Search

The education of the children of migrants is a policy issue of great importance in both China and the United States. While first generation migrants have generally completed their education in the place of origin, and some may return, their children will generally remain in the receiving place. Both pragmatic and moral considerations therefore require that schools equip them to participate fully in society as workers and citizens. This paper considers what we know about the education of children of low-skilled international labor migrants in the United States and the children of rural–urban migrants in China. It finds that although one migration flow is international and the other internal, the similar background characteristics of migrants create common challenges in both contexts; and the structure of both education systems serves to exacerbate underlying socio-economic inequalities. Residential segregation, unequal funding and formal and informal tracking processes concentrate migrant children in poor quality schools, resulting in low average levels of attainment and high drop-out rates. There are some obvious steps that could be taken in China to expand opportunities for migrant children, especially with regard to the transition to post-compulsory education, which is still constrained by their parents’ household registration status (hukou). However, the experience of the United States shows that expanding access, while necessary, is not sufficient to level the playing field. To do this, targeted investments must be made to meet the specific educational needs of migrant children.

Background/Context This article considers the ways in which school systems in New York City and Amsterdam have shaped the educational trajectories of two groups of relatively dis-advantaged immigrant youth: the children of Dominican immigrants in New York and the children of Moroccan immigrants in Amsterdam. It describes the salient features of the two educational systems and the ways in which they structure opportunity for children of immigrants. In terms of public policy, the United States and the Netherlands have taken quite different approaches toward the integration of immigrant students: The Netherlands actively seeks to integrate students and provides additional funds and special programs, whereas the United States has taken a more laissez-faire approach.Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study The article analyses available data on young second-generation Moroccan and Dominican youth and their school careers in two cities: New York and Amsterdam. It aims to look at the influence of institutional arrangements and the way that the educational system facilitates or hampers the educational integration of two highly disadvantaged groups.Research Design The article is based on available data on the Moroccan population in Amsterdam and the Dominican population in New York. This includes primarily the Dutch SPVA surveys and other local Amsterdam studies, and the Immigrant Second-Generation in Metropolitan New York (ISGMNY) study.Conclusions/Recommendations Both Moroccans in Amsterdam and Dominicans in New York show relatively low levels of educational attainment. Drawing on data from a number of studies of Moroccans in Amsterdam and on the ISGMNY study, the article shows that although differently structured, neither school system does an adequate job of serving disadvantaged immigrant students. It is interesting, however, that opportunities and impediments for the two groups are shaped differently and appear at different times in the school career. Successful practices in both countries show how extra investment of resources can increase equality of opportunity.

Background/Context This article considers the role of Catholic schools, an institution born of the adaptation of previous immigrant waves, in the education of new immigrants and their native-born counterparts. The new immigrants enter a landscape in which education plays a much bigger role than it did for their predecessors and yet faces many challenges. Public schools, particularly in urban centers, struggle with financial difficulties and new standards of accountability. Although scholars and the media have praised Catholic schools for performing better than public schools in promoting academic achievement among urban low-income minority students, the Catholic system also faces fiscal difficulties, declining enrollments, and school closings.Purpose/Objective/Research Questions/Focus of Study We examine the use of Catholic school by families of different ethnic backgrounds and how attendance relates both to religious affiliation and to socioeconomic class. We also analyze whether attending or graduating from Catholic high school has a positive effect on educational attainment and on the incidence of arrest and incarceration for men, and early childbearing for women. Finally, we seek to understand why immigrant families choose Catholic schools and how their children experience them.Research Design We draw on data collected for the Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York Study (ISGMNY). The study includes survey data on 3,415 young adults aged 18–32 who were interviewed between 1998 and 2001. Respondents include second-generation immigrants and native-born individuals. The study also includes qualitative data from in-depth interviews. For this article, we use interviews conducted with 74 respondents from immigrant and native-born groups who attended Catholic high schools, and those who referenced Catholic schools in their educational history even if they did not attend.Conclusions/Recommendations For immigrant families who have arrived recently, religion seems to be more or less irrelevant to the decision to send their children to Catholic school. Instead, like many native Blacks and Latinos, these families choose Catholic schools to avoid what they see as a seriously deficient public school system. To some extent, this represents a rational choice, but for many immigrant families, it also reflects a lack of knowledge about the public education system. Although many low-income families would like to send their children to Catholic school, cost is an insurmountable barrier for many. With the exception of native-born Whites, socioeconomic factors are very important in shaping who can go to Catholic school and whether students can stay until graduation. In many cases, families were forced to withdraw their children by high school, when costs rise sharply. Nonetheless, overall, the data show a benefit in terms of educational attainment for nearly all groups, and also a positive impact in terms of avoiding of certain problems, such as early pregnancy for girls and trouble with police for boys.

Background/Context Prior research on the challenges of college going and retention among adolescents today, particularly low-income, minority, and first-generation college-going youth, provide the context for this article.Purpose This article sets the stage for the special issue articles by framing the issue's purpose and content. The purpose is to synthesize existing research and knowledge about the adolescent college transition from multiple disciplines and fields, in order to develop a more robust foundation for further research and policy development. The article also describes the knowledge development process used by the Social Science Research Council and its advisory committee to support field and discipline based literature reviews and to synthesize their implications over an 18 month period.Results The article provides a summary of the articles presented in the special issue and a summary of the committee's recommendations, as framed in a separate publication, Questions That Matter. It explains that the six discipline and field-based essays (history, demography, anthropology, sociology, economics, and higher education) presented in the special issue reflect a discussion of the organization of research in each field and characterizes the contributions of each field to our understanding of transitions. Together these form a rich collection of essays that map the state of the respective fields by identifying key topics and the research questions posed.Conclusions The authors conclude by drawing attention to two primary points: key elements of the challenge to improvements in research and persisting conceptual issues that challenge research, policy and practice.