x .

Conger, K. J. (2011). Economic hardship, parenting, and family stability in a cohort of rural ado- lescents. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well- being in rural America (pp. 158–175). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Conger, K. J., Martin, M. J., Reeb, B. T., Little, W. M., Craine, J. L., Shebloski, B., et al. (2012). Economic hardship and its consequences across generations. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 37–53). New York: Oxford University Press.

Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected fi ndings from the fi rst decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 , 361– 373. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x .

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

32

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 , 685–704. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x .

Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 175–199. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.psych.58.110405.085551 .

Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. (2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38 , 179–193. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179 .

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 , 243–267. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243 .

Crivello, G., Camfi eld, L., & Porter, C. (2010). Researching children’s understandings of poverty and risk in diverse contexts. Children and Society, 24 , 255–260.

Crocker, J., Blaine, B., & Luhtanen, R. (1993). Prejudice, intergroup behavior and self-esteem: Enhancement and protection motives. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 52–67). Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Crockett, L. J., Shanahan, M. J., & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2000). Rural youth: Ecological and life course perspectives. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Adolescent diversity in ethnic, economic, and cultural contexts (pp. 43–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crockett, L., & Silbereisen, R. (Eds.). (2000). Negotiating adolescence during times of social change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crockett, L. J., Veed, G. J., & Russell, S. T. (2010). Do measures of parenting have the same mean- ing for European, Chinese, and Filipino American adolescents? Tests of measurement equiva- lence. In S. T. Russell, L. J. Crockett, & R. K. Chao (Eds.), Asian American parenting and parent–adolescent relationships (pp. 17–35). New York: Springer.

Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2001). Change in family income-to-needs matters more for children with less. Child Development, 72 , 1779–1793. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00378 .

DeCarlo Santiago, C., Wadsworth, M. E., & Stump, J. (2011). Socioeconomic status, neighbor- hood disadvantage, and poverty-related stress: Prospective effects of psychological syndromes among diverse low-income families. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32 , 218–230. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.008 .

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J., McAdams, K. K., & Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences: Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality, 77 , 1645–1676. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00596.x .

Dressler, W. W., Oths, K. S., & Gravlee, C. C. (2005). Race and ethnicity in public health research: Models to explain health disparities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34 , 231–252. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.anthro.34.081804.120505 .

Duncan, C. M. (1999). Worlds apart: Why poverty persists in rural America . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Duncan, G. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhoods and adolescent development: How can we determine the links? In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents, and families (pp. 105–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77 , 1268–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00933.x .

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfi eld, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fi t on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48 , 90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90 .

Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psycho-physiological stress, and socio-emotional adjustment. Child Development, 73 , 1238– 1248. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00469 .

K.J. Conger et al.

33

Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68 , 351–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01944.x .

Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M., & Garcia, C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41 , 799–811. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.799 .

Fuller, B., & García Coll, C. (2010). Learning from Latinos: Contexts, families, and child develop- ment in motion. Developmental Psychology, 46 , 359–565. doi: 10.1037/a0019412 .

Gabriel, T. (2014, April 21). 50 years into the war on poverty, hardship hits back. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Vasquez Garcia, H. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies of minority chil- dren. Child Development, 67 , 1891–1914. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x .

García Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adoles- cents: Is becoming American a developmental risk? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon, M. C. (2007). Income is not enough: Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Development, 78 , 70–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00986.x .

Gershoff, E. T., Mistry, R. S., & Crosby, D. A. (2014). Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

Gonzales, N. A., Germán, M., Yeong Kim, S., George, P., Fabrett, F. C., Millsap, R., et al. (2008). Mexican American adolescents’ cultural orientation, externalizing behavior and academic engagement: The role of traditional cultural values. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 , 151–164. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9152-x .

Granger, R. C., Tseng, V., & Wilcox, B. L. (2014). Connecting research and practice. In E. T. Gershoff, R. S. Mistry, & D. A. Crosby (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 205–219). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, L. C., Hamilton, L. R., Duncan, C. M., & Colocousis, C. R. (2008). Place matters: Challenges and opportunities in four rural Americas . Reports on Rural America, Vol. 1. New Hampshire: Carsey Institute.

Harris, R. P., & Worthen, D. (2003). African Americans in rural America. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the 21st Century (pp. 32–42). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hart, L. G., Larson, E. H., & Lishner, D. M. (2005). Rural defi nitions for health policy and research. American Journal of Public Health, 95 , 1149–1155. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.042432 .

Hernández, M. M., Robins, R. W., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, R. D. (in press). School belonging, generational status, and socioeconomic status: Longitudinal effects on Mexican origin chil- dren’s positive academic outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence . Advance online pub- lication. doi: 10.1111/jora.12188

Hoff, E. (2003). The specifi city of environmental infl uence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74 , 1368–1378. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00612 .

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42 , 747–770. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747 .

Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of personality and social adjustment among Chinese American and European American adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1309–1324. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00936.x .

Iddings, A. C., & Katz, L. (2007). Integrating home and school identities of recent immigrant Hispanic English language learners through classroom practices. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6 , 299–314. doi: 10.1080/15348450701542306 .

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

34

Irwin, J. R., & O’Brien, A. P. (1998). Where have all the sharecroppers gone? Black occupations in postbellum Mississippi. Agricultural History, 72 , 280–297.

Kempert, S., Saalbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2011). Cognitive benefi ts and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students: The case of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 , 547–561. doi: 10.1037/a0023619 .

Kiang, L., Yip, T., Gonzales-Backen, M., Witkow, M., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Ethnic identity and the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from Mexican and Chinese backgrounds. Child Development, 77 , 1338–1350. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00938.x .

Kibria, N. (2002). Vietnamese American families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective (pp. 181–192). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kramer, L., & Conger, K. J. (2009). What we learn from our sisters and brothers: For better or for worse. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2009 , 1–12. doi: 10.1002/ cd.253 .

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114 , 395–412. doi: 10.1037/ 0033-2909.114.3.395 .

Lansford, J. E. (2012). Cross-cultural and cross-national parenting perspectives. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 656–677). New York: Oxford University Press.

Le, C. N. (2014, December 5). Asian-nation: Population statistics and demographics . Retrieved from http://www.asian-nation.org/population.shtml

Lee, M. (2011). Low-wage employment among minority women in nonmetropolitan areas. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 25–39). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Moving on up: Neighborhood effects on children and families. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 209–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lichter, D. T., & Brown, D. L. (2011). Rural America in an urban society: Changing spatial and social boundaries. Annual Review of Sociology, 37 , 1–28. doi: 10.1146/ annurev-soc-081309-150208 .

Lichter, D. T., & Graefe, D. R. (2011). Rural economic restructuring: Implications for children, youth, and families. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 25–39). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Lyson, T. A., & Falk, W. W. (Eds.). (1993). Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Maholmes, V. (2012). Introduction: Why study poverty? In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 1–9). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marks, A. K., Godoy, C., & Garcia Coll, C. (2014). An ecological approach to understanding immigrant child and adolescent developmental competencies. In E. T. Gershoff, R. S. Mistry, & D. A. Crosby (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 75–89). New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, M. J., Conger, R. D., Schofi eld, T. J., Dogan, S. J., Widaman, K. F., Donnellan, M. B., et al. (2010). Evaluation of the interactionist model of socioeconomic status and problem behavior: A developmental cascade across generations. Development and Psychopathology, 22 , 697– 715. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000374 .

McCrate, E. (2011). Parents’ work time in rural America: The growth of irregular schedules. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 177–193). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1996). Trajectories of poverty and children’s mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37 , 207–220.

K.J. Conger et al.

35

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socio-emotional development. Child Development, 61 , 311–346.

Min, P. G. (2002). Korean American families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective (pp. 193–211). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mistry, R. S., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., & McLoyd, V. C. (2002). Economic well-being and children’s social adjustment: The role of family process in an ethnically diverse low- income sample. Child Development, 73 , 935–951. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00448 .

Mohl, R. A. (2003). Globalization, Latinization, and the Nuevo New South. Journal of American Ethnic History, 22 , 31–66.

Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Fryberg, S., Brosh, H., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2003). Racial–eth- nic self-schemas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66 , 333–347. doi: 10.2307/1519833 .

Pahl, K., & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban low-income Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1403–1415. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2006.00943.x .

Parke, R. D. (2013). Future families: Diverse forms, rich possibilities . Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., et al. (2005). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European American families. Child Development, 75 , 1632–1656.

Perez, L. (2002). Cuban American families. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective (pp. 114–130). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108 , 499–514. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499 .

Phinney, J. S., & Kohatsu, E. L. (1997). Ethnic and racial identity development and mental health. In J. Schulenberg & J. L. Maggs (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 420–443). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Quintana, S. M., Aboud, F. E., Chao, R., Contreras-Grau, J., Cross, W. E., Jr., Hudley, C., et al. (2006). Race, ethnicity, and culture in child development: Contemporary research and future directions. Child Development, 77 , 1129–1141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00951.x .

Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128 , 330–366. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.330 .

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolu- tion from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5 , 243–258. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12022 .

Saenz, R., & Torres, C. C. (2003). Latinos in rural America. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the 21st Century (pp. 57–70). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sameroff, A. J. & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15 , 613–640.

Sastry, N. (2012). Neighborhood effects on children’s achievement: A review of recent research. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 423–447). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J. L., & Hurrelman, K. (1997). Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, S. J. (2007). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic groups: A preliminary study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147 , 101–118. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.147.2.101-118 .

Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. J., Kim, S. Y., et al. (2010). Communalism, familism, and fi lial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16 , 548–560. doi: 10.1037/a0021370 .

Segura, G. M., & Valenzuela, A. A. (2010). Hope, tropes, and dopes: Hispanic and White racial animus in the 2008 election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40 , 497–514.

2 Racial–Ethnic Minority Youth in Rural America

36

Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 , 1079–1092. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079 .

Sherman, J. (2009). Those who work, those who don’t: Poverty, morality, and family in rural America . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Sistrunk, I. (2014, September 1). Walking while Black. Milwaukee Courier . Retrieved from http:// milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2014/08/30/Walking-while-black-michael- brown-black-men-and-white-police-offi cers/

Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. (2005). Race as biology is fi ction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60 , 16–26. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16 .

Smokowski, P. R., Evans, C. B., Cotter, K. L., & Guo, S. (2014). Ecological correlates of depres- sion and self-esteem in rural youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45 , 500–518. doi: 10.1007/s10578-013-0420-8 .

Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2008). Acculturation and Latino family processes: How cultural involvement, biculturalism, and acculturation gaps infl uence family dynamics. Family Relations, 57 , 295–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00501.x .

Spicer, P., & Sarche, M. C. (2012). Poverty and possibility in the lives of American Indian and Alaska Native children. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 480–488). New York: Oxford University Press.

Steinberg, L. (2013). Adolescence, 10th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Taylor, R. L. (2002). Minority families in the United States: A multicultural perspective . Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tienda, M., & Haskins, R. (2011). Immigrant children: Introducing the issue. The Future of

Children, 21 , 3–18. doi: 10.1353/foc.2011.0010 . Tseng, V. (2006). Unpacking immigration in youths’ academic and occupational pathways. Child

Development, 77 , 1434–1445. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00946.x . Vernon-Feagans, L., & Cox, M. (2013). The Family Life Project: An epidemiological and devel-

opmental study of young children living in poor rural communities. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78 , 1–150.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Garrett-Peters, P. D., Marco, A., & Bratsch-Hines, M. (2012). Children living in rural poverty: The role of chaos in early development. In V. Maholmes & R. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of poverty and child development (pp. 448–466). New York: Oxford University Press.

Walker, S. K., & Reschke, K. L. (2004). Child care use by low-income families in rural areas. Journal of Children and Poverty, 10 , 149–167. doi: 10.1080/1079612042000271585 .

Weisner, T. S., & Duncan, G. J. (2014). The world isn’t linear or additive or decontextualized: Pluralism and mixed methods in understanding the effects of antipoverty programs on children and parenting. In E. T. Gershoff, R. S. Mistry, & D. A. Crosby (Eds.), Societal contexts of child development: Pathways of infl uence and implications for practice and policy (pp. 125–140). New York: Oxford University Press.

Whitesell, N. R., Mitchell, C. M., Kaufman, C. E., Spicer, P., & The Voices of Indian Teens Project. (2006). Developmental trajectories of personal and collective self-concept among American Indian Adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1487–1503. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00949.x .

Wimberley, R. C., & Morris, L. V. (1997). The southern black belt: A national perspective . Lexington, KY: TVA Rural Studies, University of Kentucky.

Yip, T., Seaton, E. K., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African American racial identity across the lifes- pan: Identity status, identity content, and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 77 , 1504– 1517. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00950.x .

K.J. Conger et al.

http://www.springer.com/978-3-319-20975-3

Dynamic Postural Assessment

Name ________________________________________ Date __________

Overhead Squat

View Kinetic Chain Checkpoint

Observation Notes

Anterior

Foot / Ankle Feet turn out? Left Right

Knee Knees move:

In? Out? Left Right

Lateral

LPHC

Excessive forward lean?

Low back arches?

Shoulder Arms fall forward?

Single-Leg Squat

View Kinetic Chain Checkpoint

Observation Notes

Anterior Knee Knees move:

In? Out? Left Right

Pushing / Pulling

View Kinetic Chain Checkpoint

Observation Notes

Lateral

LPHC Low back arches? Push Pull

Shoulder Shoulders elevate? Push Pull

Head / Neck Head moves forward? Push Pull

To determine which muscles are overactive or underactive, compare your observations to the downloadable Postural Assessment Solutions chart that accompanies this assessment template.

Overactive Muscles

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Underactive Muscles

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Client Readiness for Exercise

Name ________________________________________ Date __________

Age __________

Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) YES NO Has your doctor ever said that you have a heart condition and that you should only perform physical activity recommended by a doctor?

Do you feel pain in your chest when you perform physical activity?

In the past month, have you had chest pain when you were not performing any physical activity?

Do you lose your balance because of dizziness or do you ever lose consciousness?

Do you have a bone or joint problem that could be made worse by a change in your physical activity?

Is your doctor currently prescribing any medication for your blood pressure or for a heart condition?

Do you know of any other reason why you should not engage in physical activity?

If you have answered YES to one or more of the above questions, consult your physician before engaging in physical activity. Tell you physician which questions you answered

YES to. After medical evaluation, seek advice from your physician on what type of activity is suitable for your current condition.

General and Medical History

Occupational What is your current occupation? _____________________________________________________________________________ Does your occupation require extended periods of sitting?

Does your occupation require repetitive movements? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Does your occupation require you to wear shoes with a heel (e.g., dress shoes)?

Does your occupation cause you mental stress?

Recreational Do you partake in any recreational physical activities (golf, skiing, etc.)? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any additional hobbies (reading, video games, etc.)? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Medical Have you ever had any injuries or chronic pain? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Have you ever had any surgeries? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Has a medical doctor ever diagnosed you with a chronic disease, such as heart disease, hypertension, high cholesterol, or diabetes? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Are you currently taking any medication? (If YES, please explain.) _____________________________________________________________________________

Additional Information

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Postural Assessment Solutions

STATIC POSTURAL ASSESSMENT

Pronation Distortion Syndrome Lower Crossed Syndrome Upper Crossed Syndrome

Shortened Muscles Lengthened

Muscles Shortened Muscles

Lengthened Muscles

Shortened Muscles Lengthened

Muscles

Gastrocnemius Anterior tibialis Gastrocnemius Anterior tibialis Upper trapezius Deep cervical flexors

Soleus Posterior tibialis Soleus Posterior tibialis Levator scapulae Serratus anterior

Peroneals Vastus medialis Hip flexor complex Gluteus maximus Sternocleidomastoid Rhomboids

Adductors Gluteus medius/maximus

Adductors Gluteus medius Scalenes Middle trapezius

Iliotibial head Latissimus dorsi Transversus abdominis Latissimus dorsi Lower trapezius

Hip flexor complex Hip external rotators Erector spinae Internal oblique Teres major Teres minor

Biceps femoris (short head)

Subscapularis Infraspinatus

Pectoralis major / minor

OVERHEAD SQUAT ASSESSMENT

View Kinetic Chain Checkpoint

Compensation Probable Overactive

Muscles Probable Underactive

Muscles

Lateral

LPHC

Excessive forward lean

Soleus Anterior tibialis

Gastrocnemius Gluteus maximus

Hip flexor complex Erector spinae

Abdominal complex

Low back arches

Hip flexor complex Gluteus maximus

Erector spinae Hamstring complex

Latissimus dorsi Intrinsic core stabilizers

Upper body Arms fall forward

Latissimus dorsi Middle / lower trapezius

Teres major Rhomboids

Pectoralis major / minor Rotator cuff

Anterior

Feet Turn out

Soleus Medial gastrocnemius

Lateral gastrocnemius Medial hamstring complex

Biceps femoris (short head) Gracilis

Sartorius

Popliteus

Knees Move inward

Adductor complex Gluteus medius/maximus

Biceps femoris (short head) Vastus medialis oblique (VMO)

Tensor fasciae latae (TFL)

Vastus lateralis

SINGLE-LEG SQUAT ASSESSMENT

View Kinetic Chain Checkpoint

Compensation Probable Overactive

Muscles Probable Underactive

Muscles

Anterior Knee Moves inward

Adductor complex Gluteus medius/maximus

Biceps femoris (short head) Vastus medialis oblique (VMO)

Tensor fasciae latae (TFL)

Vastus lateralis

Cardiorespiratory Assessment

Name ________________________________________ Date __________

Resting Heart Rate __________

HRmax (estimate) __________

Blood Pressure (if identified by PAR-Q/medical history) __________

YMCA 3-Minute Step Test

Recovery Heart Rate __________ Rating __________

To determine the client’s cardiorespiratory fitness rating, compare the recovery heart rate to Table 9.11

in the NASM Essentials of Personal Fitness Training textbook.

Very Poor Poor Below Average Average Above Average Good Excellent

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Rockport Walk Test

Time __________ Heart Rate __________ 02 Score __________

02 score = 132.853 – (0.0769 × weight) – (0.3877 × age) + (6.315 × [1 for male or 0 for

female]) – (3.2649 × time) – (0.1565 × heart rate)

To determine the client’s cardiorespiratory fitness rating, compare the 02 score to Table 9.12 in the NASM

Essentials of Personal Fitness Training textbook.

Poor Fair Average Good Very good

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Zone 1 = 65-75% HRmax

Zone 2 = 75-85% HRmax

Zone 3 = 86-95% HRmax

Training Zone Readiness

1 2 3

Static Postural Assessment

Name ________________________________________ Date __________

Anterior View

Kinetic Chain Checkpoint Observations

Foot / Ankle

Knee

LPHC

Shoulder

Head / Neck

Posterior View

Kinetic Chain Checkpoint Observations

Foot / Ankle

Knee

LPHC

Shoulder

Head / Neck

Lateral View

Kinetic Chain Checkpoint Observations

Foot / Ankle

Knee

LPHC

Shoulder

Head and Neck

Evidence of Postural Distortion Syndrome?

Lower Crossed _________ Upper Crossed _________ Pronation Distortion _________

Shortened Muscles __________________________________________________________________

Lengthened Muscles _________________________________________________________________

137School Community Journal, 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1 Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

Latino Immigrant Students’ School Experiences in the United States: The Importance of Family– School–Community Collaborations

Erin Sibley and Kalina Brabeck

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature on the educational experiences of Lati- no immigrant students in the United States, from early childhood through postsecondary educational attainment. Utilizing a developmental–contextual perspective, we explain the various environmental, political, structural, and psychological challenges these students face, while also highlighting protec- tive factors in the school and family. We highlight how schools, communities, and families can work together to improve the educational chances of these students. These students are less likely to receive high-quality early childhood education and care before the age of five, setting the stage for potential ac- ademic disadvantage later on. Parental premigration characteristics play an important role in children’s achievement during elementary and middle school, a time when parent educational involvement is important but often difficult for immigrant families. Immigrant students are less likely to graduate high school compared to children of native-born parents and during adolescence may experience isolation from U.S. peer groups. These findings are discussed in light of the additional risks carried by unauthorized status, as well as im- migration and acculturation-related stressors. Given that these children are a growing segment of the U.S. population and will soon comprise a large por- tion of the nation’s workforce, we argue that educating them effectively should be of utmost importance. We conclude with policy recommendations, practice recommendations for schools, and important directions for future research.

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

138

Key Words: immigration, parent educational involvement, school achieve- ment, educational aspirations, Latino immigrant students, family–school– community collaboration, English language learners (ELLs), acculturation

Introduction

There are currently 41.3 million immigrants living in the United States (U.S.), 11.7 million of whom are unauthorized (Passel, Cohn, & Gonzales- Barrera, 2013; Zong & Batalova, 2015). Latino immigrants make up 47% of the foreign-born population (Motel & Patten, 2011), and demographers predict that by 2020, 30% of all U.S. children will be children of immigrants (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-Anderson, & Passel, 2004; Note: Throughout this article, “immigrant” refers to first-generation immigrant youth and children of immigrants.) This article will summarize the literature on perhaps the most important setting outside the family that will influence the development of these youngest members of immigrant families—school, and it will address the ways in which schools can be places of connection and belonging for im- migrant children and youth, particularly when those schools effectively partner with families and the community. This article (a) reviews risk and protective factors for immigrant youth; (b) explains the social ecological model of im- migrant child development, which underscores the impact of various levels of context (including school and family) in influencing developmental trajecto- ries; (c) summarizes research on immigrant students’ educational experiences from preschool through secondary school; and (d) offers recommendations for building strong family–school–community partnerships for immigrant stu- dents. Throughout the article, the heterogeneity in school experiences among immigrant students of different legal statuses (their own and their parents) will be highlighted.

Protective and Risk Factors for Immigrant Children

Despite significant obstacles experienced by many immigrants, and notwith- standing the vast heterogeneity across and within Latino immigrant groups, newcomer parents often bring strengths that are conveyed to their children in ways that can positively affect school performance and can be harnessed in de- veloping partnerships among schools, families, and communities. For example, many Latino immigrant parents, families, and children demonstrate consider- able resilience, that is, the capacity to survive physically and psychologically in circumstances requiring strengths and determination, and to possess the psychological flexibility to adapt to a new lifestyle (Carreón, Drake, & Bar- ton, 2005; Trueba, 1999). In Latino families, cultural norms and values that

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

139

emphasize family obligations, warmth, and reciprocity (familismo) and strong connections with others (personalismo) may provide Latino immigrant children with an abundance of high-quality relationships with immediate and extended family and friends; such relationships can act as a buffer to the negative effects of poverty (Lansdale, Hardie, Oropesa, & Hillemeier, 2015). Children in Lati- no immigrant families are more likely to live in two-parent households, which has positive effects on children’s educational outcomes (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008). Research has also highlighted cognitive benefits of multi- lingualism, such as higher levels of executive functioning, including attentional control and cognitive flexibility (Bialystok, 1999).

Despite these individual and environment-level protective factors, Latino immigrant children are more likely to experience several risk factors when com- pared with nonimmigrant children, and these risk factors put them in jeopardy of poor academic performance (Lahaie, 2006). For example, children in immi- grant families are 1.5 times more likely than children in U.S.-born families to grow up poor; 26% live in a linguistically isolated household, where no adult speaks English well (Hernandez & Cervantes, 2011); and nearly one-third of children in immigrant families have a mother who has not graduated from high school (Hernandez & Napierala, 2012). Children in immigrant families are generally more likely to attend underresourced schools (Suárez-Orozco, Bang, & Onaga, 2010), and immigrant youth are also more likely than nonimmi- grant youth to attend larger, more segregated schools, with a higher proportion of students in poverty and with more safety problems at the school (Crosnoe, 2005). As a result of these risk factors, and in spite of their high academic aspirations and strengths, immigrant children are less likely to be proficient in reading and math, attend prekindergarten, and graduate from high school (Hernandez & Napierala, 2012). Given their particular strengths (e.g., family relationships) and sources of risk (e.g., poverty), effective partnerships among schools, families, and communities are especially critical for these students.

A Social Ecological Frame for Immigrant Children’s Experiences

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory, originally published as ecologi- cal theory in the 1970s, posits that children are embedded within multiple contexts that interact with each other to affect the child’s development (Bron- fenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Through this lens, the contexts of the family, school, and community influence child development and are interactive sites where various processes (e.g., parenting styles, teacher perceptions), influence the child’s development. Moreover, this theory stresses the influence of the interactions among layers of context on child development, such as the com- munication between parents and teachers or the follow-through at home with school-assigned tasks.

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

140

As members of underrepresented and oppressed groups, additional eco- logical constructs are important to Latino immigrant children’s development. Extending Bronfenbrenner’s work and recognizing the limitations of tradi- tional developmental models for understanding the unique experiences and environments of children of color, Garcia Coll and colleagues (1996) devel- oped the integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. This model includes a greater emphasis on social position, racism, and segregation, since these constructs may influence the inhibiting or promoting environments in which children live. The integrative model further considers that different racial and ethnic groups have different adaptive cul- tures, depending on the migration patterns of the group, level of acculturation, and cultural values and traditions.

In line with these ideas, school, home, and community environments can act as inhibiting or promoting settings for the optimal development of im- migrant children. As argued by Ungar and colleagues (2012), children exist within environments that either support and buffer them from risk factors or heighten those risk factors. According to the Ungar (2012) model, resilience should be understood as both the quality of the interaction between the child and his or her environment, as well as the individual competence of both the child and the environment, separately. In this view, a well-resourced, stable en- vironment, such as a high-quality school, allows the child’s internal strengths and talents to contribute to positive educational outcomes. Importantly, Ungar and colleagues also argue that “the more a child is exposed to adversity…the more the child’s resilience depends on the quality of the environment (rather than individual qualities)” to ensure his or her well-being (Ungar, Ghazinour, & Richter, 2013, p. 350). Consequently, an underresourced environment may inhibit the expression of a child’s internal resources. Given the many risk fac- tors immigrant children may face, it is paramount that educational settings partner with families and communities to promote environments that support the children’s development.

Differences in Student Experiences Based on Legal Status

The current U.S. legal and political climate acts as an inhibiting environ- ment for many Latino immigrant children, in particular for those whose lives are constrained by their own or their parents’ liminal legal status. It is estimated that 4.5 million U.S.-born children live in mixed-status families, consisting of at least one unauthorized parent and a U.S.-born citizen child (Taylor, Lopez, Passel, & Motel, 2011). These children live within the context of social exclu- sion that dominates the lives of their unauthorized parents (Brabeck, Sibley, & Lykes, 2016; Capps, Bachmeier, Fix, & Van Hook, 2013; Suárez-Orozco,

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

141

Yoshikawa, Teranishi, & Suárez-Orozco, 2011). For example, unauthorized immigrants are less likely than authorized immigrants to access social services (Xu & Brabeck, 2012), partly due to their ineligibility to access services for themselves, but also explained by a reluctance to access services for their U.S. citizen children due to fear, mistrust, and misunderstanding of social services (Viladrich, 2012). Fear and stigma characterize the everyday lives of unau- thorized immigrants (Abrego, 2011), and the combination of minority status, potentially traumatic premigration experiences, poverty, and lack of legal sta- tus pose significant mental health risks to this population (Perez & Fortuna, 2005). There are also one million unauthorized children under the age of 18 living in the U.S.; these children experience educational and employment con- straints and the risk of their own deportation and subsequent separation from their families (Passel & Cohn, 2011).

Parents’ documentation status can affect their children both directly (such as in the case of a parent who is deported) and indirectly through their premi- gration characteristics, postmigration experiences, and every day social settings (Yoshikawa & Kalil, 2011). Some immigrant parents, for example, incur high levels of migratory debt after paying smugglers to help them to come to the U.S. and are forced to take on multiple inflexible jobs, which can limit the time they have to invest in their children’s educational pursuits (Yoshikawa, 2011). The pervasive stress of unauthorized status can create immense parental distress, which may affect children through harsher parenting and less parental warmth and authoritative parenting (Yoshikawa & Kalil, 2011). Research that explores how legal status influences immigrant students’ experiences in school will be integrated into the summaries that follow.

Early Childhood

Many children in Latino immigrant families begin kindergarten at a dis- advantage due to their lower rates of enrollment in center-based child care (Brandon, 2004). High-quality, center-based care—including daycare cen- ters, Head Start programs, and other prekindergarten programs—are generally regarded as optimal to promote child social/emotional well-being and cogni- tive development. Unlike some other childcare options (e.g., home daycare, relative care), quality center-based care settings have trained staff, varied educa- tional curricula, daily structure, and peers with whom children can engage in learning. Researchers have found that quality center-based care, compared to parent or informal home-based care, supports early reading and numeracy skills (Gormley, Gayer, Phillips, & Dawson, 2005; Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2007) as well executive functioning (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013).

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

142

Research indicates that children of immigrants are less likely to be enrolled in high-quality early care and preschool compared to children of U.S.-born citizens (Brandon, 2004; Crosnoe, 2007; Magnuson, Lahaie, & Waldfogel, 2006). The majority of immigrant children under age three are either in pa- rental care or have no regular care arrangement (60% compared to 40% of children of U.S. citizens), and only 5% are enrolled in center-based care (Mat- thews & Ewen, 2006). This may be in part due to the findings that children of immigrants are more likely to live in low-income households, have parents with less formal education, and be less likely to have two working parents, all factors associated with lower enrollment in preschool and center-based care (Capps et al., 2004). Additionally, Latino immigrant parents working low- wage jobs are more likely to work nontraditional shifts, such as night shifts, and do not have high-quality childcare options available during those hours (Matthews & Ewen, 2006).

Recent research indicates that home-visiting programs for families with young children may be effective with immigrant populations. For example, Nievar and colleagues (2011) found that the Home Instruction of Parents and Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program increased immigrant parents’ effica- cy and contributed to richer home learning environments. Positive effects on math achievement were observed through third grade. Other scholars have also encouraged the use of two-generation strategies with immigrant parents and their children through programs such as HIPPY and Abriendo Puertas (Moore et al., 2014) because they help parents learn how to become teachers at home, bridge home and school, and often build stronger connections between fami- lies and communities (Crosnoe, 2010).

Upon entering kindergarten, disparities in school readiness also exist be- tween children in immigrant and nonimmigrant families. Crosnoe (2007) found that lower center-based care usage by Mexican immigrant families par- tially explained their lower rates of math achievement in kindergarten. Using a national sample, Koury and Votruba-Drzal (2014) found that children of Mexican, Central American, and Spanish Caribbean parents performed worse than other immigrant groups and worse than native-born White students in math and reading skills at age five; these differences were primarily driven by socioeconomic factors. At kindergarten entry, children of foreign-born parents also have significantly lower expressive language scores compared to U.S.-born parents (W. Han, Lee, & Waldfogel, 2012). Research indicates that when chil- dren of immigrants attend center-based preschool programs, they have better reading and math scores at kindergarten entry and higher English-language proficiency (Magnuson et al., 2006), lending credence to the importance of preschool enrollment.

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

143

Research provides evidence of the role of parent legal status in partly ac- counting for the early childhood disparities reviewed. In a study of families with children up to 24 months old, Yoshikawa, Godfrey, and Rivera (2008) found that immigrant groups with the highest proportion of unauthorized par- ents (Mexican and Dominican immigrants) had the least access to institutional resources such as checking accounts, savings accounts, credit cards, and driver’s licenses. Low levels of access to these resources predicted more economic hard- ship and more parental psychological distress, which in turn were associated with lower scores on child cognitive outcomes. Additionally, Mexican immi- grant parents, who were most likely to be unauthorized, reported the lowest levels of cognitively stimulating activities at home.

Elementary and Middle School

Middle childhood (ages 6–12), beginning in the elementary school years, marks the first time that some children spend significant time outside of the immediate family context (García Coll & Marks, 2009). There is some evi- dence that although children of Latino immigrants enter school with lower levels of academic skills, they make up some ground over time; however, the gap between third-plus generation students and children of immigrants does not disappear (Crosnoe & Lopez Turley, 2011). Research with a national sam- ple indicates that at third grade, children of immigrants still underperform in math compared to children of U.S.-born parents, despite heterogeneity de- pending on country of origin (Glick & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007).

Among children of documented immigrants, parental premigration charac- teristics are strongly correlated with children’s achievement, more so than any other pre- or postmigration characteristic. Using data from the New Immigrant Survey, Pong and Landale (2012) found that for children of immigrants ages 6–12, premigration parental education and parental English proficiency upon arrival in the U.S. were strongly predictive of children’s achievement. One re- cent study found that children of unauthorized parents who were enrolled in Grades 2–4 scored significantly worse than children of authorized immigrants in reading, spelling, and math (Brabeck, Sibley, Taubin, & Murcia, 2016). So- cial service use moderated this relationship, acting as a protective buffer against the academic risks associated with having an unauthorized parent.

During elementary school, parents are typically expected—by the school and larger society—to be involved in their children’s education. There has been a renewed interest in family educational involvement since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, which mandated increased parental in- volvement in schools receiving Title I funding, which was reiterated in the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. Family educational involvement can be

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

144

defined as school-based involvement (e.g., volunteering in the classroom, at- tending PTO meetings) and home-based involvement (e.g., helping children with homework, family meals, provision of cognitively stimulating activities at home). Generally, family educational involvement has been found to be posi- tively associated with child achievement, with small to moderate effect sizes (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2003). Given the evidence of benefits of fam- ily educational involvement during elementary school, it is a potential way to buffer immigrant children from some of the disadvantages they face, thus im- proving their academic performance. Indeed, family educational involvement has been shown to be beneficial for other disadvantaged groups, such as chil- dren in poverty (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006).

Until recently, little empirical work investigated the family educational in- volvement practices of immigrant versus nonimmigrant parents. In one recent study, Sibley and Dearing (2014) found that the domain of greatest difference between immigrant and nonimmigrant parents was school-based involve- ment, with immigrant parents lagging behind. However, immigrant parents were highly involved outside of school and also had the highest levels of edu- cational expectations for their children. Thus, immigrant parents care deeply about their children’s education and want to be involved in their education, but likely face barriers to school involvement, such as language, transportation, racism, childcare, or intimidation, often based on legal status. Immigrant par- ents who are unauthorized may face the greatest barriers to family educational involvement, and some data support this assertion. For example, ethnographic research demonstrated legal status as a pervasive source of stress that infiltrated all aspects of participants’ lives, including involvement in children’s schools (Carreón et al., 2005). Schools should also understand that Latino immigrant parents may be highly involved in their children’s education in ways that are not typically considered to be “parent involvement” from a White, American perspective. For example, a qualitative study of Latino immigrants found that these parents were highly involved in their children’s education through asking questions to others in their community about how to navigate the school sys- tem and through attending events and activities that they believed would have indirect positive effects on their children’s learning. As an example, some cited attending adult English classes so that they could demonstrate the importance of education to their children (Poza, Brooks, & Valdés, 2014).

During elementary school, some immigrant children experience uninten- tional bias and discrimination from their classroom teachers (Brown, 2015). This can be potentially problematic, given the association between teach- er expectations and achievement for children at risk (Hinnant, O’Brien, & Ghazarian, 2009). In addition to being linked to poorer social/emotional and

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

145

academic outcomes, students’ perceived discrimination is linked to higher risk of dropout, lower academic motivation, and decreased self-efficacy (Brown, 2015). Discrimination can manifest itself in many ways; for example, in one study, immigrant elementary school students reported that teachers did not call on them because of their ethnicity (Brown & Chu, 2012). Students also report that teachers assume their English is poor when they are in fact English profi- cient, and some report that they are stereotyped as problematic students with behavior problems (Katz, 1999). Fortunately, students in classrooms where teachers understood diverse students to be a benefit rather than a burden re- ported less perceived discrimination and more positive ethnic self-identities (Brown & Chu, 2012).

Thus, while findings are somewhat mixed, the general consensus is that the academic disadvantage experienced by immigrant children in preschool and at school entry is carried into their elementary school years and that this disadvantage is mostly explained by socioeconomic and sociostrucutral fac- tors, notably legal status and teacher prejudice that leads to low expectations. Protective factors such as parental involvement, high teacher expectations, and access to quality preschool can be buffers and enhance the academic trajectories for some elementary-aged Latino immigrant children.

Immigrant Students in Secondary School

Immigrant children are less likely to graduate from high school when com- pared with children of native-born parents (Hernandez & Napierala, 2012). Suárez-Orozco and colleague’s (2008) longitudinal data of immigrant students revealed that many immigrant groups (including Latino immigrant students from the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Central America) showed a down- ward trend in GPA across grades in adolescence. Adolescence is a period rife with important social, emotional, cognitive, and biological developmental changes. These changes are complicated by and take on particular meaning in the context of immigrant youths’ lives in ways that can affect their experienc- es in school. For example, adolescence is marked by the importance of social relationships, particularly with peers. Adolescents seek connection with and belonging to groups, even as they assert their unique and distinct identities (Newman, Lohman, & Newman, 2007). Within this developmental context, the social losses experienced by first-generation immigrant students who have been separated from their peer groups in countries of origin may be particu- larly difficult (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Moreover, immigrant high school students may experience isolation from U.S. peer groups who are different cul- turally and linguistically (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Suárez Orozco et al., 2008). The unique stressors associated with acculturation (e.g., learning the

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

146

language, feeling different from peers, experiences of discrimination, lacking a sense of belonging) and acculturative stress (i.e., difficulty adjusting to new culture, Berry, 2006) can be particularly challenging for immigrant adolescents during a developmental period when peer relationships, “fitting in,” and social connection are important.

Immigration-related stressors among adolescents, including acculturation and acculturative stress, have been linked to internalizing symptoms (i.e., de- pression, anxiety, somatic symptoms) and externalizing behaviors (i.e., negative behaviors directed toward the external environment) among immigrant adoles- cents (Alegría, Sribney, Woo, Torres, & Guarnaccia, 2007). Sirin et al. (2013) recently reported longitudinal data that demonstrated that greater exposure to acculturative stress among immigrant high school students—regardless of generation status—predicted significant internalizing symptoms, including depression, anxiety, and somatization. These internalizing symptoms are as- sociated with impaired executive functioning skills in adolescents, which in turn affect performance in school (G. Han et al., 2016). Additionally, during a developmental period when family relationships can already be tumultuous, acculturative family distancing, that is, the more rapid adjustment to a new culture of the youth vis-à-vis the parent, can add stress to family relationships and affect youths’ mental health and well-being in ways that compromise their executive functioning skills that are required for success in school (Hwang & Wood, 2009).

As in their younger years, immigrant high school students also dispropor- tionately contend with structural challenges to their schooling. When compared to their nonimmigrant peers, they are more likely to live in urban areas where they face additional challenges such as underresourced schools, underprepared teachers, violence, segregation, poverty, parental unemployment, and crowded housing (Reardon-Anderson, Capps, & Fix, 2002). English-language learning students—typically first- and sometimes second-generation immigrants—are underrepresented in high-track courses in high school (Callahan, Wilkin- son, & Muller, 2010; Kanno & Cromley, 2013) and have limited access to advanced-level classes such as honors and advanced placement (AP) courses (Callahan, 2005; Callahan et al., 2010). Similar to students in the general population, the consequences of low tracking for ELLs include low academic outcomes (Calla al., 2010), lack of opportunity for developing critical think- ing skills, and disruptive classroom climates (Harklau, 1994a, 1994b). Because they are segregated, high school ELLs may also be hampered by the inhibition of second-language development (Kanno & Kangas, 2014).

As with other developmental stages, one important structural disadvantage for some immigrant high school students is legal status. Unauthorized high

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

147

school students face significant legal, financial, and policy barriers to pursuing education beyond high school, which can lead them to academically disengage and underperform (Contreras, 2009; Olivos & Mendoza, 2009; Pérez, Cortés, Ramos, & Coronado, 2010; Pérez, Espinoza, Ramos, Coronado, & Cortés, 2009; Roth & Grace, 2015). Nationally, 40% of unauthorized adults ages 18– 24 do not complete high school, and only 49% of unauthorized high school graduates go to college (Passel & Cohn, 2009). Among the small percentage of unauthorized immigrant students who pursue higher education, most attend community colleges, and many of those do not finish (Flores, 2010).

Adolescence marks a period when individuals assert independence, define identity, and begin to develop a life course through acts such as obtaining a driver’s license, applying to college, and developing a vocational path (Erikson, 1963; Gonzalez, Suarez-Orozco, & Dedios-Sanguineti, 2013). For unauthor- ized students, these acts may be impossible because their options for work and education are limited by state laws (Abrego, 2006; Abrego & Gonzales, 2010). As described by Gonzalez (2011), high school is often a time of “discovery” for unauthorized students who for the first time may confront the crippling im- plications of their status and the extinction of their hopes and dreams; such realizations can lead to depression, anger, and even thoughts of suicide. While no federal law prohibits unauthorized students from obtaining a college edu- cation, most states do not offer them in-state tuition, and some states deny them financial assistance (Díaz-Strong, Gómez, Luna-Duarte, & Meiners, 2011). Thus, while immigrant students in general may hold higher academic aspirations than their peers (García Coll & Marks, 2009), unauthorized high school students, faced with multiple structural barriers, hold lower aspirations. McWhirtley, Ramos, and Medina (2013) found that high school immigrant students who anticipated immigration status problems had lower vocational outcome expectations and anticipated more external barriers to pursuing their postsecondary plans.

While research has documented the challenges Latino immigrant high school students face, it has also revealed protective factors that underscore the importance of strong connections with family and community. One important protective factor for Latino immigrant students in high school is social relation- ships. For example, Sirin et al. (2013) found that social support moderated the relationship between acculturative stress and anxious/depressed symptoms for immigrant high school students. Similarly, Suárez-Orozco et al. (2008) found that social support was particularly important for first-generation immigrant high school students who need help navigating new linguistic and cultural environments, achieving financial stability, and receiving emotional and prac- tical support. One concrete action that can lead to social support for high

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

148

school students is participation in afterschool activities. Camacho and Fuligni (2015) found that participation in such activities was beneficial with regards to academic achievement and engagement for immigrant high school students across generation statuses and that it was most beneficial for first-generation students. Strong family relationships and parental involvement can also be pro- tective factors for high school students; for example, Mena (2011) found that home-based monitoring and discussion of educational experiences improved immigrant high school students’ intentions to complete the school year. Op- portunities for mentorship (Gonzales, 2010) and financial assistance (Flores, 2010) can further minimize the disadvantage of unauthorized immigrant stu- dents. Finally, given the multiple structural barriers they face, sociopolitical development and fostering critical consciousness can be particularly protective for immigrant youth and can contribute to academic achievement and post- secondary expectations (Abrego, 2006; Abrego & Gonzalez, 2010; Luginbuhl, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 2006; Perez et al., 2010).

Discussion

Latino immigrant children are a growing segment of the U.S. population, and understanding how to educate them effectively should be a top priority for the nation. As young children, Latino immigrant students often start at a disadvantage in part due to their lower rates of enrollment in early education (associated with their parents’ socioeconomic status and, for some, legal sta- tus). They may face disadvantages throughout elementary and middle school related to cultural barriers between the school and home as well as teacher bias and low expectations. They further experience social barriers and immigration- related stressors in high school that can affect their mental health, cognitive functioning, and academic performance. Despite holding high educational as- pirations and expectations, structural barriers due to their own or their parents’ unauthorized status, economic resources, or racism may hinder their path to- ward postsecondary education.

Strong partnerships among schools, families, and communities are vital to the success of immigrant students. The family–school–community systems model proposed by Dearing, Sibley, and Nguyen (2015) emphasized that these connections require investments from all three agents in the system. Commu- nities and schools play a key role in determining the extent to which families are aware of opportunities to be involved at the school and can take advantage of educational opportunities for their children. For example, schools should be proactive in providing outreach to immigrant families. An action research proj- ect with teachers in primarily immigrant school districts found that holding

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

149

parent–teacher conferences in parents’ neighborhoods (such as in a church hall) or extending hours for parents to meet with teachers helped eliminate many of the barriers facing immigrant parents (e.g., intimidation, inflexible employment hours; Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, & Hernandez, 2003). Thus, schools in communities with high immigrant concentrations can serve their community in many ways and adapt as the community’s needs change. Impor- tantly, school staff should approach family–school partnerships with Latino immigrant parents from a strengths-based perspective, recognizing that their language and cultural values will contribute positively to their children’s devel- opment. When families feel that their culture is valued and teachers reach out to them for input, parents often become more involved at the school and in their children’s education (Orozco, 2008).

When designing classroom practices, school staff should pay particular at- tention to the cultural values of their students’ families. For example, the value of collectivism, which is important in Latino culture, is defined as the central- ity of the interrelatedness of the self to others, with family considered to be an important social resource and interdependency among family members viewed as paramount (Chang, 2015; Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Trumbull, 1999). When raising children with collectivist values, parents teach them to help oth- ers and contribute to the success of the group (Rothstein-Fisch et al., 1999). Because U.S. teachers and schools tend to be individualistic, they are likely to value and reward students for individual accomplishments and the ability to focus on their own work (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). Some strategies to foster collectivism in the classroom setting include placing struggling and advanced readers within the same reading groups and encouraging them to help each other (rather than placing all struggling stu- dents in one group and advanced readers in another) and encouraging students to use personal and family anecdotes in class discussions (Rothstein-Fisch et al., 1999; Trumbull et al., 2001).

Specific case management for high-needs students, including Latino im- migrant students, should also be a priority, so that both mental health and academic needs can be addressed. Community school models and integrated student supports (see Moore et al., 2014, for a review) can be an effective way to ensure that students’ academic and out-of-school needs are appropriately met. For example, full-service community school models that provide health care, academic support, mental health, and material support for families help to ensure that academic and nonacademic challenges (that may be caused in part due to out-of-school factors such as those related to poverty) can be addressed simultaneously. School social workers can help connect families to resources they are entitled to but may not know how to access. Schools should also work

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

150

directly with families when immigrant students are struggling. For example, for immigrant students struggling with adjustment, the Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) intervention is a potential resource. CBC is a partnership model between parents, teachers, and a school consultant (e.g., a psychologist) to address students’ social/emotional needs through a collaboratively construct- ed plan with methods to measure the child’s progress over time. Randomized trials have shown the CBC to be effective in improving home–school commu- nication (Sheridan et al., 2013) and parent–teacher relationships (Sheridan et al., 2012). This exemplary program affords immigrant parents an opportunity to share their culture-specific childrearing goals and methods.

School engagement is an important predictor of achievement but has been found to be low among Latino youth (Brewster & Bowen, 2004). Mentor- ing programs for students have been shown to help prevent declines in school engagement (Holt, Bry, & Johnson, 2008). Additionally, smaller schools and high expectation schools have been shown to promote student engagement (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Teachers should also be trained to understand the important role that their support of students plays given strong research linking teacher–child relationship and positive behavioral engagement (Valeski & Stipek, 2001). This is particularly important for immigrant stu- dents who may be subject to teacher biases and prejudice based on students’ language, race, and socioeconomic status (Brown, 2015).

Although much work has focused on the importance of school–family con- nections, fewer scholars have focused on the third critical factor: communities (Dearing et al., 2015). Community agencies can provide material and social supports to schools and families, which may be especially useful to disadvan- taged students and their families. City Connects (Walsh et al., 2014) is an example of a whole–child intervention that leverages both school and commu- nity supports. Site coordinators placed in each school assess the strengths and needs of every child across four domains: academics, health, family, and be- havior–social/emotional. Using this information, the coordinators then match each child with a unique set of school- and community-provided supports. For example, a child may receive a referral to an afterschool sports or art pro- gram; the family may receive a referral to an organization that provides basic needs (e.g., food, diapers); or the child may be set up with additional aca- demic supports in school. A recent study (Dearing et al., 2016) found positive effects of City Connects on the academic outcomes of first-generation immi- grant students in urban elementary schools. This intervention may have been particularly useful because it addressed the full set of needs facing each im- migrant student in both the school and home context (i.e., provided medical care for students with health issues, provided food assistance for families and

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

151

mental health counseling for parents and children, etc.). Other whole-child interventions that approach student outcomes from a contextual perspective, addressing the family, school, and community, may be likely to have similarly positive outcomes.

Future Research Directions

There is still much that we do not know about the educational experiences of immigrant youth. One subset of undocumented youth—unaccompanied immigrant youth—have been the focus of very little research, so their academ- ic outcomes remain largely unknown. These children present a very difficult challenge to schools as these students often come without strong familial con- nections to ease the transition into school, high rates of exposure to stressful and traumatic events, complicated legal cases, low levels of English proficiency, and varying completion levels of formal schooling. In districts with high con- centrations of unaccompanied immigrant youth, case studies examining how schools and community-based organizations deal with this influx and support children on an individual basis would add useful data to literature at the inter- section of research and practice.

Much more work is needed to determine specific interventions that may be effective for immigrant children’s achievement and growth. From a theoretical and empirical perspective, approaches that maximize the relationships between schools, families, and communities are likely to have the greatest impact on the educational outcomes of this population.

References

Abrego, L. J. (2006). I can’t go to college because I don’t have papers: Incorporation pat- terns of Latino undocumented youth. Latino Studies, 4, 212–231. doi:10.1057/palgrave. lst.8600200

Abrego, L. J. (2011). Legal consciousness of undocumented Latinos: Fear and stigma as bar- riers to claims-making for first- and 1.5-generation immigrants. Law & Society Review, 45 (2), 337–370.

Abrego, L. J., & Gonzales, R. G. (2010). Blocked paths, uncertain futures: The postsecondary education and labor market prospects of undocumented Latino youths. Journal of Educa- tion for Students Placed at Risk, 15, 144–157. doi:10.1080/10824661003635168

Aldardondo, E., & Becker, R. (2011). Promoting the well-being of unaccompanied immigrant minors. In L. P. Buki & L. M. Piedra (Eds.), Creating infrastructure for Latino mental health (pp. 195–214). New York, NY: Springer.

Alegría, M., Sribney, W., Woo, M., Torres, M., & Guarnaccia, P. (2007). Looking beyond nativity: The relation of age of immigration, length of residence, and birth cohorts to the risk of onset of psychiatric disorders for Latinos. Research in Human Development, 4(1–2), 19–47.

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

152

Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 287–298). Dallas, TX: Springer.

Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644.

Brabeck, K. M., Sibley, E., & Lykes, M. B. (2016). Authorized and unauthorized immigrant parents: The impact of legal vulnerability on family contexts. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38(1), 3–30.

Brabeck, K. M., Sibley, E., Taubin, P., & Murcia, A. (2016). The influence of immigrant par- ent legal status on U.S.-born children’s academic abilities: The moderating effects of social service use. Applied Developmental Science, 20(4), 237–249.

Brandon, P. D. (2004). The child care arrangements of preschool-age children in immigrant families in the United States. International Migration, 42(1), 65–87.

Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk for school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1), 47–67.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1023). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Brown, C. S. (2015). The educational, psychological, and social impact of discrimination on the immigrant child. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Brown, C. S., & Chu, H. (2012). Discrimination, ethnic identity, and academic outcomes of Mexican immigrant children: The importance of school context. Child Development, 83(5), 1477–1485.

Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328. doi:10.3102/00028312 042002305

Callahan, R. M., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course tak- ing among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 84–117. doi:10.3102/0162373709359805

Camacho, D. E., & Fuligni, A. J. (2015). Extracurricular participation among adolescents from immigrant families. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 4(6), 1251–1262. doi:10.1007/s10 964-014-0105-z

Capps, R., Bachmeier, J. D., Fix, M., & Van Hook, J. (2013). A demographic, socioeconomic, and health coverage profile of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J. (2004). The health and well- being of young children of immigrants. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Carreón, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498. doi:10.3102/00028312042003465

Chang, J. (2015). The interplay between collectivism and social support processes among Asian and Latino American college students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 4–14. doi:10.1037/a0035820

Contreras, F. E. (2009). Sin papeles y rompiendo barreras [Without papers and breaking bar- riers]: Latina/o students and the challenges of persisting in college. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 610–632.

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

153

Crosnoe, R. (2005). Double disadvantage or signs of resilience? The elementary school con- texts of children from Mexican immigrant families. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 269–303. doi:10.3102/00028312042002269

Crosnoe, R. (2007). Early child care and the school readiness of children from Mexican im- migrant families. International Migration Review, 41(1), 152–181.

Crosnoe, R. (2010). Two-generation strategies and involvement of immigrant parents in children’s education. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Crosnoe, R., & Lopez Turley, R. N. (2011). K–12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The Future of Children, 21(1).

Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653–664.

Dearing, E., Sibley, E., & Nguyen, H. (2015). Achievement mediators of family engagement in children’s education: A family–school–community systems model. In S. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.), Research on family–school partnerships, Vol. II: Processes and pathways of family–school partnerships (pp. 17–39). New York, NY: Springer.

Dearing, E., Walsh, M. E., Sibley, E., Lee‐St. John, T., Foley, C., & Raczek, A. E. (2016). Can community and school‐based supports improve the achievement of first‐generation immigrant children attending high‐poverty schools? Child Development, 87(3), 883–897.

Díaz-Strong, D., Gómez, C., Luna-Duarte, M. E., & Meiners, E. R. (2011). Purged: Undocu- mented students, financial aid policies, and access to higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10, 107–119. doi:10.1177/1538192711401917

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A me-

ta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–21. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385 Flores, S. (2010). State dream acts: The effects of in-state tuition policies and undocumented

Latino students. The Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 239–283. Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of

the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. García Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., García, H. V., & McAdoo,

H. P. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minor- ity children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. doi:10.2307/1131600

Garcia Coll, C., & Marks, A. (2009). Immigrant stories: Ethnicity and academics in middle childhood. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Glick, J. E., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). Academic performance of young children in immigrant families: The significance of race, ethnicity, and national origins. The Interna- tional Migration Review, 41(2), 371–402.

Gonzales, R. G. (2010). On the wrong side of the tracks: Understanding the effects of school structure and social capital on the educational pursuits of undocumented immigrant stu- dents. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 469–485.

Gonzales, R. G. (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal con- texts in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 76, 602–619. doi:10. 1177/0003122411411901

Gonzalez, R. G., Suarez-Orozco, C., & Dedios-Sanguineti, M. C. (2013). No place to be- long: Contextualizing concepts of mental health among undocumented immigrant youth in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist, 567(8), 1174–1199. doi:10.1177/ 0002764213487349

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

154

Gormley, W. T., Jr., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal preK on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 872–884.

Han, G., Helm, J., Iucha, C., Zahn-Waxler, C., Hastings P. D., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2016). Are executive functioning deficits concurrently and predictively associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms in adolescents? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(1), 45–58. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1041592

Han, W., Lee, R., & Waldfogel, J. (2012). School readiness among children of immigrants in the U.S.: Evidence from a large national birth cohort study. Children & Youth Services Review, 34(4), 771–782.

Harklau, L. (1994a). ‘‘Jumping tracks’’: How language-minority students negotiate evalua- tions of ability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(3), 347–363. doi:10.1525/aeq. 1994.25.3.04x0149s

Harklau, L. (1994b). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability group- ing for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6, 217–244. doi:10.1016/08 98-5898(94)90012-4

Hernandez, D. J., & Cervantes, W. D. (2011). Children in immigrant families: Ensuring op- portunity for every child in America. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.

Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant families: Looking to America’s future. SRCD Social Policy Report, 22(3), 3–22.

Hernandez, D. J., & Napierala, J. S. (2012). Children in immigrant families: Essential to Amer- ica’s future. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.

Hinnant, J. B., O’Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. R. (2009). The longitudinal relations of teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662–670.

Holt, L. J., Bry, B. H., & Johnson, V. L. (2008). Enhancing minority school engagement in at-risk, urban minority adolescents through a school-based, adult mentoring intervention. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 30(4), 297–318.

Hwang, C., & Wood, J. J. (2009). Acculturative family distancing: Links with self-reported symptomatology. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 40(1), 123–138.

Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority chil- dren’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218. doi:10.1177/ 0013124502239392

Kanno, Y., & Cromley, J. (2013). English language learners’ access to and attainment in post- secondary education. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 89–121. doi:10.1002/tesq.49

Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). ‘‘I’m not going to be, like, for the AP’’: English language learners limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research, 51, 847–858. doi:10.3102/0002831214544716

Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809–840.

Koury, A. S., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2014). School readiness of children from immigrant fami- lies: Contributions of region of origin, home, and childcare. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 106(1), 268–288.

Lahaie, C. (2006). School readiness of children of immigrants: Does parental involvement play a role? Social Science Quarterly, 89(3), 684–705.

Lansdale, N. S., Hardie, J. H., Oropesa, R. S., & Hillemeier, M. M. (2015). Behavioral func- tioning among Mexican-origin children: Does legal status matter? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 56(1), 2–18. doi:10.1177/0022146514567896

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

155

Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R. W. (2007). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 52–66.

Luginbuhl, P. J., McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, B. T. (2006). Sociopolitical development, autonomous motivation, and education outcomes: Implications for low-income Latino/a adolescents. Journal of Latino/a Psychology, 4(1), 43–59.

Magnuson, K., Lahaie, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2006). Preschool and school readiness of children of immigrants. Social Science Quarterly, 87(5), 1241–1262.

Matthews, H., & Ewen, D. (2006). Reaching all children? Understanding early care and educa- tion participation among immigrant families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

McWhirtley, E. H., Ramos, K., & Medina, C. (2013). Y ahora que? Anticipated immigration barriers and Latino/a high school students’ future expectations. Cultural Diversity and Eth- nic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 288–297.

Mena, J. A. (2011). Latino parent home-based practices that bolster student academic per- sistence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 490–506. doi:10.1177/073998631 1422897

Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Carney, R., Lippman, L., Li, W., Muenks, K.,…Terzian, M. A. (2014). Making the grade: Assessing the evidence for integrated student supports. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.

Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Lawner, E. K., Rojas, A., & Walker, K. (2014). Abriendo Puertas/ Opening Doors Parenting Program: Summary report of program implementation and impacts. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.

Motel, S., & Patten, E. (2011). Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging: Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241–263.

Nievar, M. A., Jacobson, A., Chen, Q., Johnson, U., & Dier, S. (2011). Impact of HIPPY on home learning environments of Latino families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 268–277.

Olivos, E. M., & Mendoza, M. (2009). Immigration and educational inequity: An examina- tion of Latino immigrant parents’ inclusion in the public school context. The Journal of Latino–Latin American Studies, 33, 38–53.

Orozco, G. L. (2008). Understanding the culture of low-income immigrant Latino parents: Key to involvement. School Community Journal, 18(1), 21–37. Retreived from http://www. schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2011). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends, 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Passel, J., Cohn, D., & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2013). Population decline of unauthorized im- migrants stalls, may have reversed. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/population-decline-of-unauthorized-immi- grants-stalls-may-have-reversed/

Perez, M. C., & Fortuna, L. (2005). Chapter 6: Psychosocial stressors, psychiatric diagnoses, and utilization of mental health services among undocumented immigrant Latinos. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Services, 3(1–2), 107–123.

SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

156

Pérez, W., Cortés, R., Ramos, K., & Coronado, H. (2010). “Cursed and blessed”: Examining the socioemotional and academic experiences of undocumented Latina and Latino college students. New Directions for Student Services, 2010, 35–51. doi:10.1002/ss.366

Pérez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H., & Cortés, R. (2009). Academic resilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 149– 181. doi:10.1177/ 0739986309333020

Pong, S., & Landale, N. S. (2012). Academic achievement of legal immigrants’ children: The roles of parents’ pre- and post-migration characteristics in origin-group differences. Child Development, 83(5), 1543–1559.

Poza, L., Brooks, M. D., & Valdés, G. (2014). Entre familia: Immigrant parents’ strategies for involvement in children’s schooling. School Community Journal, 24(1), 119–148. Retreived from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

Reardon-Anderson, J., Capps, R., & Fix, M. (2002). The health and well-being of children in immigrant families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Roth, B. J., & Grace, B. L. (2015). Falling through the cracks: The paradox of post-release services for unaccompanied immigrant children. Children & Youth Services Review, 58, 244–252.

Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Trumbull, E. (1999). Bridging cultures with class- room strategies. Educational Leadership, 56(7), 64–67.

Sheridan, S. M., Bovaird, J. A., Glover, T. A., Garbacz, S. A., & Witte, A. (2012). A random- ized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent–teacher relationship. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 23.

Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (2013). Conjoint behavioral consultation: A procedural manual. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Sibley, E., & Dearing, E. (2014). Family educational involvement and child achievement in early elementary school for American-born and immigrant families. Psychology in the Schools, 51(8), 814–831. doi:10.1002/pits.21784

Sirin, S. R., Gupta, T., Ryce, P., Katsiaficas, D., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2013). Understanding the role of social support in trajectories of mental health symptoms for im- migrant adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 199–207.

Suárez-Orozco, C., Bang, H. J., & Onaga, M. (2010). Contributions to variations in academic trajectories amongst recent immigrant youth. International Journal of Behavioral Develop- ment, 34(6), 500–510. doi:10.1177/0165025409360304

Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a new land: Edu- cational pathways of immigrant youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C., Yokiskawa, H., Teranishi, R., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The developmental implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 438–472.

Taylor, P., Lopez, M., Passel, J., & Motel, S. (2011). Unauthorized immigrants: Lengths of residency, patterns of parenthood. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/01/unauthorized-immigrants-length-of-residency- patterns-of-parenthood/

Trueba, E. (1999). Latinos unidos: From cultural diversity to the politics of solidarity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures between home and schools: A guide for teachers. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Hernandez, E. (2003). Parent involvement in school- ing: According to whose values? School Community Journal, 13(2), 45–72. Retreived from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS AND COLLABORATION

157

Ungar, M. (2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Springer.

Ungar, M., Ghazinour, M., & Richter, J. (2013). Annual research review: What is resilience within the social ecology of human development? The Journal of Child Psychology and Psy- chiatry, 54(4), 348–366.

Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. (2001). Young children’s feelings about school. Child Development, 73, 1198–2013.

Viladrich, A. (2012). Beyond welfare reform: Reframing undocumented immigrants’ entitle- ment to healthcare in the United States, a critical review. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 822–829. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.050

Walsh, M. E., Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. E., Dearing, E., Foley, C., An, C.,…Beaton, A. (2014). A new model for student support in high-poverty urban elementary schools: Ef- fects on elementary and middle school academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 704–737.

Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Develop- ment, 84(6), 2112–2130.

Xu, Q., & Brabeck, K. (2012). Service utilization for Latino children in mixed-status families. Social Work Research, 36(3), 209–221.

Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young chil- dren. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Yoshikawa, H., Godfrey, E., & Rivera, A. (2008). Access to institutional resources as a measure of social exclusion: Relations with family process and cognitive development in the context of immigration. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 121, 63–86.

Yoshikawa, H., & Kalil, A. (2011). The effects of parental undocumented status on the devel- opmental contexts of young children in immigrant families. Child Development Perspec- tives, 5(4), 291–297. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00204.x

Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2015). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Erin Sibley is a postdoctoral research associate at the Center for Optimized Student Support at Boston College. Her research interests include immigrant student achievement as well as parent educational involvement among immi- grant families. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Erin Sibley, Boston College, Center for Optimized Student Support, Campion 305, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, or email erin. [email protected]

Kalina Brabeck is an associate professor in the Department of Counseling, Educational Leadership, and School Psychology at Rhode Island College. Her research interests include immigrant children and youth, the effects of immi- gration policies on immigrants, and the influence of sociostructural challenges on individual mental health and well-being.

What Do Schools Teach? Author(s): Michael W. Apple and Nancy R. King Source: Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 6, No. 4, Curriculum Theorizing since 1947: Rhetoric or Progress? (1977), pp. 341-358 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1179656 Accessed: 03-01-2019 15:52 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1179656?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Curriculum Inquiry

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

What Do Schools Teach? MICHAEL W. APPLE

University of Wisconsin, Madison

NANCY R. KING

Wheelock College

Schooling and Cultural Capital

One of the least attractive arguments in recent years has been that schools are relatively unexciting, boring, or what have you, because of mindlessness (Silberman 1970). The argument has it that schools covertly teach all those things that humanistic critics of schools so like to write and talk about-behavioral consensus, institutional rather than personal goals and norms, alienation from one's products, etc.-and that they do so because teachers, administrators, and other educators do not really know what they are doing.

However, such a perspective is misleading at best. In the first place, it is thoroughly ahistorical. It ignores the fact that schools were in part designed to teach exactly these things. The hidden curriculum, the tacit teaching of social and economic norms and expectations to students in schools, is not as hidden or "mindless" as many educators believe. Sec- ondly, it ignores the critical task schools perform as the fundamental set of institutions in advanced industrial societies that certifies adult

competence. It pulls schools out of their setting within a larger and much more powerful nexus of economic and political institutions that give schools their meaning. That is, schools seem, by and large, to do what they are supposed to do, at least in terms of roughly providing dispositions and propensities "functional" in later life in a complex and stratified social and economic order.

While there is no doubt that mindlessness does exist other than in

Charles Silberman's mind, it is not an adequate descriptive device-any more than venality or indifference-in explaining why schools are so resistant to change or why schools teach what they do (Gintis and An earlier version of this paper was presented at a Phi Delta Kappa invited confer- ence, "Humanism and Schooling," at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, January 1976.

? 1977 by The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

341 CURRICULUM INQUIRY 6:4 (1977)

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

Bowles 1975, p. 109). Nor is it an appropriate conceptual tool to ferret out what, precisely, is taught in schools or why some social meanings and not others are used in the organization of school life.

Yet, it is not just the school critics who present too simple an analysis of the social and economic meaning of schools. All too often, the social meaning of school experience has been accepted as unproblematic by sociologists of education, or as problems merely of engineering by cur- riculum specialists and other programmatically inclined educators. The curriculum field, more particularly than other educational areas, has been dominated by a perspective that might best be called "techno- logical," in that the major interest guiding its work has involved finding the one best set of means to reach pre-chosen educational ends.' Against this relatively ameliorative and uncritical background, a number of soci- ologists and curriculum scholars, influenced strongly by the sociology of knowledge in both its Marxist (or neo-Marxist) and phenomenological variants, have begun to raise serious questions about the lack of attention to the relationship between school knowledge and extra-school phe- nomena. A fundamental starting point in these investigations has been well articulated by Michael Young (1971a); he notes that there is a "dialectical relationship between access to power and the opportunity to legitimize certain dominant categories, and the process by which the availability of such categories to some groups enables them to assert power and control over others" (p. 8). In essence, just as there is a rela- tively unequal distribution of economic capital in society, so too is there a similar distribution of cultural capital (Kennett 1973, p. 238). In ad- vanced industrial societies, schools are particularly important as distrib- utors of this cultural capital, and they play a critical role in giving legitimacy to categories and forms of knowledge. The very fact that cer- tain traditions and normative "content" are construed as school knowl-

edge is prima facie evidence of their perceived legitimacy. We would argue here that the problem of educational knowledge, of

what is taught in schools, has to be considered as a form of the larger distribution of goods and services in a society. It is not merely an ana- lytic problem (What shall be construed as knowledge?), nor simply a technical one (How do we organize and store knowledge so that children may have access to it and "master" it?), nor, finally, is it a purely psycho- logical problem (How do we get students to learn X?). Rather, the study of educational knowledge is a study in ideology, the investigation of what is considered legitimate knowledge (be it knowledge of the logical type of "that," "how," or "to") by specific social groups and classes, in specific institutions, at specific historical moments. It is, further, a critically oriented form of investigation, in that it chooses to focus on how this knowledge, as distributed in schools, may contribute to a cog- nitive and dispositional development that strengthens or reinforces existing (and often problematic) institutional arrangements in society. In clearer terms, the overt and covert knowledge found within school settings, and the principles of selection, organization, and evaluation of

342

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

this knowledge, are value-governed selections from a much larger universe of possible knowledge and selection principles. Hence they must not be accepted as given, but must be made problematic-bracketed, if you will-so that the social and economic ideologies and the institutionally patterned meanings, which stand behind them, can be scrutinized. The latent meaning and the configuration that lies behind the commonsense acceptability of a position may be its most important attributes. And these hidden institutional meanings and relations2 are almost never uncovered if we are guided only by amelioration. As Kallos has noted, any educational system has both manifest and latent "functions." These need to be characterized not only in educational (or learning) terms but, more importantly, in politico-economic terms. In short, discussions about the quality of educational life are relatively meaningless if the "specific functions of the educational system are unrecognized" (1974, p. 7). If much of the literature on what schools tacitly teach is accurate, then the specific functions may be more economic than intellectual.

In this paper, we would like to focus on certain aspects of the prob- lem of schooling and social and economic meaning. We shall look at schools as institutions that embody collective traditions and human in- tentions which, in turn, are the products of identifiable social and eco- nomic ideologies. Thus, our starting point might best be phrased as the question, "Whose meanings are collected and distributed through the overt and hidden curricula in schools?" That is, as Marx was fond of saying, reality does not stalk around with a label. The curriculum in schools responds to and represents ideological and cultural resources that come from somewhere. Not all groups' visions are represented and not all groups' meanings are responded to. How, then, do schools act to distribute this cultural capital? Whose reality "stalks" in the corridors and classrooms of American schools?

We shall focus on two areas. First, we shall offer a description of the historical process through which certain social meanings became partic- ularly school meanings and thus have the weight of decades of accept- ance behind them. Second, we shall offer empirical evidence, from a study of kindergarten experience, to document the potency and staying power of these particular social meanings. Finally, we shall raise the question of whether piecemeal reforms, be they oriented humanistically or in other directions, can succeed.

The task of dealing with sets of meanings in schools has traditionally fallen upon the curriculum specialist. Historically, however, this concern for meanings in schools by curriculists has been linked to varied notions of social control. This should not surprise us. It should be obvious, though it is usually not so, that questions about meanings in social insti- tutions tend to become questions of control.3 That is, the forms of knowledge (both overt and covert kinds) one finds within school settings imply notions of power and of economic resources and control. The very choice of school knowledge, the act of designing school environments, though they may not be done consciously, are often based on ideological

343

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

and economic presuppositions which provide commensense rules for educators' thought and action. Perhaps the links between meaning and control in schools will become clearer if we reflect on a relatively abbreviated account of the history of curriculum.

Meaning and Control in Curriculum History

The British sociologist Bill Williamson (1974) argues that men and women "have to contend with the institutional and ideological forms of earlier times as the basic constraints on what they can achieve" (pp. lo- 11 ). If this notion is to be taken seriously, then one must understand what is provided and taught in schools in historical terms. As Wil- liamson notes, "Earlier educational attitudes of dominant groups in society still carry historical weight and are exemplified even in the bricks and mortar of the school buildings themselves" (p. o1).

If we are to be honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that the curriculum field has its roots in the soil of social control. Its intellectual

paradigm first took shape in the early part of this century, and became an identifiable set of procedures for the selection and organization of school knowledge-procedures to be taught to teachers and other edu- cators. At that time, the fundamental concern of the people in the cur- riculum field was that of social control. Part of this concern is under-

standable. Many of the important figures who influenced the curriculum field (such as Charles C. Peters, Ross Finney, and especially David Snedden) had interests that spanned both the field of educational sociology and the more general problems of what should actually happen in schools. The idea of social control was of growing importance in the American Sociological Society at that time, and was an idea which seemed to capture both the imagination and energy of many of the nation's intelligentsia, as well as of powerful segments of the business community. It is, therefore, not difficult to see how it also captured those figures who wore two hats, who were both sociologists and cur- riculum workers (Franklin 1974, pp. 2-3).

But an interest in schooling as a mechanism for social control was not merely borrowed from sociology. The individuals who first called themselves curriculists (men like Franklin Bobbitt and W. W. Charters) were vitally concerned with social control for ideological reasons as well. These men were strongly influenced by the scientific management movement and by the work of social measurement specialists;4 they were also guided by beliefs that found the popular eugenics movement a "progressive" social force. Thus, they brought social control into the very heart of the field whose task it was to develop criteria for selecting those meanings with which students would come into contact in our schools.

This is not, of course, to say that social control in and of itself is always undesirable. Social life without some element of control is nearly impossible to envision, if only because of the fact that institutions, qua

344

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

institutions, tend to respond to the regularities of human interaction. Rather, there was historically a specific set of assumptions-of common- sense rules-about school meanings and control that strongly influenced early curriculum workers. They not only assumed that organized society must maintain itself through the preservation of some of its valued forms of interaction and meaning (a quite general and wholly under- standable "weak" sense of social control). They also had, deeply em- bedded in their ideological perspective, a "strong" sense of control. Here, education in general, and the everyday meanings of the curriculum in schools in particular, were seen as essential elements in the preservation of existing social privilege, interests, and knowledge, which were the prerogatives of one element of the population, maintained at the ex- pense of less powerful groups (Franklin 1974, pp. 4-5). Most often, this took the form of attempting to guarantee expert and scientific control in society, to eliminate or "socialize" unwanted racial or ethnic groups or their characteristics, or to produce an economically efficient group of citizens, in order to, as C. C. Peters put it, reduce the maladjustment of workers to their jobs. This latter interest, the economic substratum of everyday school life, becomes of particular importance when, later in this essay, we look at what schools teach about work and play.

Of course, social control as an idea or interest did not originate with the early curriculum movement's attempts to use school knowledge for rather conservative social ends. Social control was an implied aim of a large number of ameliorative social and political programs carried out during the nineteenth century by both state and private agencies. It had been their intention, too, that order, stability, and the imperative of industrial growth might be maintained in the face of a variety of social and economic changes (Franklin 1974, p. 317). As Feinberg's (1975) analysis of the ideological roots of liberal educational policy demon- strates, even in this century many of the proposed "reforms," both in schools and elsewhere, have latently served the conservative social in- terests of stability and social stratification.

The argument presented so far is not meant to debunk the efforts of educators and social reformers. Instead, it is an attempt to place the current debate concerning the lack of humaneness in schools, the tacit teaching of social norms, values, and so forth, within a larger historical context. Without such a context, we cannot fully understand the rela- tionship between what schools actually do and an advanced industrial economy like our own. The best example of this context can be found in the changing ideological functions of schooling in general and cur- ricular meanings in particular. Behind much of the debate about the role of formal education in the United States during the nineteenth century lay a variety of concerns about the standardization of educational environments, about the teaching, through day-to-day school interaction, of moral, normative, and dispositional values, and about economic func- tionalism. Today these concerns have been given the name of the "hidden curriculum" by Philip Jackson (1968) and others. But it is the

345

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KINGICI

very question of its hiddenness that may help us uncover the historical relationship between what is taught in schools and the larger context of the institutions that surround them.

We should be aware that, historically, the hidden curriculum was not hidden at all, but was instead the overt function of schools during much of their careers as institutions. During the nineteenth century, the increasing diversity of political, social, and cultural attributes and struc- tures "pushed educators to resume with renewed vigor the language of social control and homogenization that had dominated educational rhetoric from the earliest colonial period" (Vallance 1973, p. 15). As the century progressed, the rhetoric of reform-of justifying one's ideological position against other interest groups-did not merely focus on the critical need for social homogeneity. Using schools as a primary agency for inculcating values and for creating an "American community" was not enough. The growing pressures of modernization and industrializa- tion also created certain expectations of efficiency and functionalism among some classes and in an industrial elite in society as well. As Vallance puts it, "to assertive socialization was added a focus on organi- zational efficiency" (p. 18). Thus, the reforms having the greatest effect on school organization, and ultimately on the procedures and principles which governed life in classrooms, were dominated by the language of and an interest in production, well-adjusted economic functioning, and bureaucratic skills. In this process, the underlying reasons for reform slowly changed from an active concern for consensus of values to an economic functionalism. But this could occur only if the prior period, with its search for a standardized national character, built in large part through the characteristics of schools, had both been accepted and per- ceived as successful. Thus, the institutional outlines of schools with their

relatively standardized day-to-day forms of interaction provided the mechanisms by which a normative consensus could be "taught." And within these broad outlines, these behavioral regularities of the institu- tion, if you will, an ideological set of commonsense rules for curriculum selection and for organizing school experience based on efficiency, eco- nomic functionalism, and bureaucratic exigencies took hold. The former became the deep structure, the first hidden curriculum, which encased the latter. Once the hidden curriculum had become hidden, when a uniform and standardized learning context had become established, and when social selection and control were taken as given in schooling, only then could attention be paid to the needs of the individual or other more "ethereal" concerns (Vallance, pp. 18-19).

Thus, historically, a core of commonsense meanings, combining normative consensus and economic adjustment, was built into the very structure of formal education. This is not to say that there have been no significant educational movements toward, say, education for self-devel- opment. But rather, behind these preferential choices about individual needs there was a more powerful set of expectations surrounding school- ing which provided the constitutive structure of school experience. As a

346

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

number of economists have recently noted, the most economically impor- tant "latent function" of school life seems to be the selection and genera- tion of personality attributes and normative meanings that enable one to have a supposed chance at economic rewards.5 Since the school is the only major institution that stands between the family and the labor market, it is not odd that, both historically and currently, certain social meanings which have differential benefits are distributed in schools.

But what are these particular social meanings? How are they orga- nized and displayed in everyday school life? It is these questions to which we now turn.

Ideology and Curriculum in Use

The larger concerns of the prior section with the relationship between ideology and school knowledge, between meanings and control, tend to be altogether too vague unless one can see them as forces in the activities of school people and students, as they go about their particular lives in classrooms. As investigators of the hidden curriculum and others have noted, the concrete modes by which knowledge is distributed in class- rooms and the commonsense practices of teachers and students can illuminate the connections between school life and the structures of

ideology, power, and economic resources of which schools are a part.6 Just as there is a social distribution of cultural capital in society, so

too is there a social distribution of knowledge within classrooms. For example, different "kinds" of students get different "kinds" of knowl- edge. Keddie (1971) documents this well in her study of the knowledge teachers have of their students and the curricular knowledge then made available to them. However, although the differential distribtuion of classroom knowledge does exist and although it is intimately linked to the process of social labeling that goes on in schools (Apple 1975c), it is less important to our analysis than what might be called the "deep structure" of school experience. What underlying meanings are nego- tiated and transmitted in schools behind the actual formal "stuff" of curriculum content? What happens when knowledge is filtered through teachers? Through what categories of normality and deviance is it fil- tered? What is the basic and organizing framework of the normative and conceptual knowledge that students actually get? In short, what is the curriculum-in-use? It is only by seeing this deep structure that we can begin pointing out how social norms, institutions, and ideological rules are continually sustained by the day-to-day interaction of common- sense actors, as they go about their normal practices.7 This is especially true in classrooms. Social definitions about school knowledge-definitions that are both dialectically related to and rest within the larger context of the surrounding social and economic institutions-are maintained and recreated by the commonsense practices of teaching and evaluation in classrooms.8

347

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

We shall focus on kindergarten here because it occupies a critical moment in the process by which students become competent in the rules, norms, values, and dispositions "necessary" to function within institutional life as it now exists. Learning the role of students is a com- plex activity, one that takes time and continual interaction with institu- tional expectations. By focusing on how this occurs and on the content of the dispositions that are, both overtly and covertly, part of kinder- garten knowledge, we can begin to illuminate the background knowledge children use as organizing principles for much of the rest of their school career-

In short, the social definitions internalized during one's initial school life provide the constitutive rules for later life in classrooms. Thus, the elements needing examination are what is construed as work or play, "school knowledge" or merely "my knowledge," normality or deviance. As we shall see, the use of praise, the rules of access to materials, and the control of time and emotions all make significant contributions to the teaching of social meanings in school. But, as we shall also see, it is the meanings attached to the category of work which most clearly illu- minate the possible place of schools in the complex nexus of economic and social institutions which surrounds us all.

Kindergarten experience serves as a foundation for the years of schooling to follow. Children who have attended kindergarten tend to demonstrate a general superiority in achievement in the elementary grades compared with children who have not attended kindergarten. However, attempts to determine exactly which teaching techniques and learning experiences contribute most directly to the "intellectual and emotional growth" of kindergarten children have produced inconclusive results. Kindergarten training appears to exert its most powerful and lasting influence on the attitudes and the behavior of the children by acclimating them to a classroom environment. Children are introduced to their roles as elementary school pupils in kindergarten classrooms; it is understanding and mastery of this role which makes for the greater success of kindergarten-trained children in elementary school.

Socialization in kindergarten classrooms includes the learning of norms and definitions of social interactions. It is the ongoing develop- ment of a working definition of the situation by the participants. In order to function adequately in a social situation, those involved must reach a common understanding of the meanings, limitations, and poten- tial the setting affords for their interaction. During the first few weeks of the school year, the children and the teacher forge a common defini- tion of the situation out of repeated interaction in the classroom. When one common set of social meanings is accepted, classroom activities will proceed smoothly. Most often these common meanings remain relatively stable unless the flow of events in the setting ceases to be orderly.

We should understand, however, that socialization is not a one-way process (MacKay 1973). To some extent, the children in a classroom socialize the teacher as well as becoming socialized themselves. However,

348

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

the children and the teacher do not have equal influence in determining the working definition of the situation. On the first day of school in a kindergarten classroom, the teacher has a more highly organized set of commonsense rules than the children. Since he or she also holds most of

the power to control the events and resources in the classroom, it is his or her set of meanings that is dominant. Of course, even teachers are not free to define the classroom situation in any way they choose. As we saw earlier in this paper, the school is a well-established institution, and it may be that neither the teacher nor the children can perceive more than marginal ways to deviate to any significant extent from the commonsense rules and expectations that distinguish schools from other institutions.

The negotiation of meanings in a kindergarten classroom is a critical phase in the socialization of the children. The meanings of classroom objects and events are not intrinsic to them, but are formed through social interaction. These meanings, as with other aspects of the defini- tion of the situation, may shift for a time. At some point, however, they become stable and are not likely to be renegotiated unless the orderly flow of events in the classroom is disrupted.

Meanings of objects and events become clear to children as they par- ticipate in the social setting. The use of materials, the nature of author- ity, the quality of personal relationships, the spontaneous remarks, as well as other aspects of daily classroom life, all contribute to the child's growing awareness of his or her role in the classroom and to his or her understanding of the social setting. Therefore, to understand the social reality of schooling, it is necessary to study it in actual classroom set- tings. Each concept, role, and object is a social creation bound to the situation in which it is produced. The meanings of classroom interaction cannot be assumed; they must be discovered. The abstraction of these meanings, together with the generalizations and insights drawn from them, may be applicable to other contexts, but the researcher's initial descriptions, understandings, and interpretations require that the social phenomena be encountered where they are produced, that is, in the classroom.9

Observation and interviewing of the participants in one particular public school kindergarten classroom revealed that the social meanings of events and materials were established remarkably early in the school year. As with most classroom settings, the socialization of the children was an overt priority during the opening weeks of school. The four most important skills that the teacher expected the children to learn during those opening weeks were to share, to listen, to put things away, and to follow the classroom routine. Thus, her statement of her goals for the children's early school experiences also constitutes her definition of socialized behavior in the classroom.

The children had no part in organizing the classroom materials and were relatively impotent to affect the course of daily events. The teacher made no special effort to make the children comfortable in the room, nor to reduce their uncertainty about the schedule of activities. Rather than

349

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

mediating intrusive aspects of the environment, she chose to require that the children accommodate themselves to the materials as presented. When the ongoing noise of another class in the hallway distracted the children, for example, the teacher called for their attention; however, she did not close the door. Similarly, the cubbies where the children kept their crayons, smocks, and tennis shoes were not labeled although the children had considerable difficulty remembering which cubby they had been assigned. In spite of many instances of lost crayons and crying children, the teacher refused to permit a student teacher to label the cubbies. She told the student teacher that the children must learn to

remember their assigned cubbies because "that is their job." When one girl forgot where her cubby was on the day after they had been assigned, the teacher pointed her out to the class as an example of a "girl who was not listening yesterday."

The objects in the classroom were attractively displayed in an appar- ent invitation for the class to interact with them. Most of the materials

were placed on the floor or on shelves within easy reach of the children. However, the opportunities to interact with materials in the classroom were severely circumscribed. The teacher's organization of time in the classroom contradicted the apparent availability of materials in the physical setting. During most of the kindergarten session, the children were not permitted to handle objects. The materials, then, were orga- nized so that the children learned restraint; they learned to handle things within easy reach only when permitted to do so by the teacher. The children were "punished" for touching things when the time was not right and praised at moments when they showed restraint. For ex- ample, the teacher praised the children for their prompt obedience when, on being told to do so, they quickly stopped bouncing basketballs in the gym; she made no mention of their ball-handling skills.

The teacher made it clear to the children that good kindergarteners were quiet and cooperative. One morning, a child brought two large stuffed dolls to school and sat them in her assigned seat. During the first period of large group instruction, the teacher referred to them, saying, "Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy are such good helpers! They haven't said a thing all morning."

As part of learning to exhibit socialized behavior the children learned to tolerate the ambiguity and discomfort of the classroom and to accept a considerable degree of arbitrariness in their school activities. They were required to adjust their emotional responses to conform to those considered appropriate by the teacher. They learned to respond to her personally and to the manner in which she organized the classroom environment.

After some two weeks of kindergarten experience, the children had established a category system for defining and organizing their social reality in the classroom. Their interview responses indicated that the activities in the classroom did not have intrinsic meanings; the children assigned meanings depending on the context in which each was carried

350

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

on. The teacher presented the classroom materials either as a part of instruction or, more overtly, she discussed and demonstrated their uses to the class. This is critical. The use of a particular object-that is the manner in which we are predisposed to act toward it-constitutes its meaning for us. In defining the meanings of the things in the classroom, then, the teacher defined the relationships between the children and the materials in terms of contextual meanings bound to the classroom environment.

When asked about classroom objects, the children responded with remarkable agreement and uniformity. The children divided the mate- rials into two categories: things to work with and things to play with. No child organized any material in violation of what seemed to be their guiding principle. Those materials that the children used at the direc- tion of the teacher were work materials. These included books, paper, paste, crayons, glue, and other materials traditionally associated with school tasks. No child chose to use these materials during "play" time, early in the school year. The materials which the children chose during free time were labeled play materials or toys. These included, among other things, games, small manipulatives, the play house, dolls, and the wagon.

The meaning of classroom materials, then, is derived from the nature of the activity in which they are used. The categories of work and play emerged as powerful organizers of the classroom reality early in the school year. Both the teacher and the children considered work activities more important than play activities. Information which the children said they learned in school were all things that the teacher had told them during activities they called "work." "Play" activities were per- mitted only if time allowed and if the children had finished their assigned work activities. Observation data revealed that the category of work had several well-defined parameters sharply separating it from the category of play. First, work includes any and all teacher-directed activi- ties; only free-time activities were called "play" by the children. Activi- ties such as coloring, drawing, waiting in line, listening to stories, watch- ing movies, cleaning up, and singing were called work. To work, then, is to do what one is told to do, no matter the nature of the activity involved.

Second, all work activities, and only work activities, were compulsory. For example, the children were required to draw pictures about specific topics on numerous occasions. During singing, the teacher often inter- rupted to encourage or exhort the children who were not singing or who were singing too softly. Any choices permitted during work periods were circumscribed to fit the limits of accepted uniform procedure. During an Indian dance, for example, the teacher allowed the "sleeping" chil- dren to snore if they wanted. After a trip to the fire station, all the children were required to draw a picture, but each child was permitted to choose whatever part of the tour he liked best as the subject of his picture. (Of course, it is also true that each child was required to

351

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

illustrate his favorite part of the trip.) When introducing another art project the teacher said, "Today you will make a cowboy horse. You can make your horse any color you want, black or grey or brown." At another time, she announced, with great emphasis, that the children could choose three colors for the flowers they were making from cupcake liners. The children gasped with excitement and applauded. These choices did not change the principle that the children were required to use the same materials in the same manner during work periods. If any- thing, the nature of the choices emphasized the general principle.

Not only was every work activity required, but every child had to start at the designated time. The entire class worked on all assigned tasks simultaneously. Further, all the children were required to complete the assigned tasks during the designated work period. In a typical inci- dent, on the second day of school, many children complained that they either could not or did not want to finish a lengthy art project. The teacher said that everyone must finish. One child, on asking if she could finish "next time," was told, "You must finish now."

In addition to requiring that all the children do the same thing at the same time, work activities also involved the children with the same

materials and produced similar or identical products or attainments. During work periods the same materials were presented to the entire class simultaneously, and the same product was expected of each child. All the children were expected to use work materials in the same way. Even seemingly inconsequential procedures had to be followed by every child. For example, after large group instruction on the second day of school, the teacher told the children, "Get a piece of paper and your crayons, and go back to your seats." One child, who got her crayons first, was reminded to get her paper first.

The products or skills, which the children exhibited at the comple- tion of a period of work, were intended to be identical or, at least, similar. The teacher demonstrated most art projects to the entire class before the children got their materials. The children then tried to pro- duce a product as similar to the one the teacher had made as possible. Only those pieces of artwork which were nearly identical to the product the teacher made as demonstration were saved and displayed in the classroom.

Work periods, as defined by the children, then, involved every child working simultaneously, at the same activity, with the same materials, and directed to the same ends. The point of work activities was to do them, not necessarily to do them well. By the second day of school, many children hastily finished their assigned tasks in order to join their friends playing with toys. During music, for example, the teacher ex- horted the children to sing loudly. Neither tunefulness, rhythm, purity of tone nor mood were mentioned to the children or expected of them. It was their enthusiastic and lusty participation which was required. Similarly, the teacher accepted any child's art project on which sufficient time had been spent. The assigned tasks were compulsory and identical, and, in accepting all finished products, the teacher often accepted poor

352

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

or shoddy work. The acceptance of such work nullified any notion of excellence as an evaluative category. Diligence, perseverance, obedience, and participation were rewarded. These are characteristics of the chil- dren, not of their work. In this way, the notion of excellence was sepa- rated from that of successful or acceptable work and replaced by the criterion of adequate participation.

The children, interviewed in September and again in October, used the categories of work and play to create and describe their social reality. Their responses indicate that the first few weeks of school are an impor- tant time for learning about the nature of work in the classroom. In September, no child said "work" when asked what children do in kinder- garten. In October, half of those interviewed responded with the word "work." All the children talked more about working and less about playing in October than they had in September. The teacher was pleased with the progress of the class during the first weeks of school and repeatedly referred to the children as "my good workers."

The teacher often justified her presentation of work activities in the classroom in terms of the preparation of the children for elementary school and for adulthood. For example, she believed that work activities should be compulsory because the children needed practice following directions, without their exercising of options, as preparation for the reality of adult work. The children were expected to view kindergarten as a year of preparation for the first grade. In stressing the importance of coloring neatly or sequencing pictures properly, the teacher spoke of the necessity of these skills in first grade, and of the difficulty that chil- dren who were inattentive in kindergarten would have the following year.

The children were relatively powerless to influence the flow of daily events, and obedience was more highly valued than ingenuity. Again, this atmosphere was seen as an important bridge between home and future work situations. The teacher expected the children to adjust to the classroom setting and to tolerate whatever level of discomfort that adjustment included.

Thus, as part of their initiation into the kindergarten community, young children also receive their first initiation into the social dimension of the world of work. The content of specific lessons is relatively less important than the experience of being a worker. Personal attributes of obedience, enthusiasm, adaptability, and perseverance are more highly valued than academic competence. Unquestioning acceptance of author- ity and of the vicissitudes of life in institutional settings are among a kindergartener's first lessons. It is in the progressive acceptance, as natural, as the world "tout court," of meanings of important and unim- portant knowledge, of work and play, of normality and deviance, that these lessons reside.

Beyond a Rhetorical Humanism

As the late Italian social theorist Antoni Gramsci argued, the control of the knowledge preserving and producing sectors of a society is a critical

353

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

factor in enhancing the ideological dominance of one group of people or one class over less powerful groups of people or classes (Bates 1975, p. 360). In this regard, the role of the school in selecting, preserving, and passing on conceptions of competence, ideological norms, and values (and often only certain social groups' "knowledge")-all of which are embedded within both the overt and hidden curricula in schools-is of no small moment.

At least two aspects of school life serve distributive, social, and eco- nomic functions. As the growing literature on the hidden curriculum shows, and as we have supported with historical and empirical evidence here, the forms of interaction in school life may serve as mechanisms for communicating normative and dispositional meanings to students. Yet, the body of the school knowledge itself-what is included and excluded, what is important and what is unimportant-also often serves an ideological purpose.

As one of the authors (Apple 1971) has demonstrated in an earlier analysis, much of the formal content of curricular knowledge is domi- nated by a consensus ideology. Conflict, either intellectual or normative, is seen as a negative attribute in social life. Thus, there is a peculiar kind of redundancy in school knowledge. Both the everyday experience and the curricular knowledge itself display messages of normative and cognitive consensus. The deep structure of school life, the basic and organizing framework of commonsense rules that is negotiated, in- ternalized, and ultimately seems to give meaning to our experience in educational institutions, seems closely linked to the normative and communicative structures of industrial life.10 How could it be otherwise?

Perhaps we can expect little more from the school experience than what we have portrayed here, given the distribution of resources in the United States, and given the wishes of a large portion of its citizenry. One hypothesis that should not be dismissed too readily is that, in fact, schools do work. In an odd way, they may succeed in reproducing a population that is roughly equivalent to the economic and social strati- fication in society. Thus, when one asks of schools, "Where is their humaneness?" perhaps the question may be more difficult to grapple with than the questioner expects.

For example, one could interpret this essay as a statement against a particular community's commitment to education, or as a negative state- ment about particular kinds of teachers who are "less able than they might be." This would be basically incorrect, we believe. The city where this study was conducted is educationally oriented. It spends a large amount of its resources on schooling and feels that it deserves its repu- tation as having one of the best school systems in the area, if not the nation.

Just as important, we should be careful not to view this kind of teacher as poorly trained, unsuccessful, or uncaring. Exactly the opposite is often the case. The classroom teacher who was observed is, in fact, perceived as a competent teacher by administrators, colleagues, and

354

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

parents. Given this, the teacher's activities must be understood, not merely in terms of the patterns of social interaction that dominate class- rooms, but in terms of the wider patterning of social and economic relationships in the social structure of which he or she and the school itself are a part (Sharp and Green 1975, p. 8).

When teachers distribute normative interpretations of, say, work and play like the historical and contemporary ones we have documented here, one must ask, with Sharp and Green, "to what problems are these viable solutions for the teachers?" (p. 13). "What is the commonsense interpretive framework of teachers and to what set of ideological pre- suppositions does it respond?" In this way, we can situate classroom knowledge and activity within the larger framework of structural rela- tionships which-either through teacher and parent expectations, the classroom material environment, what are considered important prob- lems for teachers to focus on, or the relationship between schools and, say, the economic sector of a society-often determines what goes on in classrooms.

This paper cannot by itself entirely support the argument that schools seem to act latently to enhance an already unequal and stratified social order. It does confirm, however, a number of recent analyses that point out how schools, through their distribution of social and ideo- logical categories, contribute to the promotion of a rather static frame- work of institutions.1l Thus, our argument should not be seen as a statement against an individual school or any particular group of teachers. Rather, we want to suggest that educators need to see teachers as "encapsulated" within a social and economic context that by necessity often produces the problems teachers are confronted with and the mate- rial limitations on their responses. This very "external" context provides substantial legitimation for the allocation of teachers' time and energies and for the kinds of cultural capital embodied in the school itself (Sharp and Green 1975, p. 116).

If this is the case, as we strongly suggest it is, the questions we ask must go beyond the humanistic level (without losing their humanistic and emancipatory intent) to a more relational approach. While edu- cators continue to ask what is wrong in schools and what can be done- can our problems be "solved" with more humanistic teachers, more openness, better content, and so on-it is of immense import that we begin to take seriously the questions of "In whose interest do schools often function today?" and "What is the relation between the distribu- tion of cultural capital and economic capital?" and finally, "Can we deal with the political and economic realities of creating institutions which enhance meaning and lessen control?"

Sharp and Greene summarize this concern about a rhetorical humanism rather well:

[We] want to stress that a humanist concern for the child necessitates a greater awareness of the limits within which teacher autonomy can operate, and to pose the questions. "What interests do schools serve, those of the parents and

355

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

children, or those of the teachers and headmaster?" and "What wider interests

are served by the school?", and, possibly more importantly, "How do we con- ceptualize 'interests' in social reality?" Therefore instead of seeing the classroom as a social system and as such insulated from wider structural processes, we suggest that the teacher who has developed an understanding of his [or her] location in the wider process may well be in a better position to understand where and how it is possible to alter that situation. The educator who is of necessity a moralist must preoccupy himself with the social and [economic] pre- conditions for the achievement of his ideals. Rather than affirming the separa- tion of politics and education, as is done with commonsense liberal assumptions, the authors assume all education to be in its implications a political process. [Sharp and Green 1975, p. x]

Thus, to isolate school experience from the complex totality of which it is a constitutive part is to be a bit too limited in one's analysis. In fact, the study of the relationship between ideology and school knowl- edge is especially important for our understanding of the larger social collectivity of which we are all a part. It enables us to begin to see how a society reproduces itself, how it perpetuates its conditions of existence through the selection and transmission of certain kinds of cultural capi- tal on which a complex yet unequal industrial society depends, and how it maintains cohesion among its classes and individuals by propagating ideologies that ultimately sanction the existing institutional arrange- ments which may cause the unnecessary stratification and inequality in the first place. Can we afford not to understand these things?

NOTES

1. That this is not merely an "intellectual" interest, but embodies social and ideological commitments, is examined in greater depth in Apple (1975a). 2. On the necessity of seeing institutions relationally, see Oilman (1971). 3. See Warwick (1974, p. 19); also Apple (1976). 4. See Franklin (1974, pp. 4-5). It should be noted here that scientific manage- ment itself was not necessarily a neutral technology for creating more efficient institutions. It was developed as a mechanism for the further division and con- trol of labor. This is provocatively portrayed in Braverman (1975). 5. Gintis and Bowles (1975, p. 133). These normative meanings and personality attributes are distributed unequally to different "types" of students, often by social class or occupational expectation, as well. Not all students get the same dispositional elements, nor are the same meanings attached to them by the distributor of cultural capital. See Gintis and Bowles (1975, p. 136). 6. See, for example, Apple (1975b, pp. 337-60) and Young (197ib, pp. 19-46). 7. This, of course, is a fundamental tenet of ethnomethodological studies, as well. See McHugh (1968), Turner (1974), and Cicourel (1974). 8. For further explication of this point, see Bernstein (1971, pp. 47-69). 9. An excellent treatment of this "ethnographic" tradition can be found in Robinson (1974, pp. 251-66). For further discussion of these methodological issues, and further analysis of the data on which this section of the article is based, see King (1976). o1. Habermas's arguments about patterns of communicative competence in advanced industrial "orders" are quite interesting as interpretive schema here.

356

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

WHAT DO SCHOOLS TEACH?

See, for example, Habermas (1970, pp. 115-48) and Schroyer (1973). ii. Sharp and Green (1975, pp. 110-12). See also the provocative analysis found in Bernstein (1975).

REFERENCES

APPLE, MICHAEL W. "The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict." Inter- change 2, no. 4 (1971): 29-40.

. "The adequacy of systems management procedures in education." In Regaining educational leadership, edited by Ralph H. Smith. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975. (a)

"Ivan Illich and deschooling society: The politics of slogan systems." In Social forces and schooling, edited by Nobuo Shimahara and Adam Scrupsky. New York: David McKay, 1975, pp. 337-60. (b)

. "Common sense categories and curriculum thought." In Schools in search of meaning, edited by James B. Macdonald and Esther Zaret. Wash- ington D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1975, pp. 116-48. (c)

. "Curriculum as ideological selection." Comparative Education Re- view 20, no. 2 (June 1976): 209-15.

BATES, THOMAS R. "Gramsci and the theory of hegemony." Journal of the History of Ideas 36, no. 2 (April-June 1975): 351-66.

BERNSTEIN, BASIL. "On the classification and framing of educational knowledge." In Knowledge and control, edited by Michael F. D. Young. London: Collier- Macmillan Publishers, 1971, pp. 47-69.

Towards a theory of educational transmissions. Class, codes, and control, vol. 3. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

BRAVERMAN, HARRY. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975.

CICOUREL, AARON. Cognitive sociology. New York: The Free Press, 1974. FEINBERG, WALTER. Reason and rhetoric: The Intellectual foundations of twen-

tieth century liberal educational policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975. FRANKLIN, BARRY. "The curriculum field and the problem of social control,

1918-1938: A study in critical theory." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wis- consin, Madison, 1974.

GINTIS, HERBERT, AND BOWLES, SAMUEL. "The contradictions of liberal educa- tional reform." In Work, technology, and education, edited by Walter Fein- berg and Henry Rosemont, Jr. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1975, pp. 92-141.

HABERMAS, JURGEN. "Towards a theory of communicative competence." In Recent sociology, no. 2, edited by Hans Peter Dreitzel. New York: Macmillan, 1970, pp. 115-48.

JACKSON, PHILIP. Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.

KALLOS, DANIEL. "Educational phenomena and educational research." Report from the Institute of Education, no. 54, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1974.

KEDDIE, NELL. "Classroom knowledge." In Knowledge and control, edited by Michael F. D. Young. London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers, 1971, pp. 133-60.

KING, NANCY R. "The hidden curriculum and the socialization of kindergarten children." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1976.

KENNETT, JOHN. "The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu." Educational Review 25 (June 1973): 237-49.

MACKAY, ROBERT. "Conceptions of children and models of socialization." In

357

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI MICHAEL W. APPLE AND NANCY R. KING/CI

Childhood and socialization, edited by Hans Peter Drietzel. New York: Mac- millan, 1973, pp. 27-43.

MCHUGH, PETER. Defining the situation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. OLLMAN, BERTELL. Alienation: Marx's conception of man in capitalist society.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ROBINSON, PHILIP E. D. "An ethnography of classrooms." In Contemporary re-

search in the sociology of education, edited by John Eggleston. London: Methuen, 1974, pp. 251-66.

SCHROYER, TRENT. The critique of domination. New York: George Braziller, 1973.

SHARP, RACHEL, AND GREEN, ANTHONY. Education and social control: A study in progressive primary education. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

SILBERMAN, CHARLES. Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House, 1970. TURNER, ROY, ed. Ethnomethodology. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1974. VALLANCE, ELIZABETH. "Hiding the hidden curriculum." Curriculum Theory

Network 4, no. 1 (Fall 1973): 5-21. WARWICK, DENNIS. "Ideologies, integration and conflicts of meaning." In Edu-

cability, schools and ideology, edited by Michael Flude and John Ahier. Lon- don: Halstead Press, 1974, pp. 86-111.

WILLIAMSON, BILL. "Continuities and discontinuities in the sociology of educa- tion." In Educability, schools and ideology, edited by Michael Flude and John Ahier. London: Halstead Press, 1974, pp. 3-14.

YOUNG, MICHAEL F. D. "An approach to the study of curricula as socially orga- nized knowledge." In Knowledge and control, edited by Michael F. D. Young. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1971, pp. 19-46.

"Knowledge and control." In Knowledge and control, edited by Michael F. D. Young. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1971, pp. 1-17.

Response to Michael Apple

Roger Woock, State University of New York at Buffalo

I would like to accomplish two things. First, I will offer a brief analysis which I hope will be relevant to the two very different notions of criti- cism that we have heard this morning. Dr. Jackson has presented a rather different concept of criticism from that illustrated by Professor Apple's paper. Second, I'll make a few comments about Professor Apple's paper and its possible implication for the field of curriculum.

Educational criticism by the public and the professionals has become a national pastime during the past three decades. Much of it has been tied to concepts of national interest, cold war, and to a growing tech- nological mentality. The issue of civil rights in education was, of course, given a special impetus by the broader civil rights movement. There also has been developed in the past decade a body of criticism, much of it puerile and faddish, that is based on a strange mixture of developmental psychology of pure freedom, a social sensitivity training, the rejection of

Childhood and socialization, edited by Hans Peter Drietzel. New York: Mac- millan, 1973, pp. 27-43.

MCHUGH, PETER. Defining the situation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. OLLMAN, BERTELL. Alienation: Marx's conception of man in capitalist society.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ROBINSON, PHILIP E. D. "An ethnography of classrooms." In Contemporary re-

search in the sociology of education, edited by John Eggleston. London: Methuen, 1974, pp. 251-66.

SCHROYER, TRENT. The critique of domination. New York: George Braziller, 1973.

SHARP, RACHEL, AND GREEN, ANTHONY. Education and social control: A study in progressive primary education. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

SILBERMAN, CHARLES. Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House, 1970. TURNER, ROY, ed. Ethnomethodology. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1974. VALLANCE, ELIZABETH. "Hiding the hidden curriculum." Curriculum Theory

Network 4, no. 1 (Fall 1973): 5-21. WARWICK, DENNIS. "Ideologies, integration and conflicts of meaning." In Edu-

cability, schools and ideology, edited by Michael Flude and John Ahier. Lon- don: Halstead Press, 1974, pp. 86-111.

WILLIAMSON, BILL. "Continuities and discontinuities in the sociology of educa- tion." In Educability, schools and ideology, edited by Michael Flude and John Ahier. London: Halstead Press, 1974, pp. 3-14.

YOUNG, MICHAEL F. D. "An approach to the study of curricula as socially orga- nized knowledge." In Knowledge and control, edited by Michael F. D. Young. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1971, pp. 19-46.

"Knowledge and control." In Knowledge and control, edited by Michael F. D. Young. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1971, pp. 1-17.

Response to Michael Apple

Roger Woock, State University of New York at Buffalo

I would like to accomplish two things. First, I will offer a brief analysis which I hope will be relevant to the two very different notions of criti- cism that we have heard this morning. Dr. Jackson has presented a rather different concept of criticism from that illustrated by Professor Apple's paper. Second, I'll make a few comments about Professor Apple's paper and its possible implication for the field of curriculum.

Educational criticism by the public and the professionals has become a national pastime during the past three decades. Much of it has been tied to concepts of national interest, cold war, and to a growing tech- nological mentality. The issue of civil rights in education was, of course, given a special impetus by the broader civil rights movement. There also has been developed in the past decade a body of criticism, much of it puerile and faddish, that is based on a strange mixture of developmental psychology of pure freedom, a social sensitivity training, the rejection of

Michael Simmons deserves credit for the distinction between the two senses of criticism described in the first half of these remarks. Michael Simmons deserves credit for the distinction between the two senses of criticism described in the first half of these remarks.

358 358

This content downloaded from 216.220.176.7 on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:52:26 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms