Educational Opportunities and Immigrants

Immigration in America

Education is important in American society because it is a pathway by which success is achieved. The traditional theories that attempt to explain academic success can be divided into various groups, such as deficit thinking, which suggests that the reasons one succeeds or does not succeed are found within the person; other theories are based on economic conditions, social conditions, or a combination of both. Then there are also theories that look at the role of the method of education that is used and its function in academic success. These theories highlight the role that various factors play in whether one is successful or not in academics -- in short, all of them shed light on parts of the issue but individually, they all come up a bit short in explaining the whole phenomenon. Thus, it is important to take critical approaches to the idea, and to look at social, economic, political and cultural reasons for success or the lack thereof.

Educational opportunities are not all equal. As the California Package shows, there are rules in place that support certain groups' educational advancement while not supporting others. In the case of the California Package, the state of California has cleared some obstacles keeping immigrants from taking advantage of educational opportunities available to non-immigrants. Prior to this package, these opportunities (such as in-state tuition) were not available to them. So it is clear that not all opportunities are the same. This can be seen in school districts too. Various regions across the U.S. are affected by poverty and poor academic achievement (the achievement gap). This is the result of problems in society and economic-social status issues that are related to school achievement, school funding and the role that the federal government plays in providing assistance to schools that meet benchmarks.

Second-generation Americans attend urban area schools, which can be divided into good and bad districts. The good districts are more likely to have expensive housing as families are willing to pay more to ensure that their children can attend the best schools in the area. Poorer neighborhoods are likely to have less desirable schools in their districts. Second generation families that do not have the money to afford expensive housing are more likely to have to send their children to the less desirable schools because they cannot afford the housing in the better school districts. Second generation families are more likely to struggle with developing stable income streams and may not be fully integrated into white collar positions in the labor force, or they may have succeeded in developing their own businesses and become fully incorporated into the white middle-class. It all depends upon the type of success that the family has had in coming to America.

Structural mechanisms reproduce educational opportunities in the same way that standardization in curriculum provides opportunities: the federal government sets a standard that schools have to meet, and that standard includes curriculum guidance and if goals are met schools are able to continue to receive funding. This is an example of how a structural mechanism within the state apparatus works to establish opportunities in education. At the same time, there can be negative effects of this type of apparatus and its structural mechanisms: socio-economic conditions can prevail in certain regions that negatively impact academic performance. The achievement gap can widen as a result of broken homes or as a result of both parents having to work and no one being around the house to help the child with school work.

Cultural explanations can be provided that help to explain differential patterns of education attainment by race/ethnicity -- but of course structural explanations can be provided as well, as seen above. The reality is that there is typically a mix of the two, which is what explains the achievement gap and the differential patterns (Vallejo 195). Family obligations that Asians and Mexicans face as a result of their culture certainly play a role in the development of their children and the opportunities that are created for them academically speaking. However, the "immigrant narratives" must avoid offering simplistic answers to complex phenomena, otherwise the methods taken to address the issues will not yield substantial results (Vallejo 195).

This feeds into the model minority stereotype and how it allows problems associated with minorities and immigrants to fester. The model minority stereotype refers to the expectation that the archetypal minority should achieve in every situation across the board. It terribly reduces the individual to a type and limits the potential or overlooks the issues that the individual might have or might be facing. Instead of addressing individuals on a case by case basis -- in which environmental and familial factors are considered -- it places a generalization upon a population that is then used to set policy and standards in place that can detrimentally impact whole communities as a result.

Immigrant selectivity refers to the process of selecting research data of particular immigrants and using it to transpose a picture that is meant to represent the whole when in reality it only represents a small percentage of immigrants (Lee, Zhou 6). This type of selectivity is bad for research and for policy makers because, as has been explained above, it does a disservice to the reality of a situation by limiting one's context and not allowing one to see the whole truth but rather only nuggets of truth and information meant to be the whole package.

Thus immigrant selectivity relates to disparities in educational attainment because it serves to provide the framework for which standards are set, funds are allocated, work is divided up, expectations are developed, help is provided, communities are shaped, families are engaged, and so on. Everything is related in the sense that one variable impacts another and all together the variables go to make up the whole situation, the total reality. In such a situation, a critical theoretical approach is more essential than an approach in which immigrant selectivity results.

Asian immigrant hyperselectivity for instance results in Asians over-representing a demographic in terms of how they score in certain areas of education or in how their culture reflects values. When a research sample selects mainly from an Asian group it throws off its scores and results and presents an image of data that does not accurately reflect an entire immigrant population or even racial or ethnic tendency. From being unassimilable to being exceptionable, the hyperselectivity of Asian immigrants has played a fundamental role: it has produced a narrative in which Asians are conceived of as being brilliant, humble, hard-working and driven. This contrasts with the former narrative in which they were viewed as sneaky, treacherous and disloyal (a WW2 narrative).

In conclusion, labeling immigrants and creating generalized narratives for them is a sure-fire way to limit one's actual path to finding solutions. Reality has to be discovered on a one-by-one basis instead of on a one-size-fits-all basis. It may take more work and more time but it is absolutely necessary.

3

By incorporation by convergence to the mean is meant the inclusion of Mexican-Americans into the middle class -- the average socio-economic status of the common American -- via measurements such as education, income, home ownership, etc. (Vallejo 5; Higley 97). Other factors play a part in incorporation, such as the ability of the Mexican immigrant to learn and speak English (Higley 97). For 1st generation Mexican immigrants, the obstacles to incorporation are often much more difficult than for 2nd generation immigrants. However, one crucial key to either generation's successful incorporation is education (Vallejo 5). Education is the most likely tool that Mexican immigrants can use to obtain upward mobility. Still, incorporation can be measured by other tools, such as social inclusion (as in within a community, within political representation, mainstream representation, media representation, etc.). Vallejo notes that one of the main indicators of incorporation is the obtaining of white collar jobs. For Mexican immigrants, the main type of job by which they support themselves and their families is blue collar. Does this mean that these immigrants will never be fully incorporated? Not necessarily: this paper will show what it means to be incorporated by convergence for Mexican immigrants.

Convergence is simply that point where all threads unite. The idea of convergence indicates that there are many paths -- at the very least more than one. Thus, for some Americans the path to the mean (the average) will come by way of home ownership and a white collar job. For others like Mexican immigrants the path will come from the "bottom up" by way of blue collar work. Home ownership is unlikely to be a factor at least for 1st generation immigrants. And English language skills is likely to keep them from finding employment in the white collar sector. Education achievement can change all that but for 1st generation immigrants, education is likely to take a back seat to job hunting and blue collar work. Education is more likely to be available for 2nd generation immigrants.

Where the immigrant lives can also be a viewed as a factor in incorporation. If the immigrants tend to stay in areas or regions where there are mostly other immigrants then the incorporation may be viewed as less valid. Segregation and isolation are seen as evidence of otherness, of being outside the mean because they are dislocated from the common whole -- separate and distinct from it (Massey, Durand 10). However, if Mexican immigrants are able to relocate and be more integrated into communities that offer diversity of inhabitants, the incorporation could be me measured more successfully in this respect.

There is not a lot of evidence to suggest that upwardly mobile Latinos are incorporating into the white middle-class as they converge to the mean if "straight-line pathway" measurements are to be used (Vallejo 3). Mexican immigrants who are upwardly mobile incorporate into the white middle-class as they approach the mean by circuitous ways. It is a roundabout manner in which the immigrant takes non-linear steps towards convergence. A direct "frontal assault" would be almost taboo in the sense that the white middle-class establishment is on guard against such incorporations and is more likely to accept incorporation if it is indirect and non-threatening. Otherwise, the possibility of being shunned socially, rejected, and forced into a more segregated society is the risk.

Part of the process of this indirect incorporation is for Mexican immigrants to be more "civically active" than whites in order to show that they care about their communities and are willing to be very supportive and pro-active in helping the middle class to achieve and maintain its values (Vallejo 22). In other words, Mexican immigrants have to "prove" themselves worthy of being on the same level as white middle-class families via public demonstration -- i.e., civic activity, even though their white middle-class counterparts may not be as civically active.

Other Mexican immigrants can attempt to break into the white middle-class through business ownership. The American ethic respects individuals who work for themselves and pick themselves up by the bootstraps so to speak. Immigrants who are able to successfully manage and run their own businesses and thereby achieve financial independence are viewed more favorably by Americans than immigrants who do not have such success (Vallejo 23). Likewise, joining ethnic organizations is part of the process of the Mexican immigrant in becoming more oriented and established in American life -- and it is another indirect route that consists of strengthening one's ties and becoming part of a community.