J Mindnich Dissertation-Final without Signatures

School Adjustment among Low-Income Latino Adolescents:
Building upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance
by
Jessica Dalesandro Mindnich
B.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1999
M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2003
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Education
in the
Graduate Division
of the
University of California, Berkeley
Committee in charge:
Professor Susan D. Holloway, Chair
Professor Elliot Turiel
Professor Kaiping Peng
Fall 2007

Copyright © 2007
by

1
ABSTRACT
by
Doctor of Philosophy in Education
University of California, Berkeley
Professor Susan D. Holloway, Chair
The underachievement of Latino students is a persistent and pervasive problem
plaguing both researchers and educators alike. And as the number of Latino students
continues to rise, there is an increased urgency with which researchers and educators are
attempting to address the Latino achievement gap. The present study utilizes the Cultural-
Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance articulated by John Ogbu (e.g. 1974)
to explore variation in Latino student achievement. More specifically this study builds
upon his notion of community forces and explores the ways in which student beliefs in
the utility of education and the centrality of the family, perceptions of parental
aspirations, student aspirations, students relationships with school personnel, and student
academic behavior contribute to a model of Latino student achievement. In addition to
utilizing Ogbu’s theory of minority school performance, the present study expands upon
this theoretical framework by including student gender, generational status, and maternal
educational attainment in an effort to more fully explain variation in Latino student
achievement. Thus, the resulting model of Latino student achievement presented within
the current study included measures of student demographics (gender, generational status,

2
and maternal educational attainment), student beliefs (utility of education, centrality of
the family, perceptions of parental aspirations, and student aspirations), student
relationships with school personnel, and student academic behavior (time spent on
homework).
The model of Latino student achievement put forth within the present study was
used to analyze data from 198 low-income, urban Latino ninth graders. Contrary to
expectations, results indicated that student background characteristics, including gender,
generational status, and maternal education did not contribute to differences in Latino
student achievement. A hierarchical regression analysis conducted to test the conceptual
model presented within this study yielded a statistically significant model which
explained 12% of the variance in Latino student achievement. Students’ aspirations for
their future educational attainment and student academic behavior (the amount of time
students reportedly spent on homework) significantly contributed to the overall model.
This finding lends support to Ogbu’s (e.g. Ogbu & Simons, 1998) claim that students
who are academically successful employ educational strategies that couple high
aspirations and strong verbal endorsements of education with adaptive behavioral
strategies that yield positive results within educational settings.

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ III
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................IV
FIGURE 1: OGBU'S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE 9....IV
FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 27
IV
FIGURE 3: OPERATIONALIZING COMMUNITY FORCES WITHIN THE PRESENT
STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 30 IV
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP...............................................................................................................................1
ACADEMIC UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO STUDENTS................................................................................2
DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS .............................................................................................3
LATINOS IN CALIFORNIA ...............................................................................................................................3
THE PRESENT STUDY ....................................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH .................. 6
CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ......................................................6
Integration of Minority Groups into American Society .........................................................................7
The System ...........................................................................................................................................10
Community Forces...............................................................................................................................10
Frame of educational comparison................................................................................................................... 11
Instrumental value of school credentials......................................................................................................... 12
Relationships within the system....................................................................................................................... 13
Expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling .............................................................................................. 14
Educational strategies..................................................................................................................................... 15
OGBU’S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY APPLIED TO LATINO SCHOOL PERFORMANCE .............................16
Transitioning from Voluntary to Involuntary Minority........................................................................17
Differentiating among Latino Students................................................................................................18
Challenges of Adapting the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance to Latino
Achievement.........................................................................................................................................23
CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUAL MODEL WITHIN THE PRESENT STUDY .............. 25
Instrumental Value of School Credentials ...........................................................................................30
Relationships within the System...........................................................................................................31
Expressive/Symbolic Beliefs about Schooling......................................................................................33
Familism beliefs.............................................................................................................................................. 34
Student perceptions of parental aspirations for educational attainment......................................................... 37
Educational Strategies Utilized by Students........................................................................................41
Time spent on homework................................................................................................................................. 43
Student aspirations for their future educational attainment............................................................................ 44
CONTRIBUTING TO OGBU’S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ..........46
Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance: Maternal Education
.............................................................................................................................................................51
Building upon the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance: Student Gender....52
SUMMARIZING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY.............................................................................54
CHAPTER IV: METHODS.............................................................................................. 56
LEARNING BELIEFS STUDY..........................................................................................................................56
Participants..........................................................................................................................................56

II
Survey ..................................................................................................................................................57
Variables..............................................................................................................................................59
Maternal education......................................................................................................................................... 59
Gender............................................................................................................................................................. 59
Generational status......................................................................................................................................... 59
Utility of education.......................................................................................................................................... 60
Familism ......................................................................................................................................................... 61
Student perceptions of parental aspirations.................................................................................................... 61
Student aspirations.......................................................................................................................................... 61
Relationships with school personnel ............................................................................................................... 62
Time spent doing homework............................................................................................................................ 62
Grade point average ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Student achievement level ............................................................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER V: RESULTS................................................................................................. 64
DATA ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................64
Reliability Analysis ..............................................................................................................................65
Grade point average ....................................................................................................................................... 65
Familism ......................................................................................................................................................... 67
Relationships with school personnel ............................................................................................................... 70
THE ROLE OF GENDER, MATERNAL EDUCATION, AND GENERATIONAL STATUS IN DIFFERENTIAL PATTERNS OF
LATINO STUDENT BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND ACHIEVEMENT ..............................................71
Gender Differences..............................................................................................................................71
Maternal Education.............................................................................................................................73
Generational Status .............................................................................................................................74
EXPLORING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG STUDENT BELIEF, RELATIONSHIP, BEHAVIOR, AND ACHIEVEMENT
VARIABLES .................................................................................................................................................79
Relations among Model Variables.......................................................................................................85
UTILIZING HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION TO TEST THE MODEL OF LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT...............88
CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 93
OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY ..........................................................................................................93
Gender Differences..............................................................................................................................93
Maternal Education.............................................................................................................................94
Generational Status .............................................................................................................................95
Student Beliefs .....................................................................................................................................98
Familism ......................................................................................................................................................... 99
Perceptions of parental aspirations .............................................................................................................. 100
Student aspirations........................................................................................................................................ 101
Relationships with School Personnel.................................................................................................102
Academic Behavior............................................................................................................................105
THE CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE APPLIED TO LATINO STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT..........................................................................................................................................107
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................108
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..........................................................................111
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 114

III
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING STUDENT
GRADES…………………………………………………………………… 66
TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING STUDENT BELIEFS IN
THE UTILITY OF EDUCATION.………………………………………. 67
TABLE 3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING STUDENT FAMILISM
BELIEFS…………………………………………………………………….. 69
TABLE 4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS CONCERNING RELATIONSHIPS WITH
SCHOOL PERSONNEL……………………………………………………. 70
TABLE 5 DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIORS, AND
ACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO MALE AND LATINA STUDENTS……... 72
ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS WHOSE MOTHERS HAVE NO OR
SOME COLLEGE…………………………………………………………. 74
ACHIEVEMENT OF FIRST-, SECOND-, AND THIRD-GENERATION
LATINO AMERICANS……………….…………………………………... 76
TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG FIRST-,
SECOND-, AND THIRD GENERATION LATINO AMERICANS……… 77
TABLE 9 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE FAMILISM BELIEFS OF FIRST-,
SECOND-, AND THIRD-GENERATION LATINO AMERICANS……… 78
ACHIEVMENT OF LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH
ACHIEVING STUDENTS…………………………………………………. 80

IV
TABLE 11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG LOW
ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS…. 81
TABLE 12 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE PARENTAL ASPIRATIONS
AMONG LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING, BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING
STUDENTS………………………………………………………………… 82
TABLE 13 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE STUDENT ASPIRATIONS OF
LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING
STUDENTS…………………………………………………………………
83
TABLE 14 POST HOC COMPARISONS OF THE SPENT ON HOMEWORK FOR
LOW ACHIEVING, GETTING BY, AND HIGH ACHIEVING
STUDENTS…………………………………………………………………
84
TABLE 15 CORRELATIONS AMONG BELIEF VARIABLE……….……………… 85
TABLE 16 CORRELATIONS AMONG BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND
BEHAVIOR VARIABLES…………………………………………......... 86
TABLE 17 CORRELATIONS AMONG BELIEFS, RELATIONSHIPS, BEHAVIOR,
AND ACHIEVEMENT VARIABLES……………………………………. 88
TABLE 18 SUMMARY OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR
VARIABLES PREDICTING LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.…. 91
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: OGBU'S CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL THEORY OF MINORITY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE......... 9
FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.......................................... 26
FIGURE 3: OPERATIONALIZING COMMUNITY FORCES WITHIN THE PRESENT STUDY ...................... 29

V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As a first generation college student, the completion of this dissertation has
special meaning to me and my family. While this is a moment of tremendous pride, it is
also a time of reflection and gratitude. My scholastic endeavors have been supported by
many people along the way, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge
their support and encouragement.
I come from a long line of strong women, and I would be remiss if I failed to
mention them here. I would like to thank my grandmother, Jessie Magallanez, who at an
early age inspired me and instilled in me a social consciousness that continues to guide
me; my mother, Patricia Dalesandro, who always said you can do anything you put your
mind to and made me believe it; and my sister, Maia Aguirre, who has provided me with
endless emotional support. And I could never forget my loving husband, Chris, and my
beautiful daughters, Alexandra and Emma, who have continuously supported me despite
the numerous sacrifices they have been asked to make on my behalf.
I have had many wonderful mentors along the way. I would like to thank
everyone at the McNair Scholar’s Program and the American Psychological
Association’s Minority Fellowship Program. They provided me with a home away from
home, a place where I was always accepted and cared for. I would also like to thank
Diana Baumrind. Her belief in me was truly inspirational.
I would like to thank my fellow graduate students—Mandy Arendtsz, who
continued to push me even when I thought I could go no further, Dana Weiss, whose
constant optimism and can-do attitude was contagious, Sawako Suzuki, whom I admire

VI
greatly and consider one of the most gifted researchers I have had the pleasure of
knowing, and Yoko Yamamoto who helped me acclimate to life as a graduate student.
And finally, I must thank my committee, Susan Holloway, Elliot Turiel, and Kaiping
Peng. Their support and encouragement made this scholarship possible. I am especially
grateful to Susan Holloway who has spent the past six years diligently mentoring me
while supporting my intellectual development.

1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The Achievement Gap
The disparity in academic achievement that exists between minority and White
students is a phenomenon frequently referred to as the achievement gap. The
pervasiveness of this phenomenon has garnered the attention of social science researchers
who are struggling to develop a framework from which to understand why Black, Latino,
and most recently, Southeast Asian students underachieve at disproportionate levels when
compared to White and Asian students. And while researchers have documented that the
disparity in achievement is partially due to unequal schooling and social inequality (Fine,
1991; Oakes, 1985), these factors alone do not fully explain this phenomenon. When
researchers control for socioeconomic status, ethnically-based differences in academic
achievement persist (as cited in Ogbu, 2003: Anton, 1980; College Board, 1999; Hu,
1997; Oliver, Rodriguez, & Mickelson, 1985; Slade, 1982; Stern, 1986). To this end,
Reaching for the Top: A report of the National Task Force on Minority High
Achievement (1999) states:
Socioeconomic status is generally one of the most powerful predictors of
students’ academic achievement. Students from low-income homes, or
who have parents with little formal education, are more likely to be low
achievers and much less likely to be high achievers than students from
high-income families, or who have parents with bachelors or advanced
degrees. …But this is only part of the education and class story for
minorities. Going back to the 1960’s, there is an extensive body of
research showing that Black, Hispanic, and Native American students at
virtually all socioeconomic levels do not perform nearly as well on
standardized tests as their White and Asian counterparts.
As is illustrated in the quote above, the achievement gap is not fully accounted for by
students’ socioeconomic status. Thus, researchers have continued to explore the factors
underlying the consistent and pervasive underachievement of minority students.

2
Academic Underachievement of Latino Students
By the age of 24, only 64% of Latinos have obtained a high school or general
education degree, while 84% of Blacks and 92% of Whites have completed secondary
education (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). Across measures Latino students are consistently
underachieving in school (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). For example, 13% of Latino students
are retained at one point in their educational career. This is compared to 9% of Whites
and 7% of Asians. High retention rates have larger implications for students’ educational
attainment as it is believed that grade repetition sets children on an academic trajectory
that leads to failure within and withdrawal from the educational system (Cairns, Cairns,
& Neckerman, 1989). Collectively, these findings portray a grim outlook for Latino
students within the U.S. educational system and highlight the need to further understand
the factors underlying the underachievement of Latinos.
In an effort to understand this phenomenon, researchers have explored the match
between the home of Latino families and the expectations of educational institutions. For
many Latino families, the mismatch between the cultural and social capital possessed by
Latino families and the cultural and social capital valued within educational institutions
places Latino families at a disadvantage within the system, as these families are often
viewed through a lens of deficiency (Delgado-Gaitan, 1994; Valdés, 1996). Moreover
due to a lack of familiarity with the expectations and processes of the U.S. educational
system, an inability to speak English, and illiteracy in both English and Spanish, many
immigrant Latino families are unable to effectively communicate with schools in an
effort to manager their children’s education (e.g. Valdés, 1996). Consequently, students
of these families are particularly vulnerable to academic failure as the U.S. educational

3
system is one that expects families to advocate on behalf of and manage their children’s
career (Baker & Stevenson, 1986). Moreover, as students become active within their own
educational experience, many Latino students begin to recognize the subtractive process
of assimilation that occurs within school settings. In doing so, a significant number of
Latino students begin to rebuff this assimilation thereby alienating themselves from the
schooling process and setting themselves up for academic failure (Matute-Bianchi, 1991).
Demographic Shifts in American Schools
The urgency with which educators and researchers are now addressing the
achievement gap, stems, in part, from the demographic shift that is currently taking place
in American schools. In 1972, 22.2% of public school students enrolled in grades K-12
were ethnic minorities. By 2000, that number had increased to 38.7%. In the 500 largest
school districts in the country, the number of Latino and African American students
jumped to 52% (Young, 2002). And while the enrollment of African American students
has remained fairly consistent during this time, 14.8% to 16.6%, the enrollment of Latino
students nearly tripled, from 6% in 1972 to 16.6% in 2000 (Llagas & Snyder, 2003).
Moreover, all indications suggest that this trend will continue as recent projections
indicate that Latinos will represent 1 in 4 Americans by the year 2050 (García Coll &
Pachter, 2002; Harwood, Leyendecker, Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002).
Latinos in California
According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (December, 1998),
California has the world’s seventh largest economy. If this prosperity is to continue,
California must be able to produce an educated workforce. To this end a report by the
Public Policy Institute of California (2007) notes:

4
California’s labor market has changed dramatically over the past two
decades because of the rising demand for highly educated workers.
Although economic projections for California indicate a continuation of
this trend, projections of educational attainment for the future population
strongly suggest a mismatch between the level of skills the population is
likely to possess and the level of skills that will be needed to meet
economic projections (Johnson & Reed, p. 1).
Given that one in three Californians are Latino (United States Census, 2000), addressing
the academic underachievement of Latino students must become a priority if we are to
sustain California’s economic prosperity.
A recent report by the Civil Rights Project (2005) underscored the pervasiveness
of Latino underachievement within California’s schools. Across the state, the graduation
rate for Latinos is 60.3%. Because this is an average, it masks two underlying
phenomenon that contribute to Latino student achievement. The first of these is a gender-
based difference in educational attainment. Latino males are more vulnerable to high
school drop out. Currently, almost 1 in two Latino males fail to graduate from high
school. In addition, Latino underachievement is exacerbated within urban school districts.
For example, within Los Angeles Unified, the largest school district in California, only
39.1% of Latino students graduate from high school. The graduation rate for Latino
students in San Francisco Unified is 55.9%. Moreover, across the state, only 10% of
Latinos attend high schools with graduation rates of 90% or higher, suggesting that the
underachievement of Latinos is perpetuated, in part, by California’s school system. This
report suggests that Latino students are concentrated within low-income, urban schools
plagued with too few resources to adequately address the many learning barriers that
exist within such educational settings.

5
The Present Study
With consideration of the rapid growth of the Latino population (García Coll &
Pachter, 2002; Harwood, et. al., 2002) and the persistent and pervasive underachievement
of Latino students (Buriel, 2003; Buriel, 1987; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995; Harwood,
et. al., 2002; Valdés, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999), the present study seeks to explore the
school adjustment patterns of low-income, urban Latino youth. In doing so, this study
acknowledges that the term Latino encompasses a diverse group of people differing in
their socioeconomic status, their country of origin, the primary language spoken within
the home, their immigration history and generational status. However, because Latinos
share some cultural values and often have a similar experience as minorities within the
United States, the present study will utilize this term in the belief that there is a benefit to
conceptualizing Latinos as a group of similar persons (Harwood, et. al., 2002; Valdés,
2005).
In the interest of adding depth to our understanding of Latino student
achievement, the present study explores and expands upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological
Theory of Minority School Performance. While this framework has adequately addressed
the academic underachievement of African American students within U.S. schools, its
application to the study of Latino students has been more problematic. This study seeks
to add to this theoretical framework though the operationalization of Ogbu’s constructs
and an exploration of the ways in which gender, generational status, and maternal
educational attainment contribute to differential patterns of achievement among Latino
students.

6
Chapter II: Review of Related Literature and Research
Since this study of Latino academic achievement expands upon Ogbu’s (1974,
1978, 1987, 1991, 1994, 2003) Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School
Performance, this chapter provides an overview of the theory. After reviewing the main
concepts of Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance, this
chapter reviews the literature which has utilized this framework to investigate Latino
student achievement.
Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance
Researchers have established that socioeconomic status and quality of schooling
are factors that effect student achievement; however, these factors alone do not fully
explain the achievement gap that exists between White and minority students (College
Board, 1999; Fine, 1991; Irving, 2002; Oakes, 1985). Nor do they explain why some
minority groups consistently underachieve in school while other minority groups are able
to succeed academically and thus prosper economically. Seeking to explain differential
patterns within minority academic achievement, some researchers have adopted Ogbu’s
Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance.
Central to Ogbu’s approach is the socio-historical context within which minority
groups were first integrated into American society. In order to understand differences in
minority school performance, Ogbu argues that one must have knowledge of the minority
group’s initial entry into American society. Did members of this minority group
originally come to the United States of their own volition or were they unwillingly
incorporated into American society? Moreover, when the minority group was
incorporated into American society, how were members of this group treated by White

7
Americans? Based upon their initial incorporation into American society, Ogbu classifies
minority groups as voluntary and involuntary minorities.
Integration of Minority Groups into American Society
It is a willingness to become part of American society that distinguishes voluntary
from involuntary minorities. While voluntary minorities came to this country of their own
volition and in search of a better life, involuntary minorities were forcibly and
unwillingly incorporated into American society through conquest, colonization, or
enslavement. Accordingly, these early experiences shape the development of the minority
group’s folklore and the adjustment strategies that the group develops and utilizes as they
are integrated into American society. As a result of minority groups early experiences of
integration into American society, voluntary minorities have an optimistic view of the
opportunities that are available to them as they “moved to the United States because they
expected better opportunities (better jobs, more political or religious freedom) than they
had in their homeland” (Ogbu & Simons, p. 158, 1998). Their optimism and early
treatment within American society allows voluntary minorities to develop adjustment
strategies that help them cultivate the cultural and linguistic skills needed to thrive within
the United States. In developing and utilizing these adjustment strategies, voluntary
minorities are able to adapt to and excel within American institutions like the American
educational system.
In contrast, involuntary minorities were forcibly incorporated into American
society by White people. Therefore involuntary minorities lack the same optimism that
emerges during a voluntary integration into American society and instead involuntary
minorities develop their adjustment strategies amidst a distrust of mainstream American

8
society. Consequently, involuntary minorities develop adjustment strategies and group
folklore that exacerbate differences between their own cultural identity and that of their
oppressors. While the adaptation of such adjustment strategies may serve to protect the
psychological well-being of the group, the creation of an oppositional cultural identity
that rebuffs participation in American institutions is maladaptive in that it inhibits the
group’s access to traditional pathways of upward mobility and instead serves to
perpetuate involuntary minorities’ exclusion from mainstream society. This is particularly
problematic in the wake of historical changes to laws and practices that have traditionally
excluded involuntary minority groups because while discrimination within American
institutions still exists, there are no longer the same barriers to mainstream avenues of
success. For example, while Blacks and Latinos may be disproportionately represented
within low-income, urban schools, there is no longer a law prohibiting them from
attending the same schools as White students. Still involuntary minority groups utilize the
adjustment strategies that were developed during a time of heightened exclusion.

9
Figure 1: Ogbu's Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance
Cultural-
Ecological Theory
of Minority School
Performance
The System Community
Forces
Level 1: General
Treatment within
Society & Local
Community
Level 2: Treatment
within Educational
Institutions
Educational policies
and practices
Treatment within the
school and
classroom
Rewards for
academic
achievement (e.g.
wages)
Frame of comparison
for educational
system
Educational
strategies utilized by
students
Expressive/
symbolic beliefs
about schooling
Relationships within
the system
Instrumental value of
school credentials

10
The System
According to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School
Performance, the school adjustment and academic performance of students is shaped by
two sets of factors. (See figure 1.) The first set of factors is known as “the system.” The
system operates at the macro level and refers to the ways in which a society and its
institutions treat or have treated minority groups. According to the theory of minority
school performance, the system functions at two levels. The general treatment of
minorities both within society and within local communities is represented within the first
level of the system while the second level of the system focuses more specifically upon
the environment in which minority children are being educated. Consequently, the second
level of the system considers the degree to which institutional factors shape the academic
performance of minority students. These institutional factors include educational policies
and practices, the treatment of minorities in the school and in the classroom, and the
rewards minorities garner as a results of their academic achievement, particularly with
regard to wages.
Community Forces
The second set of factors shaping the school adjustment and academic
performance of minority students are termed community forces because they are located
within culture of the minority group. (See figure 1.) The five community forces
established within this theoretical framework represent the beliefs and behaviors adopted
within the minority community that most directly influence the school adjustment
strategies and subsequent academic achievement of minority students and include the
frame of educational comparison used by minority students, belief in the instrumental

11
value of education, relationships established within the system, expressive or symbolic
beliefs about schooling, and the educational strategies employed by minority students.
Moreover, these community forces are indicative of a minority group’s classification into
the voluntary/involuntary continuum because community forces “arise from how
minorities themselves interpret and respond to their treatment; that is, their adaptations to
the U.S. society and to their minority status” (Ogbu, 2003, p. 45).
Frame of educational comparison
The first component of Ogbu’s community forces is the frame of educational
comparison that students use to assess the U.S. educational system. According to this
theoretical perspective, voluntary minorities compare the opportunities and benefits that
exist within the U.S. educational system to the opportunities and benefits that were
available within their country of origin. As a result of this dual frame of reference,
voluntary minorities hold the U.S. educational system in positive esteem because it
provides them with more opportunities than were available to them within their
homeland. Consequently, voluntary minorities focus on the positive aspects of their U.S.
educational experience even when they find themselves attending overcrowded and
under-resourced schools. For example, while a voluntary minority may find themselves
in a low-income, urban school they may come from a country where education was not
readily available to all children either because of proximity to the nearest school, the cost
of schooling, or tracking within the educational system. Because of their point of
reference they view their ability to attend school at no cost to their family as a
tremendous opportunity that was unavailable to them within their country of origin.

12
In contrast, involuntary minorities compare their educational opportunities and
benefits against those of White Americans. Consequently, involuntary minorities are
keenly aware of the differences between the more affluent schools within their
communities and the overcrowded, under-funded, low-performing schools in which they
are more likely to attend. As a result of their socio-historical experience of becoming
American through conquest, enslavement, or colonization, involuntary minorities are
likely to interpret inequities within the educational system as being discriminatory and
perceive those associated with the system as acting against their best interests.
Instrumental value of school credentials
The beliefs minority groups hold about the instrumental value of school
credentials represent the second component of community forces. As such, the
endorsement of school credentials as instrumental to adult success distinguishes
voluntary from involuntary minorities. Since voluntary minorities maintain an optimistic
view of their opportunities within the United States, they are eager to participate within
mainstream society and strongly believe in the opportunities available to them within this
country. Consequently, they believe that education is the pathway to upward mobility and
future economic prosperity. And since voluntary minority youth strongly endorse the
utility of education and believe in the future payoff of school credentials, they are more
likely to actively and positively participate in their schooling.
This is contrasted with involuntary minorities who have historically been denied
access to opportunities available via mainstream avenues to adult success. Consequently,
while involuntary minorities may believe that upward mobility is available through
educational pathways, they also have folklores about alternative avenues to success, such

13
as becoming an entertainer or an athlete. These students have seen “little evidence among
their own people for believing that success in adult life or upward mobility is due to
education” (Ogbu, 2003, p. 53). As a result, they are more likely to disengage from
school thus perpetuating the academic underachievement of involuntary minority youth.
Relationships within the system
The third component of the system consists of the ability to form relationships
within the educational system. Since the ability to establish relationships with school
personnel is based upon a trust of White institutions, there is a clear distinction between
the relationships between voluntary minority groups and school personnel and
involuntary minority groups and school personnel. Based upon the minority group’s
incorporation into and treatment within the American educational system, voluntary
minorities have developed a pragmatic trust of American institutions. As such, voluntary
minorities view teachers as useful experts and are able to cultivate positive relationships
with the school and school personnel believing that such relationships will assist them in
achieving their long-term goals. Consequently, voluntary minorities are able to benefit
from the social capital available to them via their relationships with school personnel.
Unlike voluntary minority groups, involuntary minority groups have experienced
a long history of racism, discrimination, and conflict with American institutions which
have led to a pervasive distrust of White institutions. Consequently, involuntary
minorities are unable to trust schools and school personnel and instead involuntary
minorities approach the school and school personnel with suspicion making it difficult for
involuntary minorities to cultivate positive relationships with school personnel. As a
result, the relationships established between involuntary minorities and school personnel

14
are often characterized by social distance or segregation, conflict, and mistrust.
According to Ogbu (2003), this distrust of the school and school personnel focuses the
attention of involuntary minorities on their treatment within the school, the ways in which
they are portrayed within the curriculum, and whether or not the school and teachers care
for them. By shifting attention away from learning and failing to build relationships with
school personnel, involuntary minorities place themselves at a disadvantage within
educational institutions as they do not cultivate the relationships needed to garner the
social capital that is available to them via relationships with school personnel.
Expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling
The forth component of community forces include minority groups’ expressive or
symbolic beliefs about schooling that have implications for one’s sense of identity,
culture, and ability. Coming to the U.S. of their own volition and maintaining an
optimistic outlook on the opportunities available to them within this country, voluntary
minorities are eager to learn English and master American cultural behaviors as they
believe doing so will serve their long-term goals and help them to achieve economic
prosperity. Consequently, voluntary minorities do not believe that becoming
Americanized, or assimilating to mainstream American society, will threaten their sense
of identity or culture. Instead, voluntary minorities create a dual identity which allows
them to navigate between their own community and mainstream institutions.
In contrast, involuntary minorities believe that their sense of identity and culture
are threatened within educational institutions because their success is contingent upon
their adoption of the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of their oppressors. Consequently,
involuntary minorities fear that:

15
...adopting to White or school ways…would mean replacing their own
cultural and language identity or that it requires them to give up their
cultural and language identities in order to successfully learn the school
ways (Ogbu, 2003, p. 54).
Unlike voluntary minorities that perceive the adoption of White ways as an additive
process, involuntary minorities perceive schooling as a subtractive process, stripping
them of their identity and forcing them to behave in the ways of their oppressors. As a
result, involuntary minorities create an oppositional identity to White culture, thus
rebuffing the educational system because it is a White-controlled institution. So unlike
voluntary minorities, involuntary minorities are unable to take a pragmatic approach to
developing a dual identity and involuntary minorities who choose school ways are often
accused of acting White and risk alienation from their minority group. Thus for
involuntary minorities, their sense of identity and culture are directly pitted against their
school performance.
Educational strategies
And finally, the fifth component of community forces represents the educational
strategies adopted and utilized by minority students. According to Ogbu (e.g. 2003),
minority students maximize their educational benefit if there is a congruence between
their aspirations and verbal endorsements of education and their academic behavior. For
example, if a student wants to attend college they increase their chances of obtaining this
goal if they come to class prepared, participate in class discussions, and complete
homework assignments. The congruence between beliefs and behaviors is particularly
important because both voluntary and involuntary minority students tend to verbally
endorse education. However because of the mixed messages that involuntary minorities
receive about the role that education plays in adult success, their general endorsement of

16
education is undermined by an uncertainty of the payoff of their own educational
attainment. Consequently, the difference between voluntary and involuntary minority
students lies in their willingness to turn their beliefs into action that will promote and not
undermine their educational aspirations. While voluntary minorities match their behavior
to their verbal endorsements and educational aspirations, involuntary minorities are
ambivalent about the role of education in their path to adult success, thus resulting in a
mismatch between their educational aspirations and verbal endorsements of education
and their behavior. For example, a voluntary minority student is likely to engage teachers,
raise their hand in class, and attend class regularly while an involuntary minority student
is likely to be truant, disrupt the classroom, fail to complete their homework, and
demonstrate irreverence towards school personnel. As a result of their behavior,
voluntary minorities maximize their academic benefit by developing positive
relationships with school personnel, receiving instrumental support from teachers and
peers, and earning high grades. In contrast, involuntary minority students are more likely
to engage in behaviors that directly and negatively affect school performance thereby
resulting in course repetition, disciplinary sanctions, and eventual withdrawal from
educational institutions thus making it difficult for involuntary minorities to achieve their
educational goals.
Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory Applied to Latino School Performance
In developing his theory of minority school performance, John Ogbu has focused
much of his research on Black students in the United States. The work that has been done
with Latino students has yielded a complex portrait of Latino student performance. First
because Latinos have varied histories of incorporation into American society, Latinos

17
cannot collectively be categorized as a voluntary or involuntary minority group. For
example, Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) contends that early descendants from Mexico
and Puerto Rico are involuntary minorities because Mexican Americans in the Southwest
were conquered by early American settlers while Puerto Rico was colonized. However,
immigrants from Central and South America, Cuba, and Mexico are considered voluntary
minorities.
Transitioning from Voluntary to Involuntary Minority
While Ogbu does not address the complexities of Latino immigrants, he (Ogbu &
Simmons, 1998) does elaborate on the ways in which his theory applies to Mexican
immigrants and Mexican Americans. As noted above, immigrant Mexicans are
categorized as voluntary, but as children of immigrant Mexicans assimilate into
American culture they become involuntary minorities (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). This
process results from an affinity with involuntary Mexican Americans. As a result of this
affinity, voluntary Mexicans are perceived as being part of the pre-established
involuntary minority group and are thus treated as such by White Americans. Elaborating
this point, Ogbu and Simmons (1998) write:
White Americans force such immigrants to reside and work alongside the
nonimmigrant [involuntary] group through residential segregation, job
discrimination, and other discriminatory treatments. Under these
circumstances the immigrants [voluntary] and nonimmigrants
[involuntary] intermarry and there descendants grow up with
nonimmigrant [involuntary] peers, tend to identify with them, and assume
the same sense of peoplehood or collective identity (p. 161).
This process of assimilation similarly occurs with Black immigrants from Africa and the
Caribbean. While they may enter this country as voluntary minorities, subsequent
generations become involuntary as a result of their treatment within American society
and their affinity with African Americans. Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) argues that

18
there is one factor that distinguishes the assimilation process between Mexican
immigrants and Black immigrants. As a result of Mexican-Anglo intermarriage, Mexican
children “with enough white features can ‘pass’ and become a part of the white majority”
(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998, p. 161) thus allowing them to be perceived and treated as part
of the dominant class.
Differentiating among Latino Students
Building upon Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory of minority school performance,
Matute-Bianchi (1986) conducted an ethnographic study of minority student performance
among Japanese-American and Mexican-ancestry students. This study highlights the
challenges of categorizing Mexican-ancestry students as voluntary and involuntary
minorities. As a result of her research, Matute-Bianchi (1986) asserted that differential
patterns of achievement existed among Mexican-ancestry students. Moreover, instead of
using the voluntary and involuntary minority group classifications Matute-Bianchi (1986)
proposed that Mexican-ancestry students be grouped into the following five categories:
Mexican-immigrants, Mexican-oriented, Mexican-American, Chicano, and Cholos.
According to Matute-Bianchi (1986) students who were born in Mexico
constituted two of the five categorizations of Mexican-ancestry students. She noted that
these students could be categorized as Mexican-immigrants or Mexican-oriented
students. Mexican-immigrant students recently immigrated to the United States and
tended to be in ESL (English as a Second Language) courses. They were often described
by teachers and staff as “more courteous, more serious about their schoolwork, more
eager to please, more polite, more industrious, more well behaved, more naïve, and less
worldly than other students in school” (p. 237). And while these students were Spanish

19
speaking, their proficiency in Spanish differed significantly. Not surprisingly, Mexican-
immigrant students’ proficiency in Spanish tended to be related to their achievement—
those students with higher proficiency in Spanish were more likely to do well
academically.
Unlike Mexican-immigrant students, Mexican-oriented students had been in the
United States for at least 5 years, with most attending American schools for most or all of
their lives. Consequently, Mexican-oriented students were likely to be bilingual, speaking
Spanish with peers and in the home and speaking English with school personnel. These
students were among the highest achieving Mexican-ancestry students within the school.
Of the Mexican-ancestry students who were in the top 10 percent of their graduating
class, virtually all were categorized as Mexican-oriented.
The remaining three categorizations of Mexican-ancestry students, Mexican-
American, Chicano, and Cholo consist of U.S.-born Mexicans. Mexican-American
students were considered the most assimilated of Mexican-ancestry students. They tended
to be monolingual and those who were bilingual showed a preference for English.
Moreover, these students were among the most scholastically engaged Mexican-ancestry
students participating in student government, school activities, and mainstream clubs
while avoiding the more Mexican or Chicano clubs. Finally, Mexican-Americans were
some of the most academically successful Mexican-ancestry students.
Chicanos represented the largest segment of Mexican-ancestry students
constituting 40 to 50% of all Spanish-surname students. These students often self-
identified as Mexican or Mexicano, perhaps as a means of communicating their rejection
of mainstream American society. What distinguished Chicanos from the previously

20
discussed Mexican-ancestry students was their level of alienation from the school. Unlike
their Mexican-American peers, Chicano students were withdrawn from school activities.
These students tended not to be enrolled in college prep courses and were instead placed
into general or remedial classes. And while these students wanted to do well in school,
their verbal commitment to education was undermined by their behavior. Chicanos often
exhibited behaviors which signaled a lack of commitment to or interest in education.
They were often truant, came to class unprepared, engaged in disruptive behavior, and
failed to complete homework assignments. Moreover, they frequently referred to
academically successful Latinos as, ‘schoolboys’ or ‘schoolgirls’, noting that these
students wanted to be White.
The Cholo group made up the smallest number of Mexican-ancestry students.
And while this group was barely represented within the school community they were
among the most easily identifiable. Because of their stylistic cultural symbols Cholos
were perceived as gang members or gang sympathizers. Like Chicanos, Cholos, “have
low status in school and are disaffected, marginalized members of the school
community” (Matute-Bianchi , 1986, p. 240). In fact, Cholos were the most alienated
from the school community and were “held in low esteem by the other Mexican-ancestry
students in the school, as well as by mainstream students, who often expressed fear or
contempt of what they recognized as Cholo or Low Rider” (Matute-Bianchi , 1986, p.
240).
In later work reflecting upon this study, Matute-Bianchi (1991) tried to group
these Mexican-ancestry students into Ogbu’s voluntary and involuntary categories. She
noted that Mexican-immigrant and Mexican-oriented students could be categorized as

21
voluntary minorities. According to Matute-Bianchi (1991), maintaining a voluntary
minority perspective of the importance of schooling and the relevance of school
credentials to adult success allowed Mexican-immigrant and Mexican-oriented students
to buy into the American educational system. And since Mexican-oriented students had
acquired the linguistic and cultural skills needed to navigate American institutions they
were among the most academically successful Mexican-ancestry students.
In contrast, Chicanos and Cholos were categorized as involuntary minorities.
These American-born Mexican-ancestry students believed that they were stigmatized and
would not be treated fairly within White-controlled institutions. Moreover, these students
believed that their adult opportunities were limited and that educational credentials would
prove inconsequential to their success in adulthood. Consequently, Chicanos and Cholos
were disengaged from schooling.
According to Matute-Bianchi (1991), the students that could not be easily
categorized as voluntary or involuntary were the Mexican-American students. Unlike her
earlier portrayal of Mexican-American students as being a fairly homogenous group,
Matute-Bianchi further categorizes Mexican-American students into three subcategories.
The first subcategory represents monolingual students who have fully assimilated into
mainstream American society. Next, bicultural Mexican-American students are
categorized as “cultural switch hitters” taking on an American persona at school and a
Mexicano persona at home. The last subcategory of Mexican-American students consist
of students that do not consider themselves purely American or purely Mexican but see
themselves as some combination of the two. Describing the variation within and
complexity of Mexican-American students, Matute-Bianchi (1991) writes:

22
Some of these students are active and successful in school, but many
appear to drift, to be disengaged and withdrawn from much of what the
school offers. They can be found in all curriculum tracks in the school, but
are more likely to be found in the general or low tracks. They are more
likely to be seen and not heard. They do not really fit into any of the
modal categories I have defined along the immigrant [voluntary] versus
nonimmigrant [involuntary] continuum, nor do they fit any of the
generalizations I have made about students in other categories (p. 242).
The heterogeneity that exists within the Latino community is highlighted within Matute-
Bianchi’s work (1986, 1991). It is this heterogeneity that has made it challenging to apply
Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance to the study of
Latino student achievement. Consequently, this theory has been criticized for its inability
to explain variations that occur within minority groups (Conchas, 2001; Kao & Tienda,
1998).

23
Challenges of Adapting the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance
to Latino Achievement
To date, most of the research utilizing Ogbu’s theory has centered upon the
academic achievement of Black students within the United States. However, Black and
Latino students differ in several important ways. First, Latinos have a varied history of
incorporation into this country which is partially dependent upon their country of origin,
the era of their arrival, and the region in which they settled into the United States.
Consequently, Ogbu categorizes Mexican-Americans in the Southwest and Puerto Ricans
as involuntary minorities while Cubans, Central and South Americans, and Mexican
immigrants are categorized as voluntary minorities. In addition, as a result of
intermarriage between Latinos and Anglos, some Latinos have the option of “passing”
and are perceived and treated as White Americas. Lastly, the Latino population is
constantly revitalized by the continuous influx of Latino immigrants thus making it easier
for Latinos to maintain a cultural identity separate from their American identity (Matute-
Bianchi, 1991; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995). Collectively, these differences
add another layer of complexity to our understanding of Latino student achievement and
have given rise to a number of challenges in utilizing Ogbu’s theoretical framework to
explore Latino student achievement. Still, cultural ecologists have spent nearly three
decades exploring the factors that distinguish those minority groups that are academically
successful from those that persistently underachieve in school (e.g. Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Gibson & Ogbu, 1991; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu 1978, 1987, 2003). And while
Ogbu’s cultural-ecological theory of minority student achievement is not without

24
challenges, it still remains the most theoretically rich perspective to date and will be used
within the present study of Latino student achievement.

25
Chapter III: Conceptual Model within the Present Study
This study of Latino academic achievement builds upon Ogbu’s (e.g. 1974, 1978,
1987, 1991, 1994, 2003) Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance.
The conceptual model utilized within this study expands upon Ogbu’s work exploring the
relationship between student achievement and community forces. More specifically, this
model explores the ways in which students’ (a) perceptions of the instrumental value of
schooling; (b) relationships within the system; (c) expressive or symbolic beliefs about
schooling; and (d) educational strategies utilized by students are related to Latino student
achievement. Additionally, this model contributes to Ogbu’s theoretical framework by
investigating the contribution of students’ demographic characteristics to differential
patterns of Latino student achievement (see figure 2).
In articulating the model of Latino student achievement presented within the
current study, this chapter ties Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School
Performance to the conceptual model guiding this investigation of differential patterns of
Latino student achievement. As such, the aim of this chapter is four-fold. First, this
chapter outlines the ways in which Ogbu’s notion of community forces are
operationalized within the present study. Next, this chapter relies upon a review of
previous research to support the logic underlying the model of Latino student
achievement presented here. Third, this chapter outlines how students’ generational
status, gender, and maternal educational attainment can expand upon Ogbu’s Theory of
Minority School Performance and contribute to a model of Latino student achievement.
And finally, this chapter concludes with a brief summary of the objectives of the current
study.

26
Figure 2: Conceptual Model of Latino Student Achievement
Beliefs:
• Beliefs in the value
of education
• Familism beliefs
• Perceptions of
parental
aspirations
• Students’
aspirations
Student
Characteristics:
• Gender
• Maternal
educational
attainment
• Generational
status
Behavior:
• Time spent on
homework
Student
Achievement:
• Grade point
average
Relationships:
• Relationships with
school personnel

27
Utilizing the Cultural-Ecological Framework within the Present Study: Operationalizing
Ogbu’s Community Forces
This study of Latino student achievement builds upon Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological
Theory of Minority School Performance. In moving beyond the voluntary-involuntary
paradigm to flesh out differential patterns of Latino student achievement, the present
study utilizes Ogbu’s conceptualization of community forces1
to better understand how
factors found within the Latino community might account for differences in student
achievement (see Figure 3). In particular, this study investigates how community forces
are operationalized within the Latino community and explores the ways in which
differences within these community forces enable us to better predict Latino student
achievement. In operationalizing Ogbu’s notion of community forces, this study explores
the ways in which the beliefs, relationships, and behaviors that exist within the Latino
community affect Latino school performance. Finally, in addition to the examination of
community forces, this study examines the variations that exist within the Latino
community by exploring the ways in which generational status, gender, and maternal
education contribute to Latino student achievement.
The current investigation of Latino student achievement is guided by the
following questions. Do differences in students’ demographic characteristics explain
differences in Latino student beliefs, relationships with school personnel, academic
behavior, or achievement? How are community forces related to one another? How are
community forces related to school performance? Can the present model of Latino
1
While this study centers upon Ogbu’s community forces, the first component, students’ frame of
comparison for the educational system, is not captured within the present analysis. Instead this research
focuses upon students’ beliefs in the instrumental value of school credentials, students’ within the system,
students’ expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling, and the educational strategies utilized by students.

28
student achievement which contains student demographics, beliefs, relationships with
school personnel, and academic behavior explain differences in Latino student
achievement? In addressing these questions the present study contributes to the
expanding literature addressing Latino student underachievement. More specifically,
these questions investigate the ways in which Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of
Minority School Performance can contribute to a model of Latino student achievement.

29
Figure 3: Operationalizing Community Forces within the Present Study
Community
Forces
Instrumental Value
of School
Credentials
Relationships
within the System
Expressive/
Symbolic Beliefs
about Schooling
Educational
Strategies Utilized
by Students
-Utility of
education
-Relationships with
school personnel
-Familism beliefs
- Parental
aspirations
-Time on
homework
-Student aspirations

30
Instrumental Value of School Credentials
Performance, students’ belief in the instrumental value of school credentials is one of the
five components of community forces that influence student achievement. Voluntary
minorities came to this country in search of better opportunities and subsequently believe
that their educational attainment is instrumental to their upward mobility within the
United States. As such, they endorse the importance of education and are more likely to
behave in ways that are conducive to school success. This is contrasted with involuntary
minorities whose experiences of discrimination have limited the opportunities available
to them within White-controlled institutions and have spawned folklores of alternative
avenues to success in adulthood. As a result, involuntary minorities are ambivalent about
the utility of academic credentials and are likely to focus on alternative paths to adult
success such as entertaining or playing professional sports.
According to Ogbu’s theory, students’ beliefs in the instrumental value of school
credentials should be indicative of their school performance as voluntary minorities are
more likely to endorse the utility of education while involuntary minorities are less likely
to endorse the utility of education. However, research in this area has not demonstrated a
positive relationship between Latino students’ beliefs in the utility of education and their
academic performance. In a longitudinal study of urban adolescents, Andrew Fuligni
(2001) found that, as a group, Latino students reported a stronger belief in the utility of
education than did their White peers. Nonetheless, Latino students received the lowest
grades in school suggesting that Latino students’ beliefs in the utility of education do not
directly correspond to their academic achievement (Fuligni, 1997).

31
Since Fuligni’s (1997, 2001) work was based upon group means, it overlooks
within-group variation. The present study seeks to explore this variation as it may
enhance our understanding of how Ogbu’s Theory of Minority School Performance is
operating within the Latino community. Therefore this study will explore how student
beliefs in the utility of education correspond to their academic performance. Do Latino
students who hold stronger beliefs in the utility of education have higher GPAs than
Latino students who hold weaker beliefs in the utility of education?
Relationships within the System
The relationships students are able to establish within the system are an important
component of Ogbu’s community forces. Accordingly, voluntary minorities are able to
develop pragmatic relationships with school personnel while involuntary minorities’
distrust of the system and those who are associated with it prevents them from developing
positive relationships with school personnel.
The ability to develop relationships within the system provides students with the
opportunity to benefit from the knowledge, expertise, and support of school personnel.
The benefit one gains or has access to as a result of one’s social network has been termed
“social capital.” Social capital can best be understood through the old adage “it’s not
what you know but who you know.” Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) defines social
capital as:
… the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual
or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition
(p. 119).
More important than the size of one’s network is the capital one has access to as a result
of network membership. Equally important is the strength of network membership. The

32
stronger the ties, the more opportunity there is to capitalize upon the resources available
by virtue of network membership.
Within the context of schooling, there are benefits that arise from the access to
social capital which arises through students’ relationships with school personnel. Goyette
and Conchas (2002) highlight the some of the ways students might benefit from school-
based social capital in the following quote:
Teachers encourage students whom they believe are talented or hard
working (Conchas, 1999; Farkas et al., 1990; Mehan at al., 1996; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Principals and
guidance counselors may provide information about college preparation
courses, applications, and financing for students who do not have access to
this information at home. Guidance counselors may take students on trips
to colleges to help them make informed choices (p. 49).
As is demonstrated in the above passage, students who are able to establish positive
relationships within the school system are able to benefit from social ties with school
personnel.
Relationships with school personnel may be of particular relevance to the
achievement of Latino students. First, low educational attainment and inexperience with
U.S. schools often limit Latino parents’ knowledge of the U.S. educational system
(Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Consequently, these parents are limited in the
guidance they can provide to their children. As such, Latino students are less likely to
have access to information about the process of schooling within their homes and must
rely more heavily upon school personnel in order to obtain such information. In addition,
there may be larger cultural implications of Latino students’ relationships with school
personnel. According to Valenzuela (1999), the Mexican definition of education is
grounded in the concept of caring and asserts that all learning is based upon sustained and

33
reciprocal relationships between teachers and students. So while Latino students may be
come to school expecting to establish positive relationships with school personnel,
research has found that Latino students actually receive minimal guidance and support
from teachers, peers, and counselors (Goyette & Conchas, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Latino students’ inability to form relationships with school personnel is likely to be
detrimental to their academic achievement. To this end, Valenzuela (1999) writes, “when
teachers withhold social ties from Mexican American youth, they confirm this group’s
belief that schooling is impersonal, irrelevant, and lifeless” (p. 22).
When school personnel decide to form relationships with students they are in
essence deciding which students to invest in or which students are most worthy of
sponsorship (Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). This may prove to be an
obstacle for Latino students as teachers and counselors believe that as a group, Latinos
are among the least motivated and least capable students (Goyette & Conchas, 2002). As
a result of this perceived relationship between students’ ethnicity and their motivation
and ability to achieve academically, school personnel are less likely to invest in and
establish positive relationships with Latino students.
Expressive/Symbolic Beliefs about Schooling
According to the Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority Student Performance, a
minority group’s symbolic response to their incorporation into American society centers
upon their understanding and interpretation of the differences between their culture and
language and that of White America. While voluntary minorities perceive their
acculturation into American society as an additive process, involuntary minorities
perceive the same process as subtractive. This is because voluntary minorities believe

34
that their mastery of White culture and language will be instrumental to their future
success while involuntary minorities believe that White culture and language is the
culture and language of their oppressors and since involuntary minorities have been
denied access to opportunities within mainstream America they do not believe that there
is any gain in mastering White culture and language. As a result of their marginal status
within society, it is important to involuntary minorities to maintain symbols of identity
that distinguish the minority group from mainstream society. In this study, two constructs
were chosen to represent Latino students’ symbolic beliefs about schooling. These
constructs include beliefs in the importance of family and perceptions of parental
aspirations for their future educational attainment.
Familism beliefs
Familism, is “a strong identification and attachment of individuals with their
families (nuclear and extended), and strong feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity
among members of the same family” (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-
Stable, 1987, p. 398). The belief in the importance and primacy of family within one’s
life is deeply embedded within the Latino community (Ruschenberg & Buriel, 1989;
Sabogal, et. al., 1987). Moreover, this belief is not diminished as Latinos acculturate to
American society. Instead of undermining the primacy of family, being of a later
generation (e.g. third generation Latino American) allows Latinos to expand their social
network to include more non-familial relationships. To this end Ruschenberg and Buriel
(1989) write, “as families of Mexican ancestry acculturate, they become increasingly
involved with social systems outside the family while the basic internal family system

35
remains essentially unchanged” (p. 232). Consequently, familism beliefs are closely tied
to Latinos sense of identity and belonging.
Because of the primacy of family within the lives of Latino students, researchers
have investigated the relationship between familism beliefs and academic adjustment
(e.g. Fuligni, 2001; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Suárez-Orozco, 1991; Suárez-Orozco
& Suárez-Orozco, 1995). In particular researchers have been interested in understanding
if and how familism beliefs affect the academic achievement of Latino students. There
are several ways in which familism beliefs have the potential to promote or impede
academic success. First, students sense of loyalty to their family can be a powerful
motivator propelling students to work hard in school and achieve academically (e.g.
Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Suárez-Orozco, 1991). This is particularly true among
students who believe that their families have made tremendous sacrifices so that they
would have the opportunity to attend school (Suárez-Orozco, 1991). Moreover, Latino
students who feel responsible for financially providing for their parents may be more
likely to view education as instrumental in obtaining the financial security needed to
provide for themselves and their parents. So while familism beliefs have the potential to
promote academic success, they also have the potential to undermine student
achievement. First, when Latino students are home, there is a tremendous pull for them to
spend time with relatives, including extended family members and this limits the amount
of time students are able to devote to scholastic endeavors within the home (e.g. Fuligni,
Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Henderson, 1997). Additionally, low-income Latino students may
feel a greater sense of obligation to enter into the workforce or increase their workforce
participation in times of familial economic crisis (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999;

36
Henderson, 1997). Unlike the previous two home-based possibilities, the final way in
which familism beliefs may impair academic adjustment is school-based. The close
familial ties possessed by Latino students are deeply ingrained in students’ sense of self.
Yet, these ties are often undervalued within schools and underutilized by teachers leaving
Latino students feeling misunderstood and marginalized (Valenzuela, 1999). As Ogbu
suggests, this is problematic because students may be more inclined to adopt an
oppositional identity within schools as they do not feel valued or understood within
educational settings.
Andrew Fuligni’s (1997; 2001; Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999) work investigating
the relationship between Latino student beliefs of family obligation and school
adjustment further supports the notion that familism may both help and hinder academic
achievement. First, Latino students’ beliefs in family obligation (current assistance,
family respect, and supporting the family in the future) were strongly related to their
beliefs in the utility of education, suggesting that familial obligations fuel Latino students
desire to achieve academically (Fuligni, 2001). However, while Latino students reported
a stronger belief in the utility of education than did their Caucasian peers, they still
received the lowest grades in school when compared to other ethnic groups (Fuligni,
1997). Still other work (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999) has found a curvilinear
relationship between student beliefs in their current and future obligations to family and
their grade point averages. Those students with modest feelings of familial obligation
were performing better than those students who held strong or weak feelings of familial
obligation. This lends further support to the complex relationship between students’
familism beliefs and their academic achievement and highlights the need to further

37
investigate the relationship that exists between Latino students’ familism beliefs and their
school performance.
Student perceptions of parental aspirations for educational attainment
The role of parents in shaping students’ beliefs and behaviors of school
adjustment and academic performance is central to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of
Minority School Performance. Therefore, in addition to students’ familism beliefs this
study incorporates students’ perceptions of their parents’ aspirations for their future
educational attainment as a measure of expressive or symbolic beliefs about schooling.
This construct was chosen because it is a home-based measure of the messages that
students are receiving about their education. As previously noted, voluntary and
involuntary minority parents are similar in their verbal endorsement of the importance of
an education to children’s future success. According to Ogbu (2003), it is not that
involuntary minority parents lack high expectations for their children, but rather that their
educational involvement at home and at school do not behaviorally match their expressed
expectations and that they are inconsistent in their messages about the role of education
in adult success. While voluntary minority parents support their verbal encouragement
with their involvement in and monitoring of their children’s education, involuntary
minorities are often inconsistent in the messages that they send to their children. Their
own life experiences, lack of involvement in their children’s schooling, and expressed
distrust of the school system all work to undermine the aspirations that involuntary
minority parents hold for their children’s future educational attainment. Moreover, as
children of involuntary minorities witness the ways in which discrimination within
society work to undermine parents’ educational accreditations involuntary parents’

38
efforts to endorse the utility of education are also eroded. As a result, involuntary
minority children are likely to become ambivalent about the utility of education in adult
success. In an effort to capture how such parental messages about education are
internalized by Latino students this study of Latino student achievement measures student
perceptions of parental aspirations for their future educational attainment. In doing so, the
present study hopes to understand how student are internalizing the messages they are
receiving from their parents and how this in turn affects Latino student achievement.
The investigation of the effects of parental expectations and aspirations on student
achievement has proven to be a prolific area of research. This literature has suggested
that parental aspirations for children’s future academic achievement may have a
particularly powerful effect on student achievement as parents with higher expectations
and aspirations for their children’s educational attainment are consistently more likely to
have children that excel academically. In a meta-analysis designed to understand the
differential effects of various forms of parental involvement, Fan and Chen (2001)
concluded that parental aspirations and expectations shared the strongest relationship to
student academic achievement when compared to general parental involvement, parent-
child communication, home supervision, and school contact and participation. In another
study which explored the factors that may be perpetuating the achievement gap between
White and Latino students, Okagaki and Frensch (1998) concluded that differences in
parental expectations of children’s achievement were among the five potential causes for
the differences in the academic achievement of White and Latino students.
Research among Latino families has highlighted the ways in which parental
aspirations and expectations operate to shape Latino student achievement. There are two

39
primary themes that emerge from this literature. First, parental aspirations are being
shaped by Latino parents’ experiences within the US labor force. Additionally, Latino
parents have a unique way of conveying educational aspirations. Instead of articulating
specific goals for their children’s future educational attainment, parents tend to rely on
personal narrative as a means of demonstrating the utility of education in obtaining adult
success.
While middle-class White families may view education as an avenue to personal
growth or fulfillment, research has found that Latino parents have an instrumental view
of education focusing on the future opportunity provided through educational attainment.
Goldenberg and Gallimore (1995) write:
The parents … view education in instrumental terms. Education is a means
to economic security, the attainment of professional status, or both.
Although they also express the hope that children will learn something
useful as a part of their schooling, they unquestionably believe that
education is necessary for social mobility and economic success (p. 191).
In addition to believing in the utility of education, Latino parents who believed that their
upward mobility was limited because of their lack of education were more likely to hold
high educational aspirations for their own children (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, &
Garneir, 2001). These findings are inline with Ogbu’s characterization of voluntary
minorities. Taking a pragmatic approach to the acquisition of education would allow
parents and their children to buy into the American educational system without
jeopardizing their sense of identity. Moreover, focusing on the utility of education allows
voluntary minorities to overlook inequities within the educational system as they remain
focused on their future goals and the role that education plays in paving the way to adult
success. Consequently, this buy-in of the American educational system would likely lead

40
to academic achievement among their children as their children internalize parents’
messages about the value and role of education in adult success.
In this same vein, qualitative studies have documented the ways in which some
Latino parents rely on personal narrative to encourage their children to stay in school
(Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995; Romo & Falbo, 2000; Stanton-
Salazar, 2001). In their analysis of parental aspirations Romo and Falbo (2000) found that
Latino parents with low educational attainment tend to rely on their own narratives to
provide examples of the costs of low academic achievement. ‘Don’t be like me. Stay in
school.’ (Romo & Falbo, 2000, p. 211) is a sentiment echoed by many Latino parents
who find themselves trapped in low-wage jobs that offer little to no job security and few,
if any, prospects of upward mobility. Like most parents, Latinos want their children to
have more than they have. As a result, they may rely on personal narratives as a means of
demonstrating the consequences of low educational attainment. This is illustrated in a
quote from a high achieving Latino high school student:
[My mother] tries to keep that dream alive in my head, so it continues, so
it doesn’t die off like other stuff, … like a record, and the next day you
say, “Ah, I don’t like it anymore.” My parents just emphasize the
importance of an education, and they give examples, like the kind of job
they have, and where I’m going to end up if I don’t finish. (Stanton-
Salazar, 2001, p. 97).
As is demonstrated in this quote, Latino parents do not necessary set an explicit
expectation for the level educational attainment and instead focus on the consequences of
not obtaining an education. In this study of immigrant adolescent Latinos and their
families, Stanton-Salazar (2001) found that while parents wanted their children to
achieve, they were inclined, “to allow their children to define their own educational
plans” (p. 83). These findings suggest that Latino parents are likely to want their children

41
to attend college. However, they may also tend to leave the decision of the level of
educational attainment to their children. This laissez-faire approach may result from
Latino parents’ limited knowledge of the American educational system which implicitly
requires parents to effectively manage their children’s education (Baker & Stevenson,
1986).
Given the research that has demonstrated a positive relationship between parental
aspirations and academic achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Okagaki & Frensch, 1998),
Latino parents’ failure to articulate a clear goal for their children’s future educational
attainment may contribute to Latino students’ underachievement. Since the message is
not clearly articulated, students are free to interpret what it means to “get a good
education.” And if their parents are in low-wage jobs such as dishwashers, gardeners, and
house cleaners, a high school diploma and minimum wage job at a department store may
be perceived by students as a significantly better life with more opportunities than those
available to their parents.
Collectively, these findings suggest that Latino parental aspirations for their
children’s future educational attainment may have both positive and negative effects on
Latino student achievement. While parents’ emphasis of the utility of education is clearly
aligned with a voluntary minority perspective of education, the failure to articulate clear
goals may undermine parents’ endorsement of education. Consequently, it is important to
begin to understand how Latino students perceive their parents messages about education
and how these perceptions may be shaping Latino student achievement.
Educational Strategies Utilized by Students

42
As minorities adjust to their incorporation into American society they adopt
strategies that will both protect their identity and promote their goals for future success.
Within the school system, voluntary minorities adopt a pragmatic approach to education
which allows them to remain focused on their goal of educational attainment in spite of
numerous structural barriers to academic achievement. In contrast, involuntary minorities
have lost faith that their educational credentials will be fairly rewarded within society and
therefore develop a cultural folklore of alternative pathways to adult success.
Consequently, voluntary and involuntary minorities develop and utilize different
strategies within the educational system. Voluntary minority students develop strategies
that will help them gain the most from their educational experience and therefore exhibit
a high correspondence between their verbal endorsement of and commitment to
education and their engagement in academic behavior. Ogbu (2003) has asserted that it is
the correspondence between verbal endorsement and positive educational strategies that
promote academic achievement among voluntary minority students as they are not only
saying that they want to do well in school but also engaging in the types of activities that
promote academic success, such as preparing for exams and completing homework. In
contrast, involuntary minority students lack congruence between their beliefs and
behavior. Instead, there is a disconnect between their verbal endorsements of education
and the behavioral strategies that they employ within educational settings. Involuntary
minority students are likely to verbalize high educational aspirations but at the same time
are unlikely to adopt the behavioral strategies that would help them to achieve their goals.
Instead, involuntary minorities fail to attend class regularly, complete homework

43
assignments, and prepare for exams making it unlikely that they will achieve
academically.
The academic behavior exhibited by minority students is also likely to affect the
way that students are perceived and treated within the school system. According to
Goyette & Conchas (2002), school personnel make decisions about what students are
worthy of investment. This decision is undoubtedly informed by students’ appearance
and behavior (e.g. Matute-Bianchi, 1991; Valenzuela, 1999). Consequently, the
educational strategies utilized by voluntary and involuntary minorities are not only likely
to effect their academic achievement but also their relationships within the educational
system. As such voluntary minorities have a tremendous advantage over involuntary
minorities as they are not only engaging in the behavior necessary for academic
achievement but are also likely to be benefiting from additional assistance, support, and
encouragement from school personnel.
In an effort to understand how educational strategies effect Latino student
achievement, the present study captures students’ academic behavior and endorsement of
education. More specifically, this study looks at the amount of time students spend on
their homework during an average school night and students’ aspirations for their future
educational attainment.
Time spent on homework
Performance, students’ academic behavior, or school functioning, is a critical component
to their scholastic success. While both voluntary and involuntary youth are likely to

44
verbally endorse education, only voluntary youth couple their verbal endorsement with
behavioral strategies that are conducive to academic success.
While the range of behaviors that can promote academic success is plentiful,
school functioning has been defined as: getting along with teachers, paying attention in
school, getting homework done, and getting along with other students (Heard, 2007). In
addition to exhibiting high school functioning, students who spend more time on their
homework are also more likely to have higher GPAs (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). In a
cross-ethnic comparison between Filipino, Chinese, Mexican, Central and South
American, and European American students, Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam (1999) demonstrated
that Mexican and Central and South American students spend considerably less time on
their homework than their Asian and Filipino peers but more time on their homework
than European American peers. Moreover, findings from this study suggest there is a
relationship between time spent on homework and grade point average. Based upon such
findings, the present study utilizes students’ self-reports of the amount of time that they
spent on homework on an average school night as a measure of academic behavior. It is
expected that students’ who are likely to report spending more time on their homework
are also more likely to perform well academically.
Student aspirations for their future educational attainment
According to Ogbu, the educational strategies employed by students are critical to
their school adjustment and academic achievement. Accordingly, when students are
academically successful they employ educational strategies that consist of both verbal
and behavioral commitment to education. In the present study, student aspirations for

45
their own future educational attainment are a measure of the verbal commitment to their
education.
Across studies which have included students of various nationalities and
ethnicities, student aspirations “have been shown to affect positively and consistently
subsequent educational and occupational achievement” (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001, p.
215). Even so, results with Latino students have indicated that there may be some
noteworthy differences among this group of students. First, ethnicity has been shown to
have differential affects on the educational aspirations of Latino students. In a study
comparing the educational aspirations of Cuban, Dominican Republic, Mexican,
Nicaraguan, Columbian, Other Latino, Haitian, Jamaican, Other West Indies,
Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong, Cambodian, Filipino, Chinese and other Asian, and
European and Canadian youth, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) found that “independent of
other factors, Mexican-origin reduces educational aspirations and expectations by almost
10 percent” (p. 230). Since this sample is primarily Mexican-ancestry, this finding is
particularly relevant suggesting that the students within this study may be likely to have
suppressed educational aspirations.
In a longitudinal study of educational aspirations among Latino, Asian, and White
youth, Kao and Tienda (1998) found that while aspirations remained relatively stable for
most students from eighth to twelfth grade, this was not the case for Latino students.
High aspirations were less stable for Latino students and by the time they finished high
school there was a noticeable decline in their aspirations. In follow up analyses, Kao and
Tienda (1998) concluded that this decline could be attributed to their socioeconomic
background, which limited their information about college and resulted in early

46
aspirations that were less concrete than those of non-Latino students. Since the
aspirations measured within the present study were taken in the second semester of
students’ ninth grade year, still early in their educational trajectories, this measure of
student aspirations may capture an optimism that is not entirely grounded in reality.
Consequently, including a measure of student behavior will greatly enhance our
understanding of the educational strategies utilized by students. It may be that students
who have aspirations grounded in reality will have knowledge of the entrance criteria for
colleges and will be more likely to exhibit behavior associated with high school
functioning as they understand that such behavior is necessary if they are to achieve their
educational goals.
Contributing to Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance
The conceptual model guiding the present study (see Figure 3) is grounded in
Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance while also
considering the breadth of research on Latino student achievement. Therefore, in addition
to utilizing Ogbu’s Cultural-Ecological Theory of Minority School Performance, the
present study also attempts to build upon this theory in several important ways. While
Ogbu (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) has said that the profiles of voluntary and involuntary
minorities are anchors of a continuum, he has done little to elaborate this point, and the
work that he has done has focused on African American students (e.g. Ogbu, 1989).
However, work by Matute-Bianchi (1991) suggests that the categorization of Mexican-
descent students is complex, lending itself to a continuum that has yet to be fully
articulated. So while this theory may explain group differences in minority achievement,
it does not adequately address the variation that exists within groups. Taking seriously the

J Mindnich Dissertation-Final without Signatures

J Mindnich Dissertation-Final without Signatures

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to J Mindnich Dissertation-Final without Signatures

Similar to J Mindnich Dissertation-Final without Signatures (20)

J Mindnich Dissertation-Final without Signatures