Regarding Education Mexican-American Schooling,

Immigration, and Bi-National Improvement

EDITED BY

Bryant Jensen

Adam Sawyer

Foreword by Patricia Gdndara & Eugene Garcia

JE4CHERS COLLEGE

PRESS Teachers College, Columbia University

New York and London

Foreword by Pt

Acknowledgm

1. Regarding School Improv

Bryant Jensen a

PAR'

Published by Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027

Copyright © 2013 by Teachers College, Columbia University

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmit­ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data can be obtained at www. loc.gov

ISBN 978-0-8077-5392-7 (paperback)

Printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

2. Intergener Mexican Amei

Edward Telles a:

3. Unauthori Mexican Amej

Frank D. Bean,!

James D. Bachir

4. Math Perfc Children in th< Immigrant Gei

Claudia Galindc

5. Learning Ii Students in M<

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Ernesto Trevino

CHAPTER 4

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children in the United States: Socioeconomic

Status, Immigrant Generation, and English Proficiency

Claudia Galindo

Mexican immigration is significantly impacting the diversity and size of the U.S. population. Between 2000 and 2010, the Mexican-origin popula­tion in the United States increased from 20.6 to 31.8 million, representing 63% of the Latino population and 30% of the U.S. foreign-born popula­tion (Ennis, Rfos-Vargas, & Albert, 2011; Martin & Midgley, 2006). At the same time, many Mexican-origin students are educationally disad­vantaged, as pointed out in Chapters 2 and 3. Over the past 30 years, Mexican-origin students have experienced important educational gains, but continue to lag behind other racial and ethnic groups in attainment and achievement, from early childhood through college (Crosnoe, 2005; Hirschman, 2001; Reardon & Galindo, 2009).

These educational disparities are especially problematic because they are intrinsically related to social and economic inequalities and limit students' upward mobility opportunities. Studies confirm that edu­cational attainment is a strong predictor of employment, participation in high-skill occupations, and earnings (Duncan, Hotz, & Trejo, 2006).

Several theoretical arguments are used to explain Mexican-origin students' poor educational outcomes. Cultural arguments focus on so­cial forces and historical relations between minority and majority groups (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998; Valenzuela, 1999) or on cultural mismatches

Regarding Education, edited by Bryant Jensen & Adam Sawyer. Copyright © 2013 by Teachers Col­lege, Columbia University. All rights reserved. Prior to photocopying items for classroom use, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, USA, tel. (978) 750-8400, www.copyright.com.

66

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 67

between schools and homes that affect minority students' educational outcomes (Garcia, 2001; Saracho & Marinez-Hancock, 2007). In con­trast, structural theories argue that the position of minority groups with­in the U.S. social hierarchy is the main determinant of their educational experiences and that schools, as agents for social reproduction and inequalities, reinforce the current power structure and the supremacy of the dominant class (Bourdieu, 1986; Lareau, 2003; Valencia, 2002). These theoretical perspectives bring useful insights for understanding the complexities faced by Mexican-origin students in schools and dis­cuss the impact of macro-level factors, such as structure and culture, which may be related to students' educational outcomes. However, none of the theoretical perspectives alone fully explain Mexican-origin students' educational outcomes, and they may be less helpful for ex­plaining learning patterns among young children given their develop­mental stage. Furthermore, these theories do not reveal policy-relevant mechanisms that may help reduce Mexican-origin students' educational disadvantages, or how family and student variables interact to inhibit or facilitate educational improvements. Thus, this chapter focuses on the interrelation of students' socioeconomic characteristics, generational status, and oral English proficiency as main explanatory variables of academic achievement of Mexican-origin students in the United States. Given the rapid growth of the Mexican-origin population in the United States, their educational disadvantages, and the increasing importance of educational attainment for upward mobility, it is critical to under­stand the achievement experiences of these students to make improve­ments. This chapter provides insights into Mexican-origin students' academic learning experiences in the U.S. by analyzing math achieve­ment from Kindergarten through 5th grade and comparing them to non-Hispanic White (hereafter "White") and non-Hispanic Black (hereafter "Black") students. I pay particular attention to variation in achievement patterns between Mexican-origin subgroups, by generational status (i.e., first-generation children are born in Mexico to Mexican-born parents, second-generation children are U.S.-born to Mexican-born parents, and third-plus generation children are U.S.-born children to U.S.-born par­ents with Mexican origins), their socioeconomic status, and their oral English proficiency at the start of Kindergarten. I also examine statisti­cal interactions of these factors and their associations with Mexican-origin children's math achievement at the beginning of Kindergarten.

The data I use for this analysis come from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K; NCES, 2003). This large-scale study focuses on young children's development at the be­ginning of Kindergarten-a crucial period for children's later well-being

68 Challenges and Dilemmas

(Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005; Rouse, Brooks-Gunn, & McLa­nahan, 2005). Because of the longitudinal nature of the data, I am able to look at achievement trajectories from Kindergarten through 5th grade rather than scores at one point in time, which improves previous research using cross-sectional data. Also, the ECLS-K sample includes a sizeable group of Latino and Mexican-origin children, and extensive information on students' language and socioeconomic characteristics.

Using the ECLS-K data, several studies have shown that Mexican-origin students performed significantly lower in math and reading at the beginning of Kindergarten, in 1st grade, and in 3rd grade than did their White and other Latino peers (Crosnoe, 2006; Glick & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Although achievement gaps narrowed significantly during the elementary grades, in 5th grade, Mexican-origin students were still scoring significantly lower than White students on math and reading tests (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). In addition, Mexican-origin students demonstrated lower academic per­formance than Latino students from others countries/regions of origin, including South American and Cuban students.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

Research on different educational outcomes highlights the educational disadvantages thatmany Mexican-origin children experience in the Unit­ed States. These educational disadvantages are observed for Mexican-origin students in terms of attainment and achievement measures, and they are associated with a series of demographic and family factors.

Immigrant Generational Status

The relationship between educational outcomes and immigrant generational status (i.e., the length of time in the United States) is con­troversial because research has provided little consensus about whether immigrant children actually demonstrate better performance than simi­lar native-born students or whether earlier generations perform better than later generations. Supporting the findings that immigrants have better educational outcomes than native students, the notion of immi­grant paradoxes gains strong and consistent support in the literature (Fuller et al., 2009; Garcia Coll & Marks, 2009). While family back­ground and socioeconomic status have typically been considered the most important explanations for poor outcomes, it is surprising that in­dividuals with adverse economic characteristics (as with most Latino immigrants) experience stronger educational outcomes than others in

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 69

the same socioeconomic strata. Some research with high school stu­dents, for example, shows that immigrants (first- and second-generation students) demonstrate higher academic test scores than their third-generation-plus peers (Glick & White, 2003; Kao & Tienda, 1995).

However, other findings point to troubling outcomes among immi­grant students, particularly among Mexican-origin children. Duncan et al. (2006), for example, found that Mexican-born students in the Unit­ed States have fewer years of formal education than U.S.-born Mexican Americans. Also, Reardon and Galindo (2009) found that first- and second-generation Mexican-origin children showed weaker reading and mathematical understanding than did subsequent generations in the elementary grades. Thus, mixed findings regarding the school per­formance of Mexican children of different immigrant generations are reflected in a variety of approaches represented in the literature on immigrant educational outcomes. In addition, researchers have yet to determine how the differences in achievement outcomes across genera­tions are related to socioeconomic status or English proficiency. More information is needed about specific mechanisms related to Mexican-origin students' educational disadvantages in order to understand how to improve their achievement.

Socioeconomic Status, English Proficiency, and Educational Outcomes

The impact of family socioeconomic characteristics on students' ed­ucational outcomes is pervasive in the literature. Research consistently shows that children of formally educated parents tend to obtain higher grades and reach higher levels of education themselves, and are less likely to be retained or drop out of school, compared to children whose par­ents have less formal schooling (Entwisle & Alexander, 1993; Garcia, 2001; Schmid, 2001). Students from families with more economic, so­cial, and cultural resources tend to obtain more academic knowledge and skills at home. These parents are more likely than others to provide edu­cational materials, assistance, and time for their children's educational needs (Pong, Hao, & Gardner, 2005; Wojtkiewicz & Donato, 1995). All of these benefits and opportunities transmit messages to children about their parents' positive attitudes toward and support for education, which translates into better educational outcomes for students.

In addition, formally educated parents tend to develop more egali­tarian relationships with their children's teachers and school adminis­trators. Because schools are more likely to value the cultural patterns, preferences, attitudes, and behaviors of formally educated individuals (Dumais, 2002; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999), these parents

70 Challenges and Dilemmas

and their children may feel more comfortable at school than children of less formally educated parents because the schools' linguistic struc­ture, authoritative patterns, and curricula correspond more closely to those features at home (Lareau, 2003). Also, parents with higher lev­els of formal education handle school decisions about their children's placement in special programs, teacher assignments, and retention more proactively than do working-class or poor parents (Lareau, 2003). It is through these interventions that highly educated parents monitor their children's educational experiences and make sure that their children's educational choices and assignments have positive consequences for their future.

Similarly, the impact of students' English proficiency on their school achievement is recognized in the literature. In U.S. schools, many Eng­lish Language Learners (ELLs) lag behind native English-speaking stu­dents in their academic achievement. Compared with English-speaking students, ELLs tend to have lower math and reading test scores, aca­demic grades, and educational and occupational aspirations (Galindo 2010; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). According to the National Assess­ment of Educational Progress (NAEP), in 2005, 46% and 73% of 4th-grade ELLs scored "below Basic" in math and reading, compared to 11% and 25% of White students (Fry, 2007). Moreover, in 2002, 8th-grade ELLs students scored 1.2 standard deviations lower than English-proficient students (Callahan, 2005). In addition, in 2000, only 19% of ELL students met state norms for reading in English (Kindler, 2002). Further research shows that among second-generation student's, those with higher levels of English proficiency have higher math and reading test scores, and that English Language Learners and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students have significantly lower scores than native English-speaking students in several content areas and at different grade levels (Gandara et a l , 2003) . A lack of English proficiency is also associ­ated with a greater likelihood of dropping out of school, particularly for Latino students (Schmid, 2001).

Students without sufficient English proficiency face important chal­lenges in schools. These students not only need to master a new lan­guage but must simultaneously acquire the expected academic skills for each grade level (Garcia, 2001). When teachers use English as the only language of instruction, students need at least the minimum of oral English proficiency to understand instruction, conduct meaning­ful learning interactions, and use inquiry processes that further learn­ing (Gandara, 1999). Additionally, students who are English Language Learners often do not have access to important resources needed to

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 71

excel in school. They tend to have less qualified teachers (Gandara et al., 2003; Padron, Waxman, & Rivera, 2002), and be more likely to attend segregated schools with high concentrations of other students who are not proficient in English. Their ELL status also results in higher rates of placement in special education or remedial classes (Callahan, 2005). These conditions interfere with ELL students' learning opportunities and limit their interactions with English-proficient students and other high-achieving peers, which could limit language and academic devel­opment further.

Moreover, students who are English Language Learners often expe­rience additional barriers given their levels of poverty and generational status. Capps et al. (2005) indicated that most ELL students have foreign-born parents (83% in elementary and 71% in secondary), two-thirds of ELL children live in low-income families, and 48% have parents without high school diplomas. Mexican-origin students, in particular, are more likely than others to have each of these characteristics that negatively affect success in school. Although these factors may not be disadvan­tages per se, they could have negative consequences for their academic progress, because they make it considerably more difficult for students and parents to communicate effectively with teachers in order to take advantage of school learning opportunities.

Poverty and English proficiency may be particularly important to understand Mexican-origin students' academic achievement patterns. Many Mexican-origin students have low-skilled labor migrant parents with lower levels of formal education, and they are overrepresented among students with English difficulties in bilingual and Limited Eng­lish Proficiency programs (Crosnoe, 2006). Among Latino subgroups, Mexican Americans have the highest poverty rates (32%) (Lichter, Qian, & Crowley, 2005). For those older than 16 years, $20,238 is the median annual personal earnings (Pew Research Center, 2009). A l ­though the poverty rates are clearly greater for children under 18 years of age, approximately 32% of Mexican Americans live below the pov­erty threshold (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Also, almost two-thirds of Mexican-origin elementary and secondary students speak a language other than English at home, and about one-fifth have difficulty speak­ing English (KewalRamani et a l , 2007). This double disadvantage has not been deeply analyzed in relation to academic performance. We know little about how socioeconomic status and English proficiency coexist and interact to impact the academic achievement of Mexican-origin students.

72 Challenges and Dilemmas

ANALYZING THE DATA

As mentioned, the data I analyzed in this chapter come from the ECLS-K study, sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The ECLS-K provides a nationally representative sample of approximately 21,000 Kindergarteners who were followed through 8th grade. For more details of the ECLS-K study, the user's manual is available online (NCES, 2003). Descriptive results presented here are based on a sample of ap­proximately 14,600 students (the unweighted sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10 to avoid concerns of participant identification, as speci­fied in the restricted license requirements.) This sample includes Latino students of any race and Black and White students born to a U.S.-born parent. I excluded students who were Asian, other race, or of unloiown race from this analysis.

I analyzed students' math learning trajectories and achievement gaps between Kindergarten and 5th grade, using math assessments of students with at least one wave of data and valid test scores re-scaled after the spring of 5th grade. To analyze the effect of socioeconomic status and English proficiency on math test scores at Kindergarten en­try, I used a restricted sample with only Mexican-origin students (n = 1,550) who had math test scores in the fall of Kindergarten. To measure math achievement, I used the ECLS-K math assessments, which were based on national and state standards to ensure that the skills measured tended to be taught in the associated grades. Trained data collectors individually administered these untimed, adaptive tests. Details of the assessments are provided in ECLS-K psychometric reports (Rock & Pollack, 2002). Language-minority students who were not proficient in oral English took the math test in Spanish; therefore, we had accurate math trends for most Mexican-origin students who were classified as language-minority (or living in non-English-speaking homes). By 3rd grade, all language-minority students were deemed as proficient in oral English. Consequently, all students took the 3rd- and 5th-grade math tests in English.

I characterized the diversity of the Mexican-origin population by disaggregating children by their generational status, socioeconomic sta­tus, and oral English proficiency.

• Generational status. Mexican-origin children were classified as first-, second-, or third-plus generations. First-generation Mexican students were non-U.S. born to non-U.S.-born parents. Second-generation students (the reference category) were U.S.-born to non-U.S.-born parents. Third-plus-generation students were U.S.-born with U.S.-born parents.

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 73

• Socioeconomic status (SES). I used the ECLS-K continuous measure of socioeconomic status, which is a composite measure of parent income, parent education, and occupational prestige. I sorted Latino children into the overall SES quintiles to analyze disparities in math achievement.

• Oral English proficiency. Mexican-origin students were classified as language-minority if English was not the primary language used at home. For most students, this information was available from their school records or was gathered from teachers' reports. Students were classified as English-proficient the fall of Kindergarten if they scored 37 points or higher on the English Oral Language Development Scale test (OLDS) (scores range from 0 to 60). If the language-minority student scored less than 37 points, s/he was classified as not proficient in oral English.

REPORTING RESULTS

Mexican Students' Socioeconomic and Language Characteristics

As Table 4.1 shows, Mexican-origin students in Kindergarten experienced important socioeconomic and language disadvantages. As expected, the economic characteristics of Mexican-origin students were significantly lower than those of White students. However, while stronger educational disadvantages were observed for Mexican-origin students, larger income gaps were observed for Black students. Among students from different regional/national origins, Mexican-origin students had parents with the lowest levels of education. Around one-third of Mexican-origin parents had not finished high school, and only about 9% had a college degree or higher. Also, Mexican-origin students (somewhat similar to Central-American-origin students) had the lowest mean family income ($30,000) and the most students living in poverty (41.5%). In contrast, Cuban- and South-American-origin students' parents had the highest levels of educa­tional attainment, similar to the parents of White students, and they had the highest family mean incomes.

The majority of Mexican-origin children (58%) were classified by schools as language minorities, as is often the case for Latino students of any country/region of origin, which is not surprising given the large amount of Latino students with foreign-born parents (see Table 4.1). Compared to Mexican-origin students, Central-American-, Cuban-, and

Table 4.1. Latino and Mexican Students' Socioeconomic and Language Characteristics (n = 14,600 students; including n = 4,010 Latinos and n = 1,720 Mexicans)

Race/ National Origin

SES Indicators Language Characteristics

Race/ National Origin

Com­posite

measure

Mean income

($)

Below poverty

level (%)

Parents' Education

Lan­guage Minor­

ity

Non-proficient

in Oral English

Language Spoken at Home

Race/ National Origin

Com­posite

measure

Mean income

($)

Below poverty

level (%)

< than HS (0/0)

Col­lege

+ (%)

Lan­guage Minor­

ity

Non-proficient

in Oral English

English Only

Home

Pre­domi­nantly English

Pre­domi­nantly Span­

ish

Only Span­

ish

White, native

0.183 62,797 9.2 3.6 38.6

Black, native

-0.428 28,001 43.0 13.3 12.1

Latino, any race

-0.430 34,057 35.1 26.5 12.7 50.2 29.6 31.8 19.4 19.3 29.5

Mexican -0.580 30,210 41.5 34.3 8.6 58.7 42.3 23.8 16.2 20.0 40.1

Puerto Rican

-0.282 43,534 27.5 13.9 17.8 32.2 7.0 39.6 27.2 18.3 14.9

Cuban 0.145 56,038 20.8 8.3 41.4 67.9 22.2 18.8 31.8 23.5 25.9

South American

0.020 45,535 19.5 5.8 33.3 68.4 22.7 21.1 15.9 23.3 39.7

Central American

-0.457 33,349 38.8 33.5 18.6 75.8 43.2 17.3 24.4 30.7 27.6

Table 4.1. Latino and Mexican Students' Socioeconomic and Language Characteristics (n = 14,600 students; including n = 4,010 Latinos and n = 1,720 Mexicans) (continued)

SES Indicators Language Characteristics J Parents' I 1

race -0.430 34,057 35.1 26.5 12.7 50.2 29.6 31.8 19.4 19.3 29.5

Mexican -0.580 30,210 41.5 34.3 8.6 58.7 42.3 23.8 16.2 20.0 40.1

Puerto Rican

-0.282 43,534 27.5 13.9 17.8 32.2 7.0 39.6 27.2 18.3 14.9

Cuban 0.145 56,038 20.8 8.3 41.4 67.9 22.2 18.8 31.8 23.5 25.9

South American

0.020 45,535 19.5 5.8 33.3 68.4 22.7 21.1 15.9 23.3 39.7

Central American

-0.457 33,349 38.8 33.5 18.6 75.8 43.2 17.3 24.4 30.7 27.6

Table 4.1. Latino and Mexican Students' Socioeconomic and Language Characteristics (n = 14,600 students; including n = 4,010 Latinos and n = 1,720 Mexicans) (continued)

SES Indicators Language Characteristics Parents'

Education Language Spoken at Home

Race/ National Origin

Com­posite mea­sure

Mean income

($)

Below poverty

level (o/o)

< than HS (0/0)

Col­lege

+ (%)

Lan­guage Minor­

ity

Non-proficient

in Oral English

English Only

Home

Predom­inantly English

Pre­domi­nantly Span­

ish

Only Span­

ish

Other Latino -0.139 44,523 16.9 14.2 23.6 24.4 3.2 51.6 24.2 13.0 11.2

Mexican Origin

1st generation

-0.874 17,476 68.8 47.2 3.0 91.2 78.2 6.8 2.3 15.8 75.2

2nd generation

-0.732 24,940 47.7 42.3 6.4 76.9 56.1 8.3 13.0 25.6 53.1

3rd+ generation

-0.179 44,243 21.1 13.7 14.7 13.7 3.4 57.6 26.8 10.6 4.9

Note: Sample includes Latino students of any race and Black and White students bom to a U.S.-born parent. A l l statistics were weighted by

cross-sectional spring of Kindergarten weight c2cw0. Latino students were disaggregated by national/regional origin. From the total sample

analyzed in this table, about 4,010 (27%) were Latino, 8,680 (59%) were White, and 1,920 (14%) were Black students. Mexican students

were disaggregated by generational status. From the total sample analyzed in this table, about 170 (10%) were first-generation, 990 (58%)

second-generation, 520 (30%) third-plus-generation, and 30 (2%) were generation unidentified.

76 Challenges and Dilemmas

South-American-origin students were more likely to be language minor­ities (76%, 68%, and 68%, respectively), whereas Puerto Rican students were the least likely (only 32%). Also, Mexican-origin students were the most likely to live in Spanish-dominant homes (40%) and, along with those with Central American origins, to not demonstrate oral English proficiency (about 42%). In contrast, only 15% of Puerto Rican students lived in homes that only spoke Spanish. And only 22% of students from Cuban and South American origins, and 7% of Puerto Ricans, were not deemed orally proficient in English.

Mexican-origin students' immigration status had a significant as­sociation with socioeconomic and language characteristics. There were important differences in these attributes by generational status, with fewer socioeconomic and language disadvantages observed for the third-plus generation. Socioeconomic status and English proficiency improved across generations. First- and second-generation Mexican-origin students were three times more likely to have parents with less than high school education as compared to third-plus-generation Mex­ican American students. Also, particularly low mean family income was observed for first- and second-generation Mexican-origin stu­dents ($17,500 and $25,000, respectively), whereas third-plus Mexican American students had the highest family mean incomes ($44,243). On average, third-plus Mexican-origin students had a higher family mean income than did Black students.

Furthermore, the percentage of students classified as language minorities decreased largely by generational status. Almost all first-generation Mexican-origin students were language minorities, com­pared to less than 14% of third-plus-generation Mexican-origin students. Similarly, a lower proportion of English-proficient students were observed among first-generation Mexican students (about 22%) than among third-plus-generation Mexican students (97%). Thus, the economic and language differences observed between Mexicans and other Latinos and across generations may have important conse­quences for these students' academic learning.

Achievement Gap Trends from Kindergarten to 5th Grade

Achievement "gaps" I report measure the difference in mean math scores between each group of interest and White students (the reference group), in standard deviation units. An important advantage of using standardized scores is that they allow for interpretation and compara­bility with other research (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). One standard de­viation typically represents the achievement gap between children from

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 77

low-income and middle-income families, which is a very important dif­ference in magnitude. Figures 4.1 to 4.4 present the main findings of the gap analyses, and the Appendix to this chapter includes detailed tables of the estimated achievement gaps and their standard errors by each wave of data collection. Achievement gaps were estimated for six waves of assessment: fall Kindergarten (FK), spring Kindergarten (SK), fall 1st grade (FF), spring 1st grade (SF), spring 3rd grade (ST), and spring 5th grade (SF). The reference group is represented by the value of "0" on the "Y" axes in figures.

Achievement gaps by immigrant generational status. As Figure 4.1 illustrates, there were significant gaps between White and Mexican-origin students across generations, but smaller gaps were observed for third-plus-generation students. At the beginning of Kindergarten, first-and second-generation Mexican-origin students scored about one stan­dard deviation below White students, whereas third-plus-generation students scored only half a standard deviation below the same reference group. By the spring of 5th grade, although the achievement gap was reduced significantly (by approximately half) for all the groups, differ­ences in math achievement persisted.

Achievement gaps by socioeconomic status (SES). I present two sets of math achievement gaps by SES. The first includes gaps between the average Mexican-origin student in a given socioeconomic quintile and the average White student across SES (see Figure 4.2). The second set reports within-SES gaps, showing the average difference in math performance between Mexican-origin and White students within the same socioeconomic quintile (see Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.2 describes achievement gaps significantly larger for Mexican-origin students in the lowest SES quintiles than for Mexican-origin students in the highest SES quintiles. Mexican-origin students in the highest two quintiles showed relatively similar achievement levels at Kindergarten entry and over time compared to the average White student (across SES). However, most Mexican-origin students were in the lowest socioeconomic quintiles, so the academic advantages ob­served among the students in the highest socioeconomic quintile were experienced only by a small number of students. Math achievement gaps decreased by half between Kindergarten through 5th grade for students in the lowest SES quintiles.

Within-SES gap analysis in Figure 4.3 shows that math achieve­ment gaps between White and Mexican-origin students are found over and above SES differences. As expected, within-SES gaps are smaller

78 ChaUenges and Dilemmas

than those observed in Figure 4.2. Mexican-origin students at the start of Kindergarten scored roughly one- to two-thirds of a standard devia­tion lower in math than White students of the same SES quintile. On average, even within similar levels of SES, Mexican-origin students had lower math performances than did White students. Within-SES gaps decreased steadily from Kindergarten through 5th grade, specifically for Mexican-origin students in the lowest two SES quintiles. But within SES gaps for Mexican American students in the highest three SES quin­tiles showed smaller reduction or fluctuations over time. By the spring of 5th grade, in the lowest SES quintile, Mexican-origin and White

Figure 4.1. Trends in Estimated Math Achievement Gaps, by Generational Status

-1.4 —A- 1st generation —S- 2nd generation ;. 3rd+generation

# of Cases by Group and Time Point

FK SK SF ST SF

1st generation 90 90 100 100 100 2nd generation 750 800 780 780 770 3rd-plus generation 330 360 350 340 330

Note: White students are the reference group, represented by the value of "0" on the "Y" axis. Gaps are measured in pooled standard deviation units. FK=Fall Kindergarten, SK=Spring Kindergarten; SF = Spring 1st grade; ST = Spring 3rd grade; and SF = Spring 5th grade. Unweighted sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10 because of restricted license requirements.

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 79

students' average scores are no different from each other. Yet, although within-SES gaps are smaller by the spring of 5th grade, Mexican-origin students in the highest three SES quintiles still scored significantly low­er than White students in the same quintile.

Achievement gaps by English proficiency. Figure 4.4 illustrates that native-English-speaking Mexican-origin students scored higher than language-minority Mexican-origin students. Also, Mexican-origin

Figure 4.2. Trends in Estimated Math Achievement Gaps, by SES

FK SK SF ST SF

-•-Quintile 1 (low) ~ir-Quintile 2 -•-Quintile 3 » -Quintile 4 - 4- Quintile 5 (high)

# of Cases by Group and Time Point

FK SK SF ST SF Quintile 1 590 630 630 610 620

Quintile 2 240 260 260 250 250

Quintile 3 150 160 150 160 150

Quintile 4 130 140 130 130 130

Quintile 5 70 80 80 80 70

Note: White students are the reference group, represented by the value of "0" on the "Y" axis. Gaps are measured in pooled standard deviation units. FK = Fall Kindergarten, SK = Spring Kindergarten; SF = Spring 1st grade; ST = Spring 3rd grade; and SF = Spring 5th grade. Unweighted sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10 because of restricted license requirements.

80 Challenges and Dilemmas

students who began Kindergarten proficient in oral English had better i ? ^ a n £ ° S e w h ° were not proficient. Compared to WW e students, math aclnevement gaps were significantly larger for non-Enghsh-profident Mexican-origin students whereas naL-EngHsh-

showe7m^l r b U a g e " m i T r i t y S t U d 6 n t S W h ° W e r e English-proficient

ffiXl?tPn M i r T 6 1 1 ' § a p S s i § n i f i c a n t l y «MUer at the start of Si^ZTL^ a* l e v e m e n tr p s d e c r e a s e d s t e a d i l y o v e r t i m e for all groups but they still persisted. Native-English-speaking Mexican-than W m l ^ 0 n e " t h i r d ° f a S ' a n d a r d deviation lower than White students, but those students who were not proficient in Enghsh scored four-fifths of a standard deviation lower than the same reference group by the spring of 5th grade.

Interactions among SES, Generational Status, and English Proficiency

Based on their descriptive analysis of Latino subgroups' achieve­ment g a p S R e a r d o n a n d G a H n d o that^oc^economfc status and language spoken at home may be key variables to exp l anX-tmo students' educational disadvantages. To further analyze tL claim

A W ^ S e ^ f S , ^ f ° f ^ n d T g a r t e n a s t h e d e P e n d ^ vari­able (see Table 4.2). The first model only includes generational status

as a Predictor variable ( 3 r d + generation is the reference g r o u " s 1 T C l i n c h i r f 6 1 2 1 0 i n d U d e S o c i o e c « compLitemeasure score OT m l i^T^T^T"^ ***** m d °M

E n g l i s h Proficiency terms^ student SES and language-minority status, and student SES and OLDS scores. The interaction-effect model tests whether the associa tion between English proficiency and math achievement varied as a function of students' SES. Table 4.2 reports findings for the models each of which controlled for assessment dates '

Corroborating my previous findings of math achievement gap analy­se, I found important differences in math achievement at the start of

a c r o s s g e n r i o n § r o u p s ' ™ t h b e t e ° « ^ < £ £ £ for the third-plus generation. On average, first- and second-generation Mexrcan-ongm students scored about 3.5 points lower than f h h d - X s generation Mexican-origin students in the fall of Kindergarten Also Model 2 s ea l ed that socioeconomic status had a v ^ S ^ ^ S

Zth T? nnW S O C l o e c o n o m i c . S t a t ^ composite measure was associated with a 2-pomt increase m math achievement at the start of Kindergarten.

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 81

Figure 4.3. Within-Quintile Trends in Estimated Math Achievement Gaps, by SES

FK SK SF ST SF

-0.8 -

-1.0 -

-1.2 J

-•-Quintile 1 (low) Quintile 2 -•-Quintile j Quintile 4 1 Quintile 5 (high)

Note: White students are the reference group, represented by the value of "0" on the "Y"

axis. Gaps are measured in pooled standard deviation units. FK = Fall Kindergarten, SK

= Spring Kindergarten; SF = Spring 1st grade; ST = Spring 3rd grade; and SF = Spring

5th grade. Unweighted sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10 because of restricted

license requirements. The numbers of Mexican-origin students across waves are the same

as in Figure 4.2.

In addition, after including the socioeconomic measure, the original dif­ference between third-plus-generation and first- and second-generation Mexican-origin students decreased by 50% and 60%, respectively. These results suggested that a significant part of the association of math achieve­ment with generational status was due to the association of socioeco­nomic status with students' math achievement.

Next, in Model 3, I added language-minority status and students' OLDS scores (English proficiency measure). As shown, both variables were highly important. On average, Mexican-origin students with higher English ability and socioeconomic status began Kindergarten with better math skills than Mexican-origin students who did not pos­sess these family and personal resources. When both variables-socio­economic status and language characteristics-were included in the model, initial differences in math scores at Kindergarten entry across generations became meaningless. Both had strong and independent effects on students' academic outcomes. These variables also had in­teractive effects on achievement. The association between oral English

82 Challenges and Dilemmas Math Perfo.

Figure 4.4. Trends in Estimated Math Achievement Gaps, by Language Status and Oral English Proficiency

# of Cases by Group and Time Point

FK SK SF ST SF

Not language minority 470 510 500 500 490

LM, English proficient 210 210 210 200 200

LM, not English proficient 500 550 540 536 540

Note: White students are the reference group, represented by the value of "0" on the "Y"

axis. Gaps are measured in pooled standard deviation units. FK = Fall Kindergarten, SK

= Spring Kindergarten; SF = Spring 1st grade; ST = Spring 3rd grade; and SF = Spring

5th grade. Unweighted sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10 because of restricted

license requirements.

proficiency and math achievement varied as a function of students' socioeconomic status, which means that the relationship between English proficiency and math achievement got stronger at higher so­cioeconomic levels (Model 4).

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 83

Table 4.2. OLS Regression Estimates of Effects of Socioeconomic Status and Language Characteristics on Math Scores at Kindergarten Entry (« = 1,550)

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

1st generation -3.869***

(0.531)

-1.545***

(0.528)

-0.112

(0.578)

.0434

(0.575)

2nd generation -3.464***

(0.318)

-1.730***

(0.325)

-0.723+

(.373)

-.632+

(0.372)

3rd + generation (reference) - - - -

Socioeconomic status (SES)

2.023***

(0. 146)

1.684***

(0.154)

1.309***

(0.357)

Language-minority status -1.668***

(0.347)

-1.731***

(0.358)

OLDS score (continuous)

0.8176***

(0.187)

1.249***

(0.203)

SES*Language minority 1.558***

(0.302)

SES*OLDS 0.409*

(0.204)

Adjusted R-squared 0.08 0.18 0.20 0.22

Note: Generational status regression coefficients represent gaps in math scores compared

to reference group (third+ generation), not absolute scores. Continuous variables, socio­

economic status, and OLDS scores were grand-mean centered. Regression models were

adjusted for date of assessment. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. P-values: + p <

.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This chapter builds on previous knowledge about racial/ethnic educa­tional inequalities by analyzing Mexican-origin students' math perfor­mance from Kindergarten to 5th grade, specifically in relation to their socioeconomic status and English proficiency. Below I discuss four main findings from this research.

First, compared to other Latino subgroups, Mexican-origin stu­dents experienced important economic and language disadvantages.

84 Challenges and Dilemmas

On average, Mexican-origin students experienced the worst economic characteristics and showed the highest percentages of non-English pro­ficiency (comparable to Central-American-origin students). These dis­advantages were more pronounced for Mexican-origin students with foreign-born parents than for those with U.S.-born parents.

Second, there were important differences in math achievement among Mexican-origin subgroups, based on generational status, so­cioeconomic status, and language characteristics, which usually are masked in studies that treat Mexican Americans as a homogenous group. Those with Mexican-born parents, those from the lowest so­cioeconomic groups, and those with limited oral English proficien­cy showed greater disadvantages in math achievement. In contrast, Mexican-origin students with U.S.-born parents, those from the high­est socioeconomic groups, and those who were English-proficient showed smaller differences and more similarity to White students' math achievement over time.

Third, math achievement gaps decreased over time, yet important gaps remained at the end of 5th grade. For instance, first-generation and English-proficient language-minority students with Mexican origins scored half a standard deviation lower than White students in math by spring of 5th grade, whereas the achievement gaps observed at the start of Kindergarten were between four-fifths and one standard devia­tion. Even still, within-SES gap analysis showed that Mexican American students from middle- and higher-SES families continued to perform substantially lower than their White peers (in the same SES group), suggesting that economic resources do not generate similar educational or academic returns to Mexican American students as they do for White students. It is important to further our understanding of the sources (e.g., teacher, characteristics, school policy, family dynamics) of disad­vantages of Mexican-origin students with economic resources, as this group is likely to increase in size over time.

Finally, students' oral English proficiency and family socioeconomic status were very important variables to understanding Mexican-origin students' math achievement, at least at the start of Kindergarten. On average, Mexican-origin students with stronger English proficiency and those from higher-SES homes demonstrated better math performance than Mexican-origin students who did not possess these family and per­sonal resources. The effect of each of these variables was observed even after controlling for the other, confirming the independent importance ofthe variables on students' achievement. These findings have important practice and policy implications because they can inform interventions

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 85

to counter Mexican-origin students' educational disadvantages in early school settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though policies for reducing poverty might decrease Mexican-origin students' educational disadvantages, macro-level interventions require a long-term strategy and do not necessarily have an immediate impact on students. School-based reforms to improve students' English proficiency in the early grades, on the other hand, may help increase Mexican-origin students' achievement trajectories and diminish the devastating socioeconomic effect on students' learning. These interven­tions are even more important if we take into account that Mexican immigrant families are overrepresented in low-quality schools, as dem­onstrated by Crosnoe (2005).

It is important to note that the findings presented here do not have implications or relevance for discussion of language policies or specific language programs (i.e., bilingual education, English-only programs, or ESL). Language programs for non-English speakers have been a main topic of concern among policymakers, researchers, and the general pub­lic. Proponents of bilingual education argue that these programs increase the acquisition of relevant abilities for students' future, decrease the learn­ing gap between majority and minority students, and reinforce cultural and linguistic diversity (Cummins, 2000; Krashen, 1999). In contrast, proponents of English-only programs argue that the previous programs have negative impacts on students' lives by restricting learning opportuni­ties, increasing their likelihood of dropping out of school (Murr, 1998), and decreasing their wage potential in the labor market (Porter, 1999).

Regardless of discussions on language policies, implementing con­crete measures to increase English proficiency of Mexican-origin stu­dents in the early school years may be an important mechanism to reduce their educational disadvantages in math achievement in Kin­dergarten. Additionally, schools may focus on other mechanisms that could neutralize the association between poverty and Mexican-origin students' educational outcomes. Active parental involvement and fam­ily and school partnerships could be one of these mechanisms (Galindo & Sheldon, 2012). Epstein (2001) argues that the home and school are two very important contexts of influence on children's development, and that the degrees to which educators and family members maintain posi­tive relationships with one another help determine children's academic

86 Challenges and Dilemmas

success. When we consider the positive social development of young La­tinos nurtured by robust parenting practices within Mexican-origin fami­lies (Crosnoe, 2006; Galindo & Fuller, 2010), the potential benefits of parental involvement initiatives are even greater. Thus, Mexican-origin children could benefit from their families' support if schools were able to provide guidance to parents about specific mechanisms that could help improve learning opportunities.

As the number of Mexican-origin individuals in the United States continues to increase, their well-being and social mobility opportunities are central issues of concern. Without any doubt, Mexico is one of the most important sending countries of immigrants (Martin & Midgley, 2006), with a self-reinforcing process of immigration that most likely wil l continue, given the consolidated economic and historical relation­ship between the United States and Mexico (Massey, 1999). From a policy perspective, it is essential that research continue to identify key mechanisms that may contribute to the improvement of educational outcomes of the Mexican population in the United States. At the same time, it is important to better understand school quality and the main educational challenges in Mexico, especially in sending communities, to suggest policy interventions to improve the educational experience on the other side of the border. By improving the educational experiences of Mexican-origin children in both countries, we wil l likely see spillover benefits on both sides of the border.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunities to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2) 305-328.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of American's schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Crosnoe, R. (2005). Double disadvantage or signs of resilience? The elementary school contexts of children from Mexican immigrant families. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 269-303.

Crosnoe, R. (2006). Mexican roots, American schools: Helping Mexican immigrant children succeed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 87

Dumais, S. (2002). The two meanings of social capital: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education, 75, 44-68.

Duncan, B., Hotz, J., & Trejo, S. (2006). Hispanics in the U.S. labor market. In M. Tienda & F. Mitchell (Eds.), Hispanics and the future (pp. 228-290). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ennis, S. R., Rfos-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011). The Hispanic population: Census briefs. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1993). Entry into school: The beginning school transition and educational stratification in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 401-423.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K.L., & Olson, L.S. (2005). First grade and educational attainment by age 22: A new story. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1458-1502.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School and family partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Fry, R. (2007). Are immigrant youth faring better in U.S. schools? International Migration Review, 41(3), 579-601.

Fuller, B., Bein, E., Bridges, M., Halfon, N., Jang, H., Kuo, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2009). The health and cognitive growth of Latino toddlers: At risk or immigrant paradox? Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13(6), 755-768.

Galindo, C. (2010). Language minority students' math and reading achievement in early childhood. In E. E. Garcia & E. Frede (Eds.), Young English-language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy (pp. 42-59). New York: Teachers College Press.

Galindo, C, & Fuller, B. (2010). The social competence of Latino kindergartners and growth in mathematical understanding. Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 579-592.

Galindo, C, & Sheldon, S. (2012). School and home connections and children's Kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 90-103.

Gandara, P. (1999). Telling stories of success: Cultural capital and the educational mobility of Chicano students. Latino Studies Journal, 10, 38-54.

Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1-54.

Garcfa, E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United States: Raices y alas. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

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

88 Challenges and Dilemmas

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

Glick, J. E., & White, M. J. (2003). The academic trajectories of immigrant youths: Analysis within and across cohorts. Demography, 40, 759-783.

Hirschman, C. (2001). The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: A test of the segmented-assimilation hypothesis. Population Association of America, Demography, 38, 317-336.

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

Kewal Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M. A., & Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000-2001 Summary Report (No. C ED-00-CO-0113). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.

Krashen, S. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Crowley, M. (2005). Child poverty among racial minorities and immigrants: Explaining trends and differentials. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 1037-1059.

Lowell, L., & Suro, R. (2002). The improving educational profile of Latino immigrants. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (2006). Immigration: Shaping and reshaping America. Population Bulletin, 58(3), 3-42.

Massey, D. (1999). Why does immigration occur? A theoretical synthesis. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.), The handbook of international migration: The American experience (pp. 34-52). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Murr, A. (1998). English spoken here-or else. Newsweek, 131(17), 65. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2003). User's manual for

the ECLS-K third grade restricted-use data file and electronic codebook (NCES 2003-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simmons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 89

Padron, Y., Waxman, H., & Pdvera, H. (2002). Educating Hispanic students: Obstacles and avenues to improve academic achievement (CREDE Report No. 8). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Pew Research Center. (2009). Hispanics of Mexican origin in the United States, 2007. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Pong, S.-L., Hao, L., & Gardner, E. (2005). The roles of parenting styles and social capital in the school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 928-950.

Porter, R. P. (1999). Educating English language learners in U.S. schools: Agenda for a new millennium. In J. E. Alatis & A. Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round-table on language and linguistics: Language in our time (pp. 128-138). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The stoiy of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Reardon, S. E, & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 853-891.

Rock, D., & Pollack, J. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten class 1998-99 (ECLS-K): Psychometric report for Kindergarten through third grade. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Roscigno, V., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. (1999). Race, cultural capital and educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72, 158-178.

Rouse, C. E., Brooks-Gunn, J., & McLanahan, S. (2005). Introducing the issue in school readiness: Closing racial and ethnic gaps. The Future of Children, 15, 5-14.

Rumberger, R., & Larson, K. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71(1), 68-92.

Saracho, O. N., & Marinez-Hancock, F. (2007). The culture of Mexican-Americans: Its importance for early childhood educators. Multicultural Perspectives, 9(2), 43-50.

Schmid, CL. (2001). Educational achievement, language-minority students, and the new second generation. Sociology of Education, 74, 71-87.

Valencia, R. (2002). Current realities of the Chicano schooling experiences. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present and future (pp. 1-2). New York: Routledge.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Wojtkiewicz, R. A., & Donato, K. M. (1995). Hispanic educational attainment: The effects of family background and nativity. Social Forces, 74(2), 559-574.

90 Challenges and Dilemmas

Appendix: Estimated Standardized Gaps: ECLS-K Standardized Math Achievement Gaps, by Mexican Subgroup and Wave

Fall K Spring

K Fall 1st Spring

1st Spring

3rd Spring

5th

Black, native -.725

(.040)

-.778

(.044)

-.735

(.078)

-.804

(.054)

-.866

(.045)

-.881

(.052)

Generational Status

First generation -1.022

(.081)

-.974

(.089)

-1.248

(.182)

-.810

(.124)

-.769

(.150)

-.422

(.219)

Second -1.101 -1.039 -.927 -.729 -.786 -.726

generation (.044) (.047) (.084) (.049) (.044) (.051)

Third-plus- -.460 -.343 -.190 -.206 -.266 -.248

generation (.059) (.061) (.127) (.052) (.060) (.081)

Socioeconomic Status

Quintile 1 -1.203 -1.147 -1.096 -.842 -.890 -.777

(low) (.040) (.044) (.080) (.050) (.050) (.069)

Quintile 2 -.951

(.075)

-.826

(.081)

-.664

(.170)

-.573

(.073)

-.587

(.079)

-.514

(.090)

Quintile 3 -.737

(.085)

-.570

(.091)

-.424

(.169)

-.381

(.088)

-.475

(.093)

-.431

(.113)

Quintile 4 -.211

(.096)

-.082

(.091)

-.020

(.139)

.040

(.088)

-.103

(.118)

-.184

(.122)

Quintile 5 -.073 -.132 -.026 .148 ' .061 .282

(high) (.148) (.122) (.205) (.124) (.124) (.151)

Math Performance of Young Mexican-Origin Children 91

Appendix: Estimated Standardized Gaps: ECLS-K Standardized Math Achievement Gaps, by Mexican Subgroup and Wave (continued)

Fall K Spring

K Fall 1st Spring

1st Spring

3rd Spring

5th Within socioeconomic status

Mexican/ -.380 -.378 -.160 -.018 -.089 .128

Quintile 1 (low) (.070) (.077) (.127) (.103) (.082) (.132)

Mexican/ -.634 -.586 -.349 -.292 -.278 -.116

Quintile 2 (.094) (.091) (.180) (.084) (.086) (.105)

Mexican/ -.649 -.498 -.361 -.363 -.438 -.397

Quintile 3 (.090) (.095) (.187) (.095) (.100) (.124)

Mexican/ -.330 -.193 -.125 -.089 -.235 -.361

Quintile 4 (.102) (.098) (.146) (.096) (.127) (-137) Mexican/ Quintile 5 (high)

-.506

(.156)

-.515

(.125)

-.544

(.201)

-.249

(.120)

-.391

(.125)

-.265

(.156)

Language-minority, English proficiency

Not language- -.562 -.476 -.192 -.298 -.396 -.346

minority (LM) (.058) (.053) (.102) (.048) (.058) (.068)

LM, English- -.759 -.630 -.789 -.513 -.438 -.431

proficient (.071) (.084) (.165) (.097) (.085) (.103)

LM, not English-proficient

-1.33

(.045)

-1.262

(.054)

-1.180

(.089)

-.913

(.058)

-.989

(.055)

-.835

(.077)

Note: Gaps were based on standardized Item Response Theory rescaled in 5th grade.

Reference group=native White students. Survey design corrected standard errors are in

parentheses. Standard errors were significantly bigger for fall of lst-grade estimates given

the reduced sample size.