Education of immigrants in the United States

Immigrants make up about 13% of the US population, about 42 million out of a total population of 318.9 million citizens in 2017.[1] First and second generation immigrant children have become the fastest-growing segment of the United States population. Compared to the native-born population, young adults aged 15–34 are significantly over-represented in new immigrants. Children and immigrants ages 35–44 are in similar proportion to native-born Americans, but older people are under-represented in new immigrants.[2] The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe that states cannot deny students an education on account of their immigration status, allowing students to gain access to the United States' public schooling system.[3] Further, the 1974 Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols prohibited discrimination based on race or national origin and determined that school systems in the United States must provide English language instruction.[4] The Every Student Succeeds Act[5] (ESSA) signed by President Obama in 2015 mandates that English proficiency standards that hold state programs accountable for the performance of EL programs. The most common forms of English-language (EL) instruction are English as a Second Language (ESL) programs for students identified as low-English proficiency (LEP) learners.

Statue of Liberty in New York City

Overview

By 2000, 23% of scientists with a PhD in the U.S. were immigrants, including 40% of those in engineering and computers.[6] Roughly a third of the United States' college and universities graduate students in STEM fields are foreign nationals—in some states it is well over half of their graduate students.

In 2016, current school enrollment figures show that immigrants lag behind native-born populations in attending pre-school and K-12 education, but they proportionally outpace native-born populations in attending colleges or universities.[1]

Source[1]
Total Native-Born Foreign-Born
Preschool 6.0% 6.4% 1.5%
K-8 44.9% 46.5% 23.0%
9-12 20.6% 20.6% 21.1%
Higher Education 28.4% 26.5% 54.3%

While the trend is changing with changes in demographics, immigrants tend to be less educated than their native-born counterparts. They are significantly more likely to have less than a high school education, yet they are also slightly more likely to hold an advanced degree. Given the high education enrollment rates of immigrant populations, though, this is very likely to change in the next decade. By creating special visa programs, the Immigration Act of 1990 has increased the percentage of immigrants with a college education to about 29%. However, this number is only slightly more than 10% of the overall population.[7] Further, the US Department of Education estimates that "over 4.7 million foreign born individuals enrolled in pre-kindergarten to postsecondary education, representing 6% of the total student population. Another 20 million students are the children of foreign born parents."[8]

Number of college-educated people in the United States by Immigration Status[1]
Educational attainment for population 25+ by immigration status[1]

Education in the United States

Many immigrants in the United States suffer from structural poverty reinforced by the education system.[9] They often settle in segregated, impoverished communities where the schools are too under-resourced to accommodate for English language learners, proven to be a significant risk factor for the educational outcomes of migrant populations.[10][11] Cultural differences in learning styles or thinking patters lead to students being mislabeled as “learning disabled” or “slow,” resulting their stratification among peers such as grade repetition or exclusion from necessary college preparation.[11][10] Further, the dominant use of high-stakes testing in United States to make educational decisions puts English language learners at a disadvantage.[12][11][13] Furthermore, those who do not support immigration often state that immigrants in public schools have a negative effect on native born children in the system. [14] This conclusion has been disproved by a study by Jennifer Hunt that shows that a minimal increase (1%) of natives in public schools increases the likelihood that native born children finish 12 years of school by .03%.[15] Policy implications affecting immigrant students in education include the lacking emphasis on bilingual and multicultural education coupled with the movement of non-immigrants to private schools, increasing the lack of public school funding to support English language learning populations.[16][17]

Immigration

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

In 2016, researchers Zoe Given-Wilson and Jane Herlihy reviewed the psychological traumas and outcomes that asylum seekers, particularly children who are unaccompanied, face while achieving legal rights. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) are kids who leave their native country to seek shelter in a new country without a parent or guardian. [18]As mentioned in the study, common reasons for leaving their county include: “war, violence, sexual assault, or high levels of persecution” (Wilson, Herlihy & Hodes , 2016, pg. 267). [18]The traumatic experiences faced by these adolescents along with brain development will influence the interview process.

Uncertainty regarding safety and stability affects adolescents' mental, developmental, and physical conditions. [18]Unaccompanied asylum seeking children must go alone through a subjective process of being asked questions by an interviewer regarding why they are seeking refuge. The way unaccompanied asylum seeking children think will influence their responses while in an interview. For example, prior to mid-adolescence, it may be hard for an UASC to regulate emotions. In addition, lack of a parent/guardian will increase vulnerabilities to PTSD, depression, anxiety, psychosis, delinquency, and aggression. [18] Mental health illness should be considered by the interviewer as they play a big role in how a kid is viewed by the decision-maker.

The assessment of a someone's story is very important, however many times the decision-making process is subjective due to the emotional content of adolescents’ asylum claims. A decision-makers’ views will influence whether they believe the person. In addition, full brain maturation is not achieved until mid-20’s influencing the interview process. [18] Many children are not able to make decisions based on their own, instead they would rather please an interviewer. [18] Depending on the culture, young people are faced with the difficult task of proving that their story is credible.Therefore, all aspects of a child's story and their lived experience may need to be taken into account by the interviewer.

“UASC are an especially vulnerable group to ongoing abuse and neglect”(Wilson et al., 2016, pg. 271). [18] When adolescents file an asylum claim, they are trying to prove their story is credible. Several factors including: age, psychological development, memory, trust, attachment, and mental health will influence whether an interviewer deems someone's story as credible. Overall, a decision regarding an adolescents' claim is subjective to the decision maker and it is imperative that the interviewer reflect on their views while speaking with unaccompanied asylum seeking children. This will reduce any biases from projecting out during the interview as these decisions will have long-lasting impacts. [18]

Critical Consciousness and Immigrant Students

Critical consciousness is defined as the individual’s ability to recognize and effectively work against the oppression and inequality they must face in society.[19] The inclusion of critical consciousness in schools for children and teenagers as an educational strategy has grown in popularity in recent decades. The addition of critical consciousness serves as a call to action to appropriately name and address these oppressive forces and as such could be a helpful strategy for educating immigrant students who face marginalization.[19]

Critical consciousness can be experienced and measured on the scale of reflecting on individual beliefs, individual values and behaviors, as well as on the collective level; all of these measures play a part in another lens that examines critical consciousness from a different focal point, the group level which inspects the attitudes and beliefs of an individual as relating to the whole. That being said, an ecological perspective can be taken to determine the state of students’ critical consciousness as it is a result of all the different avenues of education they receive, which isn’t limited to schooling.[19] These can include but are not limited to these types of relationships: parental, peer, after school programs, teams and any other contributor to childhood and adolescent development. Discussions with parents regarding issues of racism, violence and the roots of oppression can be an enormous support in encouraging the growth and success of children and adolescents, as well as their ability to critically reflect and commit to acting against these systems of marginalization.[19] Additional support where schools facilitate group discussions with peers and continue to encourage and nurture students to understand their place and identity further contribute to higher levels of critical consciousness.[20][19] The analysis broke up critical consciousness into subcategories worth studying such as critical reflection, political engagement, civic action, critical action (as in relation to crisis response or social activism) and critical motivation.

Qualitative studies were used to determine how critical consciousness could play a role in Social-Emotional development.[21][19] The data collected alluded to the development of critical consciousness helping the individual to have increased confidence levels and higher amounts of compassion, resistance and resilience, as well as nurturing a sense of belonging and connection.[21][19] In contrast, higher levels of critical self-reflection in regard to understanding the amount of oppression against them presented risks such as anxiety, depression or lack of academic engagement.[20][19] However, other studies described that sociopolitical involvement coming from having critical consciousness had higher arching positive academic benefits such as increased levels of self-motivation, higher levels of achievement and better expectations around post-school careers.[22][19]

Heberle, Rapa, and Farago(2020) conducted a systematic review where they examined 67 qualitative and quantitative studies on critical consciousness that spanned from 1998 to 2019. They discussed how despite being extensively studied, some of the sub-studies directly examined data and others used proxy measures to approximate and draw conclusions.[19] As such they stated that further research is required to understand how to supplement this topic, expand upon its exciting findings and best be able to apply this knowledge to educational programs.[19]

Gender

Immigrant populations are about 1% more female than male.[1] However, the relationship between gender and nativity is not significant overall. There are no substantial differences between Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Multi-racial people in each given generation on educational performance. However, there are massive differences among Black immigrants, where Black women tend to perform much better than Black men in school for each successive generation.[23]

Employment/Income

Immigrants participate in the US labor force at higher rates than their native-born counterparts, and they have a lower unemployment rate by 0.3%. ⅔ of immigrants are in the work force, as compared to 63.1% of native-born people.[1] However, this distinction is likely due to the fact that immigrants tend to be older than their native-born counterparts as a whole.

Possibly because more immigrant families are in the labor force, they have a significantly higher proportion of households earning an income and a significantly lower proportion of households collecting Social Security income. However, immigrants are more likely to collect SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits, and they have a lower median household income and per-person mean earnings.[1]

Percent among recently arrived immigrants to the US by immigration status.[1]

Despite immigrants having a higher median income and collecting fewer benefits from the government, they are also more likely to report being below the poverty line.[1]

Academic research has identified an "immigrant paradox" where children of immigrants (or very young immigrants), despite sociocultural limitations, often perform better than their native-born (and native family) counterparts.[24] This is likely due to immigrants wanting to rise to their previous social standing in their country of origin.[25]

 Economic inequality within United States' immigration

Economic inequality is a visible issue with immigrant households in the United States. Inequality is especially visible when examining a household's income. According to a 1998 study by researcher Edward Coulson, Hispanic households tend to have a higher income than black households; while Asian households tend to earn more than Anglos.[26] The reasons for this inequality can vary, however education and an influx of workers can play a role, as the number of legal immigrants in the workforce increased from 200,000 in 1948 to 700,000 in 1990.[27] One of the issues that this influx of immigrants presented is what "Economists Brian Hibbs and Gihoon Hong found[28] that immigration is responsible for about 24 percent of the increase in income inequality among U.S. metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2000".[29] A surplus of available workers can result in lower wages, especially with unskilled laborers. This can then result to the employers easily replacing their workforce. In a 2013 report for the Center for Immigration Studies, research found that a growth in numbers of immigrants entering the workforce has increased the size of the education/age group within the lower income bracket by 10% and reduces the wage of native-born men in that specific group by 3.7 percent and the wage of all native-born workers by 2.5 percent.[30] Native workers lacking a high school diploma have experienced the largest negative impact on household income as a result of immigrant workers. They make up a modest share of the workforce, and tend to be among the poorest Americans. Temporary entry visas make it difficult for most temporary workers to switch employers once in the United States, due to the number of others looking for the same type of job.[31] The number of immigrants overall has shifted dramatically throughout the past 100 years. In 1910 it was at its peak at 15% being foreign-born citizens, in 1970 it shrank to 4.7% and now has spiked to 13% in 2010. What makes the difference today is the demographic immigrating to the US. In the early 20th century, that influx of immigrants came from Southern and Eastern Europe which was closer in cultural resemblance to the developed American culture of the time as well as their labor skills being almost universal in the early factory setting. Today, "53% of immigrants are from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, or South America; further, about 59% of the illegal immigrant population in the United States in 2011 is from Mexico, with another 14% from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras." Many immigrants come with poor English, low education and lack of any labor skills the American market needs.[32] Other factors that this affects is the wage that these workers are and have been paid. In 1910 the immigrants were paid a lower rate due to the lack of labor laws yet to be passed. Today's immigrants have more factors to worry about than in the past, One of the main reasons for wage gaps in native-born and foreign-born Americans is skill and experience. This had led to several other issues as listed by bls.gov such as credentials, tasks, employer, location and performance.[33]

Immigrant integration

The United States Government has introduced several programs to help fix and minimize economic inequality in immigrant households. This integration is defined by the Migration Policy Institute as a "process of economic mobility and social inclusion for newcomers and their children" and "touches upon the institutions and mechanisms that promote development and growth within society".[34] With these programs the United States government is attempting to successfully give these new citizens jobs and equal opportunities.

For children and young adults, participation in the American public school system is a significant contributor to integration. Education plays a strong role in nationhood, where a sense of unity emerges among student cohorts who go through an education system together.[35] For young migrant populations, public education serves as one of the strongest mechanisms of integration as the American education system largely focuses on "Americanization", the development of a national consciousness.[35] Some schools are affected more than others by immigration policy, specifically Title I schools. [36] Studies have shown that the higher the percentage of white students, the more difficult integration is for immigrants as they face more discrimination and hostility.[37] The study by the American Education Research Journal cites the current policy on immigration enforcement as a major source of this discord[38].

Origin

Over time, waves of immigrants have come from various parts of the world. Immediately following World War Two, nearly 60% of immigrants came from Europe. That percentage declined over time, along with immigration from Canada. In its place, immigration from Asia and Latin America rose quickly, both nearing 40% of immigration in more recent times.[39]

H1-B visas by origin[1]

The pie graph shows H1-B visas, which are used in the United States to admit skilled workers, most of whom have advanced degrees.

Generation

Immigrants are more likely to come to the United States at older ages. Compared to native-born populations, immigrants are much more likely to be in their late 30s through their 50s, whereas the native-born population has a contraction at those age groups.[40] Pew Research Center predicts that by 2050, 1/3 of all students under the age of 17 "will either be immigrants themselves or the children of at least one parent who is an immigrant."[41]

Each generation that stays in the United States experiences a decline in educational performance as it assimilates into American society. Populations often outperform their peers in the first or second generation, but the results significantly decrease after that.[23]

Comparison to native population

The vast majority of differences between native-born populations in the US and immigrant populations are due to selection effects. These effects arise because immigrants tend to start migrating in the mid-to-late twenties, so they do not have the formal education inside their new country, nor do they have longstanding networks and connections that can help them immediately find high quality positions.[1]

Immigrants often come to the United States to seek education, especially higher education. Native-born populations are more likely than immigrants to be out of school, and immigrant populations are more likely to be in school (especially public school systems). This means that significantly higher percentages of immigrants are still in school, which causes lower incomes at earlier ages. Despite the massive differences in earnings between native-born and immigrant populations at young ages, the differences become negligible at older ages. At every income level, native-born populations have an advantage, though that advantage fades at the highest income levels as well.[1]

The only significant connection to nativity status is educational attainment. Immigrants are likely to have less educational attainment than native-born citizens, though this is not related to wages, age, or gender in a significant way.

References
  1. Bureau, US Census. "American Community Survey (ACS)". www.census.gov. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
  2. "Chapter: 2 Background to Contemporary U.S. Immigration". The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997). National Academies Press. Retrieved 9 December 2018.
  3. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe". American Immigration Council. 2012-06-15. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  4. "A brief history of immigration and education in the US". Public Radio International. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  5. "Every Student Succeeds Act", Wikipedia, 2019-10-16, retrieved 2019-11-13
  6. Crane, Michael (2004). The Political Junkie. SP Books.
  7. "College-Educated Immigrants in the United States". migrationpolicy.org. 2016-02-02. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
  8. "Educational Resources for Immigrants, Refugees, Asylees and other New Americans". www2.ed.gov. 2017-03-24. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  9. Ornstein, Allan C. (June 1994). "Curriculum trends revisited". Peabody Journal of Education. 69 (4): 4–20. doi:10.1080/01619569409538783. ISSN 0161-956X.
  10. Borgonovi, Francesca; Piacentini, Mario; Schleicher, Andreas (2019-01-08), "Improving the Education and Social Integration of Immigrant Students", Humanitarianism and Mass Migration, University of California Press, pp. 325–352, doi:10.2307/j.ctv9zchv9.21, ISBN 9780520969629
  11. Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M.; Darbes, Tasha; Dias, Sandra Isabel; Sutin, Matt (2011-10-21). "Migrations and Schooling". Annual Review of Anthropology. 40 (1): 311–328. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-111009-115928. ISSN 0084-6570.
  12. Gibson, Margaret A.; Carrasco, Silvia (October 2009). "The Education of Immigrant Youth: Some Lessons From the U.S. and Spain". Theory into Practice. 48 (4): 249–257. doi:10.1080/00405840903188118. ISSN 0040-5841.
  13. Solórzano, Ronald W. (June 2008). "High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and Remedies for English Language Learners". Review of Educational Research. 78 (2): 260–329. doi:10.3102/0034654308317845. ISSN 0034-6543.
  14. Published: Jennifer Hunt, 2017. "The Impact of Immigration on the Educational Attainment of Natives," Journal of Human Resources, vol 52(4), pages 1060-1118.
  15. Published: Jennifer Hunt, 2017. "The Impact of Immigration on the Educational Attainment of Natives," Journal of Human Resources, vol 52(4), pages 1060-1118.
  16. Ovando, Carlos J. (April 2003). "Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues". Bilingual Research Journal. 27 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1080/15235882.2003.10162589. ISSN 1523-5882.
  17. Mavisakalyan, Astghik (October 2011). "Immigration, Public Education Spending, and Private Schooling". Southern Economic Journal. 78 (2): 397–423. doi:10.4284/0038-4038-78.2.397. ISSN 0038-4038.
  18. Given-Wilson, Z., Herlihy, J., & Hodes, M. (2016). Telling the story: A psychological review on assessing adolescents’ asylum claims. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 57(4), 265-273. doi:10.1037/cap0000077
  19. Heberle, A. E., Rapa, L. J., & Farago, F. (2020). Critical consciousness in children and adolescents: A systematic review, critical assessment, and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 146(6), 525.
  20. Godfrey, E. B., Burson, E. L., Yanisch, T. M., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2019). A bitter pill to swallow? Patterns of critical consciousness and socioemotional and academic well-being in early adolescence. Develop- mental Psychology, 55, 525–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000558
  21. Clonan-Roy, K., Jacobs, C. E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2016). Towards a model of positive youth development specific to girls of color: Perspectives on development, resilience, and empowerment. Gender Issues, 33, 96 –121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12147-016-9156-7
  22. Luginbuhl, P. J., McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, B. T. (2016). Sociopolitical development, autonomous motivation, and education outcomes: Implications for low-income Latina/o adolescents. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4, 43–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lat0000041
  23. Qian, Yue; Buchmann, Claudia; Zhang, Zhe (September 27, 2013). "Gender and Generational Status in Immigrants' Educational Achievement: Evidence for Segmented Assimilation?". Population Association of America.
  24. Feliciano, Cynthia; Lanuza, Yader R. (2017). "An Immigrant Paradox? Contextual Attainment and Intergenerational Educational Mobility". American Sociological Review. 82 (1): 211–241. doi:10.1177/0003122416684777.
  25. DeRuy, Emily. "The Myth of Immigrants' Educational Attainment". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
  26. Coulson, Edward (February 1998). "Why Are Hispanic- and Asian-American Homeownership Rates So Low?: Immigration and Other Factors*". Journal of Urban Economics. 45 (2): 209–227. doi:10.1006/juec.1998.2094.
  27. "History of U.S. Immigration Laws | Federation for American Immigration Reform". fairus.org. Retrieved 2017-10-06.
  28. Hibbs, Brian (2015-03-22). "Economic Bulletin volume 35 Issue 1" (PDF). PDF. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  29. "Immigration and Economic Inequality". Cato Institute. 2015-04-21. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  30. Borjas, George (April 2013). "Immigration and the American Worker" (PDF). Center for Immigration Studies.
  31. Hanson, Gordon. "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration" (PDF). Council on Foreign Relations.
  32. Xu, Ping (2015). "Imported inequality? Immigration and Income Inequality in the American States". Rhode Island University PDF. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  33. Torpey, Elka. "Same occupation, different pay: How wages vary : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics". www.bls.gov. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
  34. "Immigrant Integration". migrationpolicy.org. Retrieved 2017-10-06.
  35. Waters; Leblanc (2005). "Refugees and Education: Mass Public Schooling without a Nation-State". Comparative Education Review. 49 (2): 129. doi:10.1086/428102. ISSN 0010-4086. JSTOR 3542160.
  36. Ee, J., & Gándara, P. (2019). The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on the Nation’s Schools. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219862998
  37. Ee, J., & Gándara, P. (2019). The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on the Nation’s Schools. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219862998
  38. Ee, J., & Gándara, P. (2019). The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on the Nation’s Schools. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219862998
  39. "Yearbook of Immigration Statistics | Homeland Security". www.dhs.gov. 2009-07-09. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
  40. "Age-Sex Pyramids of U.S. Immigrant and Native-Born Populations, 1970-Present". migrationpolicy.org. 2013-11-01. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
  41. Maxwell, Lesli A. (2014-08-20). "U.S. School Enrollment Hits Majority-Minority Milestone - Education Week". Education Week. Retrieved 2017-04-23.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.