School Participation Among Immigrant
Youths:
The Case of Segmented Assimilation in
the Early 20th Century
Sharon L. Sassler
Cornell University
Research on the educational enrollment of immigrants has typically asserted that today’s immigrant children are educationally disadvantaged and that earlier waves of immigrants were
more readily absorbed into the American educational system. This article addresses these
assumptions, drawing on traditional assimilationist and status competition approaches to
racial and ethnic stratification. Data from the 1920 IPUMS census database are used to analyze the school participation of 15 to 18 year olds who were living in their parents’ homes. The
findings demonstrate that the process of assimilation was not uniform for all groups. Some
groups achieved parity with the native stock by the third generation, and others took at least
an additional generation or experienced declines in the proportions who were enrolled in
school. In general, the results suggest strong parallels between the educational experiences of
Delivered by Ingenta to :
American
Sociological
Association
white ethnic youths in 1920 and
those of
today’s immigrant
youths.
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
T
hroughout its history, the educational
system in America has shaped the lifetime opportunities of immigrant children and youths. However, much of the current research on schooling has asserted that
today’s immigrants are disadvantaged compared to foreign-born youths who arrived in
the United States at the turn of the century
(Fernandez, Paulson, and Hirano-Nakanishi
1989; Gans 1992; Portes and Zhou 1993).
Such studies have generally assumed that
early 20th-century immigrants accepted the
importance of schooling within one or two
generations—demonstrating “the time-honored portrayal of growing acculturation and
parallel integration into the white middleclass” (Portes and Zhou 1993:82). In contrast, much of the contemporary literature
has argued that today’s immigrants often
experience downward mobility, termed “second-generation decline” or “segmented
assimilation” (Gans 1992; Massey 1995;
Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997).
Transformations in the economy may have
affected educational incorporation and, correspondingly, general levels of success.
Whereas today’s technological society places
a premium on highly skilled and educated
workers, the industrializing America of the
early 20th century provided jobs for numerous unskilled workers. Still, many parallels
exist between immigrants who arrived in the
early and concluding years of the 20th century. Immigrant and second-generation children historically lived in families that experienced economic hardship and poverty
(Haines 1981; Perlmann 1988; Sassler 1995).
Schools in large cities were frequently overcrowded and had few resources (Jacobs and
Greene 1994; Meyer et al. 1979; Perlmann
1988). Furthermore, while some immigrant
groups welcomed schooling as a means of
Sociology of Education 2006, Vol. 79 (January): 1–24
1
2
Sassler
improving their children’s life opportunities, ies of the outcomes of the offspring of intermany parents worried about their children’s marriages have been rare. I conclude by disexposure to the negative influences of school cussing how the results of historical studies of
or expressed concern that school officials school participation may shed light on conwere impinging on their parental authority temporary immigrant youths’ patterns of
(Kessner 1977; Zelizer 1985). As a result, adaptation to life in the United States.
immigrant children’s adaptation to life in
America may not have encompassed enrollment in school to the extent that contempoTHE CHANGING CONTEXT OF
rary scholars of education have assumed.
Whether the descendants of immigrants SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
who arrived at the early 20th century
remained disadvantaged in the final years of Two important factors helped shaped the
the 20th century and how more recent immi- environment of the American educational sysgrants have fared in this competition contin- tem in the early decades of the 20th century.
ue to be widely debated (Alba, Lutz, and The first was the large and steady stream of
Vesselinov 2001; Borjas 1999). Immigrant foreign-born persons who arrived in the
youths’ experiences in the early years of the United States. As of 1920, 13.2 percent of the
century demonstrate patterns of ethnic- population of the United States was foreign
group adaptation to life in the United States born (Gibson and Lennon 1999), and even
that were far from uniform, whether in terms larger shares of Americans had at least one
of school enrollment (Jacobs and Greene foreign-born parent. Immigrant origins shift1994; Lieberson 1980; Perlmann 1988) or the ed in the late 19th century. In the middle of
combination of education and employment the 19th century, western and northern
Delivered
to : including more than 5 million
Europeans,
(Horan and Hargis 1991; Sassler
1995;by Ingenta
American Sociological
Association
Irish
and
Germans, dominated the influx to
Walters and James 1992). In theWed,
interest
of 2009 18:40:20
16 Sep
the
United
States. By 1920, a substantial proexpanding contemporary studies of segmentportion
of
these
“old” immigrants were seced assimilation, this article examines the link
ondor
third-generation
U.S. residents.
among the generational status, ethnicity, and
Despite
continued
immigration
from these
secondary school attendance of working-age
countries,
by
the
end
of
the
19th
century,
the
young adults in 1920. That time is an ideal
one to situate such a study, since it followed bulk of immigrants arrived from southern,
several decades of exceedingly high immigra- eastern, and central Europe. These “new”
tion to the United States, along with the immigrants differed sharply from the “old”
expansion of schooling, and preceded the immigrants and their descendants in their
restrictions on immigration that were legislat- rates of literacy, ability to speak English, and
familiarity with the skills that were needed in
ed in the 1920s.
This analysis differs from prior research in an urban environment (Kessner 1977;
several important ways. First, whereas con- Lieberson 1980).
Second, in response to the influx of immitemporary studies have been limited to two
grants
and the children they brought with
generations (Hirschman 2001; Rumbaut
1994) and historical studies have examined them or bore in the United States, school
school enrollment among at most three gen- became one mechanism to encourage immierations (Jacobs and Greene 1994; Perlmann grant youths to acculturate and eventually
1988), the unique data from the Integrated assimilate. Secondary school enrollment
Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) census expanded rapidly in the early decades of the
database allowed me to construct four gener- 20th century (Walters 1984). Nonetheless,
ations of white ethnics.1 Second, I explore high school graduation remained a relatively
how children of mixed-ancestry fared in the rare event. In most states, school attendance
educational market. Although intermarriage was compulsory only through age 15 (Jacobs
is assumed to be the final stage in the assimi- and Greene 1994). As a result, the shares of
lation process (Gordon 1964), historical stud- young adults who were enrolled in school
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
declined with age, and less than one-third of
young adults aged 14–17 (31.2 percent)
were enrolled in either public or private
school during the 1919–20 academic year
(U.S. Department of Education 1999). Of this
select group, even fewer actually graduated;
only 231,000 young adults received high
school diplomas in 1920 (U.S. Department of
Education 1998). For most young adults, a
year or two of high school sufficed.
3
(Alba 1985; Jacobs and Greene 1994;
Lieberson and Waters 1988). According to
this “straight-line” conceptualization, the
pursuits of first-generation immigrants differ
in important ways from those of longer-term
U.S. residents. Such distinctions should narrow by the second generation. The process of
assimilation is assumed to be complete by the
third generation. It should come as no surprise, then, that the key focus of immigration
scholars has been on the duration of nativeethnic distinctions.
Immigrants, Educational
Contemporary scholars of immigration
Prospects, and Mobility
have challenged the standard assimilation parA sharp disconnect exists between research adigm and its unilinear conception of adaptaon the educational participation of immigrant tion. Although straight-line assimilation may
youths and historical studies of the expansion have been theoretically appropriate for
of school enrollment, partly because of differ- explaining the adaptation process of newcomences in areas of specialization, with sociolo- ers who arrived in America in the early 20th
gists of education and scholars of immigra- century, they have suggested, American socition drawing from distinct theoretical tradi- ety offers vastly different prospects for mobility
tions (Hallinan 2000). Indeed, historical to today’s immigrants (Gans 1992; Portes and
research on the expansion of school enroll- Zhou 1993; Rumbaut 1994; Zhou 1997). The
ment, particularly that dealing with ethnic American landscape now consists of various
Delivered
to :segregated, and unequal sectors
separate,
variation in primary and secondary
schoolby Ingenta
American Sociological Association
(Massey
1995; Massey and Denton 1993;
education, has tended to rely on functionalist,
Wed, 16 Sep 2009
18:40:20
class-conflict, or status-competition perspec- Portes and MacLeod 1996). There is a wider
tives (e.g., Bowles and Gintis 1976; Collins array of possible avenues for acculturation and
1971; Fuller 1983; Meyer et al. 1979; Walters assimilation. The educational prospects of
1984). In contrast, immigration scholars have young adults in disadvantaged central cities,
drawn on the assimilation paradigm when for example, should hypothetically differ from
examining ethnic-group adaptation, in gen- those of young adults in affluent suburbs. In
eral, and educational participation, in particu- addition to the traditional monotonic progreslar (Hirschman 2001; Jacobs and Greene sion of the classic straight-line assimilation
1994; Kao and Tienda 1995).
framework, then, today’s immigrants also face
The assimilation perspective is concerned the distinct possibility of experiencing downprimarily with how the foreign born shed ward mobility (Gans 1992). In such an
their distinctive behaviors and come to instance, the second generation does not surresemble the native-stock population in terms pass the achievements of their foreign-born
of educational and occupational attainment, counterparts.2 Contemporary scholars who
to name but two key outcomes of interest. have explored why different patterns of adapThe central premise is that with increasing tation emerged among late-20th-century
duration in the United States and familiarity immigrants have labeled this theoretical
with behaviors that are common among approach “segmented assimilation” (Portes
long-term residents, the foreign born and and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997).
It is not surprising that the segmented
their descendants will eventually come to
resemble this population and shed the distin- assimilation perspective focuses more heavily
guishing traits of ethnicity (Gordon 1964; on those who fail to achieve mobility or those
Park and Burgess 1969). Numerous studies of who experience downward mobility, rather
early 20th-century immigrants have asserted than on the usual success stories. Immigrants
that ethnic differences declined with each who fail to achieve status mobility, it appears,
succeeding generation in the United States have fewer familial and individual resources
4
Sassler
and lower levels of human capital and are res- competition theory (Collins 1971). According
identially concentrated in poor areas where to this perspective, dominant groups underyouths have low educational and mobility take social closure processes to safeguard and
aspirations (Hirschman 2001; McKeever and ensure their position in the hierarchy. There is
Klineberg 1999; Neckerman, Carter, and Lee evidence, for example, that social elites resist1999; Portes and Zhou 1993). Evidence of ed school expansion for particular populadownward mobility is reflected in the lack of tions in the early 20th century in an effort to
educational progression of today’s racial maintain existing structures of class, race, and
minorities (Hirschman 2001; Portes and sex stratification (Collins 1971; Fuller 1983;
MacLeod 1996; Waters 1999), although sup- Werum 1999).4 Examining patterns of educaport for segmented assimilation has been tional enrollment across different generations
mixed, at best (Glick and White 2003; of white ethnics—the principal goal of this
article—will shed light on the pace of assimiHirschman 2001).
Less well appreciated is that educational lation to educational norms in the United
mobility is also a function of the structure of States.
This article explores whether the concept
educational opportunity and educational
access—a point that immigration researchers of segmented assimilation can be applied to
have tended to overlook, despite its centrality the adaptation processes experienced by
to educational scholars (Hallinan 2000). immigrant youths in the early years of the
Educational historians, in particular, have 20th century. Research on immigrants’ edufocused on whether school enrollment cational participation during that period has
expanded because industrial elites sought to highlighted the existence of marked differinculcate working-class children with the val- ences in behavior, even among groups who
ues that were needed for success as factory arrived at approximately the same time.
Delivered
to : works have shown that Jewish
While many
workers (Bowles and Gintis 1976),
as aby Ingenta
American Sociological Association
children
were more likely to attend school
response to technological innovation
Wed, 16that
Sep 2009
18:40:20
required increasingly skilled workers (Fuller than were other “new” immigrant groups like
1983; Meyer et al. 1979), or as particular Italians and Poles (Jacobs and Greene 1994;
groups sought to maintain their status advan- Kessner 1977; Lieberson 1980), such studies
tage over others (Collins 1971). Even though have also hinted at distinctions among
the connection between schooling and longer-term residents of the United States.
assimilation has been a central concern of Jacobs and Greene (1994), for example,
educational historians (Bowles and Gintis noted sharp differences in the school enroll1976; Ralph and Rubinson 1980; Rubinson ment of 14–18-year-old second-generation
1986), these studies have overlooked how the British and Irish youths and those of German
impact of ethnicity may change across the ancestry in 1910,5 and Zunz (1982) reported
similar gaps in school enrollment as early as
generations.
The historical literature contains abundant 1900. Sassler (2000) found another example
testimony to the sacrifices that immigrant of German exceptionalism, showing that
families made to send their children to working-age German daughters, particularly
school, suggesting that education was seen those in the second generation, were signifias a way to improve employment opportuni- cantly more likely to remain at home than to
ties. Nonetheless, empirical support for a attend school. To account for longer-term
functionalist explanation of school expansion U.S. residents’ greater likelihood of residing in
has been scant.3 Furthermore, the data at households that were better able or more
hand have allowed researchers only to infer inclined to promote school attendance, such
reasons for changes in immigrant youths’ works have controlled for various measures of
school enrollment. Because assimilation theo- family class status (e.g., parental literacy,
ry is premised on the assumption that the for- home ownership, and occupation), as well as
eign born and their descendants should come region of residence (Jacobs and Greene 1994;
to resemble the dominant group over time, it Sassler 2000). Taken together, the results sugis perhaps most closely aligned with status- gest substantial differences between second-
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
5
generation immigrants and the native-stock 1995; Walters and Briggs 1993). More afflupopulation or the slow pace of educational ent families had the economic means to send
progression. Although the findings of such their children to school, even into the workstudies have raised doubts about the rapidity ing years (Haines 1981; Perlmann 1988;
of assimilation, they have also often Sassler 1995). Children whose fathers had
assumed—perhaps incorrectly—that immi- higher-status occupations would therefore
have a better chance of attending school than
grants’ experiences were uniform.
The research of educational historians and would those whose fathers were laborers.
sociologists of education has predicted that Home ownership was another class marker
there will be ethnic inequality in schooling, that positively affected youths’ schooling
although such differentials should narrow opportunities. Alternatively, families who
across the generations. The literature has not, were faced with economic hardship, particuhowever, offered specific hypotheses about larly those who were headed by widowed
ethnic differences across national-origin mothers, were less able to forgo working-age
groups, nor has it proposed how much these children’s labor to enable the children to
differences vary across immigrant genera- attend school (Sassler 1995); they sometimes
tions. Focusing on expectations regarding resorted to additional support strategies, such
generational progression in schooling, this as taking in boarders and lodgers (Goldin
article evaluates the persistence of genera- 1981; Pleck 1978). Yet the need to provide
tional distinctions in school enrollment. The domestic services for these additional memtheoretical expectations supporting the vari- bers of the household could reduce girls’ likeous perspectives on educational assimilation lihood of attending school (Goldin 1981;
are different. If all groups experienced grow- Sassler 1995).
ing acculturation and integration into the
Family size, especially the presence of sibDelivered
lings, to
also: conditioned the likelihood of
white middle class (Portes and Zhou
1993;by Ingenta
American Sociological Association
school
enrollment. New immigrant families
Zhou 1997), then one would expect
universal
Wed,
16 Sep 2009
18:40:20
educational progression by generation. generally had more children than did the old
Alternatively, the operation of segmented ethnic groups (Perlmann 1988; Sassler 2000),
assimilation, in general, and the possibility of increasing the need for additional family supstatus competition and social closure process- port. Children in larger families were also less
es, in particular, will be borne out if enroll- likely to enroll in school. Not all siblings, howment disadvantage remains or grows across ever, are equivalent. Younger siblings
(younger than age of 15) were the greatest
the generations for some groups.
deterrent to the odds of older children
enrolling in school (Sassler 1995). WorkingOther Factors Shaping School
age siblings, on the other hand, could serve
Enrollment
either as alternate workers or competitors for
Of course, school was not the only alternative schooling. If families assigned priority to edufor young adults (Walters, McCammon, and cating sons, then the number of working-age
James 1990; Walters and O’Connell 1988). brothers should have had a detrimental effect
Paid employment clearly served as an alterna- on daughters’ odds of attending school.
tive to education. The availability of blue-col- Contemporary research has suggested that
lar positions had a negative effect on school the presence of brothers is detrimental to
enrollment throughout the first few decades sons as well (Powell and Steelman 1990),
of the 20th century (Fuller 1983; Walters diluting the available resources. As for sisters,
1984; Walters et al. 1990). Whether or not research has suggested that their presence
working-age children attended school was did not detract from girls’ odds of enrolling in
frequently a function of their families’ eco- school (Sassler 1995); the presence of sisters
nomic need. Numerous studies have docu- should also have had no significant effect on
mented the importance of sons’ and daugh- the propensity of sons to attend school.
The ability to combine education and other
ters’ contributions to the family economy
(Goldin 1981; Horan and Hargis 1991; Sassler pursuits (such as employment or providing ser-
6
Sassler
vices to boarders) also shaped young adults’ household units. I focused on never-married
likelihood of school enrollment. The temporal young adults aged 15–18 who were residing
nature of agricultural work allowed rural chil- in their parents’ homes.6 Limiting the analysis
dren to attend school part time or part year. to coresident children emphasizes the imporManufacturing jobs seldom provided such flex- tance of family and household context in
ibility. In urban areas, the widespread availabili- shaping school attendance. To construct the
ty of jobs in factories reduced school atten- sample of coresident children, I assigned
dance because employment was either neces- aggregate household characteristics to all
sary or seen as more desirable (Fuller 1983; household heads and appended the file to a
Meyer et al. 1979; Walters and O’Connell separate file consisting of sons; the process
1988). As a result, in the early years of the 20th was repeated to obtain a file for daughters.
century, school enrollment was greater in rural Attached to each child’s record were data on
than in urban areas (Fuller 1983; Horan and the head, such as country of birth, nativity,
Hargis 1991; Walters and James 1992; Walters and occupation.7 Aggregate family data proand O’Connell 1988). Regional differences in vided the number and sex of siblings in the
educational participation were also notable. family, as well as the presence of boarders
The South was slower than the North in pro- and lodgers.
viding publicly supported schools (Strong et al.
The study was limited to those living in the
2000) and therefore had lower levels of school 48 contiguous states, since Hawaii and Alaska
enrollment (Walters et al. 1990). In the early were not yet part of the Union. Because the
20th century, though, most southern states experiences of children from the same family
made improving educational access for whites are not independent (Guo 1993), workinga major priority (Anderson 1988; Leloudis age children who were living in households
1996; Strong et al. 2000; Werum 1999). By containing more than one same-sex workingto :
1920, southern whites had ampleDelivered
access toby Ingenta
age Association
sibling were sampled to prevent autocorAmerican
Sociological
public secondary education, although the relation. Sons with multiple eligible brothers
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
availability remained lower in the rural South are represented only once in the sample, and
(Anderson 1988; Werum 1999). Employment the same procedure was replicated for
opportunities also varied widely by city (Jacobs daughters.8 The sample consisted of 17,680
and Greene 1994; Zunz 1982), particularly for sons and 16,673 daughters.
young women; the kinds of work that were
available and whether such labor required an
Measures
education or could be combined with schooling affected the likelihood of attendance. The dependent variable, school participation,
Young adults’ enrollment patterns were there- was a dummy variable indicating that the
fore affected by individual and family calcula- respondent had attended school, college, or
tions regarding the optimum use of children’s another educational institution since
time, perceptions of opportunities that were September 1 of the prior year. In 1920, the
available to those with or without schooling, schooling question was asked of those aged
actual opportunities within the surrounding 5–21. To approximate secondary school
community, the desire to maintain status, and attendance, the study focused on those aged
the cultural values that were specific to particu- 15–18. The small number of youths who
lar ethnic groups.
reported both attending school and working
in the paid labor force in the year preceding
the census were classified as participating in
DATA, MEASURES, AND METHODS school.9 This measure is not a perfect proxy
for school enrollment for several reasons.
First, the respondents may have attended
The Sample
only part of the year. Second, it is problematThe data were drawn from the 1920 census ic to assume that those who attended school
IPUMS, a nationally representative 1-in-333 at age 15 or older were enrolled in high
sample of individuals who were recorded in school, since grade retardation remained a
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
7
source of concern to educators well into the in substantial numbers during the mid-1800s.
second decade of the 20th century (Perlmann They were compared to several new immi1988; Ralph and Rubinson 1980; Walters and grant groups who began arriving in substanO’Connell 1988). Third, in many places pri- tial numbers in the 1890s—Italians, Poles,
mary and grammar schools went through the and Jews. Whites whose families resided in
ninth grade (Perlmann 1988); young adults the United States for four or more generamay have continued attending until they tions were the reference group.
The detail on ethnicity was also used to
completed a particular level. Despite such
drawbacks, census data are the only national- distinguish single-ancestry groups from those
ly representative source that provides infor- of mixed ancestry, or children of intermarmation on multiple generations of various riage. Young adults from the ethnic groups
ethnic groups. The results are interpreted just specified—English, Irish, German, Italian,
with caution, as representing upper-bound Polish, or Jewish—had to have two parents of
estimates of school participation, rather than the same ethnicity (although not necessarily
of the same generation); for those who were
actual full-year attendance.
The key independent variables of interest third generation, all available grandparents
in the study were ethnic group and genera- also had to share the same ethnic backtion. This study examined an unprecedented ground. When a respondent’s mother and
third generation of white ethnics10 because father (or grandparents) were from different
children are linked to their parents, providing ethnic backgrounds, they were classified as
information on their grandparents. The for- “mixed ancestry.” The three most common
eign born were designated as the first gener- mixed groups are discussed here: children
ation. Those who were born in the United with one native-stock parent (or grandparent)
States and had at least one foreign-born par- and a parent (or grandparent) who was
Delivered
:
English,toIrish,
or German.13 The 10 groups
ent were designated as the second
genera-by Ingenta
American Sociological Association
examined
in
this
analysis include the nativetion. Children with native-born parents
who
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
had at least one foreign-born grandparent stock, English, Irish, German, Italian, Polish
were designated as the third generation. and Jewish children, as well as those who are
Finally, those for whom all grandparents were native-stock/English, native-stock/Irish, and
identified as native born were designated as native-stock/German mixtures.
The remaining independent variables
the fourth generation (and higher); this
group is subsequently referred to as native included age; measures of family economic
stock to distinguish them from the NWNP status and need, including the presence of
(native white of native parentage) designa- siblings; and several location measures. Four
tion that was used in prior research to capture variables capturing family class status were
the third and higher-order generations. A constructed from information on the housedetailed description of the construction of hold head. The head’s score on the socioecogenerational standing and ethnicity is provid- nomic index (SEI) is a continuous variable
whose value was assigned from information
ed in the Appendix.
Ethnic-group membership was ascertained on occupations that is uniquely available in
through census questions on birthplace, par- the IPUMS data.14 Because data on income
ents’ birthplace, mother tongue, and race. and educational attainment were not availInformation on mother tongue allowed me to able in the 1920 census, the SEI score is the
determine the ethnic membership of groups best proxy of the class status of the responwith no homeland (Yiddish-speaking Jews),11 dents. Other dummy variables indicated
as well as linguistic groups who may have whether the head was self-employed and
arrived in the United States prior to the owned his or her home. Indicators of eco(re)formation of their nations (e.g., Poles) or nomic need include if the family was female
whose countries contained various ethnic headed and if the household incorporated
groups.12 Ten ethnic groups were examined boarders. Competition for familial resources
for this study. The English, Irish, and Germans among children was measured with several
represent old immigrant groups who arrived variables indicating the presence of siblings:
8
the number of young siblings, working-age
brothers, and working-age sisters.
Several variables were used to assess the
impact of location on young adults’ propensities for schooling, since educational opportunities may not have been readily available in
particular locations. The preponderance of
new ethnics lived in urban areas, defined as
places with populations that were greater
than 2,500. A preliminary analysis, however,
suggested the importance of disaggregating
location into three groups. Two dummy variables were used to distinguish between those
who resided on farms and those who were living in rural areas, with urban areas as the reference group. Region was measured by the
inclusion of a dummy variable indicating residence in the South.15 The definitions, means,
and standard deviations of all the independent variables are presented in Table 1.
Sassler
immigrant past. Even among the new immigrants, who accounted for the preponderance of first-generation children, the largest
share of Italian, Polish, and Jewish children
were second generation. Over one-third of
single-ancestry Irish and German children, in
contrast, were third generation. Household
characteristics also varied widely across ethnic
groups, with Irish youths most likely to be living in female-headed households and Italian
and Polish sons and daughters having the
greatest number of young siblings.
As for how location shaped immigrant
youths’ lives, the native stock was disproportionately located on farms or in small rural
towns. Germans and those of mixed German
ancestry were also well represented in rural
areas, with over 40 percent of both singleand mixed-ancestry German youths living in
areas with fewer than 2,500 residents. In contrast, the new immigrant groups, as well as
the Irish, were concentrated in urban areas.
The Generational and Ethnic
Regional dispersion is also evident, with
Context
about half the native-stock youths residing in
to : Over three-fourths of Irish, Italian,
the South.
The descriptive results are shown Delivered
in Table 1by Ingenta
American Sociological Association
and18:40:20
Jewish young adults in this sample, on
for the total sample and by sex for
each
Wed,
16ethSep 2009
nic group that was included in the analysis. the other hand, lived in the Northeast, while
By 1920, only a small proportion of the German and Polish school-aged children
nationally representative high school-aged were concentrated in the Midwest, with
population from these particular ethnic smaller shares in the Northeast. Such differgroups was foreign born. The majority of sec- ences may account for ethnic variation in
ondary school-aged young adults were fourth school participation.
generation or higher. The substantial size of
third-generation young adults (15 percent of Ethnic-Group Variation in School
the sons and 16 percent of the daughters) is Enrollment
notable; they would be missed in other studies of assimilation. The ethnic composition of The proportion of sons and daughters of legal
the sample highlights how varied the school- working age who attended school in the year
aged population was in 1920. Among the prior to the 1920 census varied widely by ethwhite ethnics, those with any German ances- nic group and, within ethnic group, by gentry are best represented. Over one-third of eration and sex. The data presented in Table
the sample of minor young adults lived on a 2 highlight the operation of the assimilation
farm or in a city, and a similar share resided in process for most groups of white ethnics.
the South.
That is, with increasing duration in the counEthnic groups varied considerably in their try, measured via generation, greater shares
duration in the country, household composi- of working-age youths forgo work to attend
tion, and residential location. Although World school.
War I curtailed much of the immigration for
Daughters were more likely to be attending
several years prior to the 1920 census, gener- school than were sons, 55.4 percent compared
ational succession ensured that substantial to 48.9 percent, although this female advanshares of all school-aged children were at tage is not evident for the new ethnic groups.
least two generations removed from their Despite the pattern of generational improve-
Polish
Jewish
Native English
Native Irish
Native German
N
Resides on farm
Size of place < 2,500, not a farm
Size of place > 2,500 people
From household roster
From household roster
Mean socioeconomic score
Head employed “on own account”
Home owned or being bought
Sex of head = 2
From household roster
From household roster
24.09
0.37
0.57
0.10
0.07
22.44
0.42
0.57
0.09
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.12
0.40
0.58
0.09
0.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.69
0.16
0.50
0.14
0.07
0.26
0.17
0.09
0.57
0.17
26.41
0.14
0.53
0.12
0.09
0.26
0.18
0.07
0.58
0.16
22.65
0.11
0.48
0.20
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.61
0.37
23.42
0.09
0.45
0.21
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.59
0.39
Delivered by Ingenta to :
American Sociological Association
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
22.75
0.27
0.67
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.61
0.36
22.48
0.28
0.68
0.12
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.62
0.35
20.87
0.20
0.46
0.08
0.08
0.33
0.22
0.11
0.66
0.01
20.68
0.20
0.48
0.08
0.07
0.26
0.17
0.09
0.73
0.01
17.58
0.19
0.62
0.09
0.13
0.22
0.14
0.08
0.74
0.04
17.71
0.15
0.62
0.08
0.12
0.21
0.14
0.07
0.76
0.03
34.38
0.32
0.28
0.09
0.08
0.43
0.30
0.12
0.57
0.00
36.09
0.36
0.29
0.10
0.07
30.35
0.27
0.58
0.09
0.06
30.74
0.27
0.57
0.10
0.07
0.45 NA
NA
0.34 NA
NA
0.11 NA
NA
0.55 0.34 0.34
0.00 0.66 0.66
0.36
0.18
0.45
0.34
0.28
0.32
0.06
0.71
0.37
0.50
0.22
0.28
0.51
0.15
0.27
0.07
0.42
0.50
0.48
0.22
0.30
0.50
0.16
0.28
0.06
0.64
0.32
17,680 16,673 11,047 10,102
0.39
0.18
0.43
0.34
0.27
0.32
0.07
0.47
0.56
386
0.14
0.17
0.70
0.05
0.53
0.26
0.17
0.59
0.68
374
0.13
0.17
0.70
0.05
0.53
0.25
0.17
0.79
0.48
681
0.08
0.06
0.86
0.02
0.71
0.21
0.06
0.73
1.01
733
0.06
0.07
0.87
0.03
0.73
0.19
0.05
1.05
0.74
1,282
0.31
0.11
0.58
0.08
0.29
0.58
0.05
0.61
0.71
1,292
0.32
0.11
0.57
0.09
0.28
0.59
0.04
0.98
0.48
762
0.04
0.10
0.86
0.06
0.74
0.14
0.06
0.52
0.57
665
0.05
0.09
0.86
0.07
0.75
0.12
0.06
0.86
0.36
544
0.15
0.10
0.75
0.03
0.46
0.50
0.01
0.59
0.64
552
0.12
0.08
0.79
0.03
0.46
0.50
0.01
0.81
0.45
559
0.01
0.01
0.98
0.02
0.79
0.17
0.01
0.64
0.78
519
0.01
0.02
0.97
0.03
0.79
0.17
0.02
0.85
0.52
603
0.27
0.20
0.53
0.12
0.32
0.40
0.17
621
0.24
0.21
0.55
0.13
0.33
0.39
0.16
0.40 0.55
0.49 0.31
2.05 2.04 2.13 2.12 1.47 1.56 1.45 1.49 1.60 1.74 2.96 2.94 2.81 2.59 1.98 1.99 1.63 1.63
23.52
0.35
0.57
0.10
0.06
Source: 1920 census IPUMS.
Note: Italics denote significant differences between sons and daughters (p < .05).
Location
Farm
Rural, nonfarm
Urban
South
Northeast
Midwest
West
Household Characteristics
Heads’ SEI
Self-employed
Home owned
Female head
Boarders present
Number of
siblings < 15
Number of
brothers 15+
Number of sisters 15+
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.19
0.16
28.81
0.20
0.53
0.12
0.07
27.74
0.33
0.62
0.07
0.05
27.50
0.29
0.64
0.07
0.06
648
0.22
0.14
0.64
0.13
0.44
0.35
0.08
621
0.19
0.15
0.65
0.11
0.47
0.34
0.08
0.46 0.68
0.57 0.41
0.29
0.17
0.54
0.14
0.24
0.57
0.06
1,168 1,194
0.33
0.18
0.49
0.12
0.23
0.59
0.06
0.43 0.61
0.51 0.35
1.71 1.71 1.76 1.84
27.98
0.24
0.54
0.10
0.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16 0.17 0.16 0.17
0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83
0.62 0.61 100 100 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.44 16.37 16.43 16.35 16.56 16.40 16.50 16.48 16.54 16.51 16.37 16.29 16.36 16.38 16.44 16.44 16.43 16.38 16.47 16.42 16.42 16.37
Italian
Native-born grandparents
Beginning at 15 through age 18
German
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.18
0.15
Irish
Foreign born
Arrived before age 8
Arrived when age 8 or older
At least one foreign-born parent
At least one foreign-born grandparent
English
First Generation
Preschool (Gen 1.5)
After school
Second Generation
Third Generation
Fourth or Higher
Generation
Mean Age
Native Stock
Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters Sons Daughters
Description
Variables
Total
Table 1. Means for Variables That Are Used in the Analysis, by Ethnic Group, for 15 to 18 Year Olds
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
9
10
Sassler
Table 2. School Attendance of 15 to 18 Year Olds, by Ethnicity, Generation, and Sex
% Attending School
Total Sample Size
Ethnicity and Generation
Sons
Daughters
Native Stock (4th+ generation white)
52.9
61.6
11,047
10,102
English, First Generation
English, Second Generation
English, Third Generation
38.0
41.5
50.7
43.8
50.9
62.5
100
217
69
96
214
64
Irish, First Generation
Irish, Second Generation
Irish, Third Generation
35.7
38.3
44.9
20.0
46.8
53.2
14
400
267
15
417
301
German, First Generation
German, Second Generation
German, Third Generation
17.1
36.1
38.8
24.4
35.8
42.2
41
767
474
41
782
469
Italian, First Generation
Italian, Second Generationa
28.3
37.0
26.4
29.1
251
511
174
491
29.4
27.6
119
425
116
436
42.0
48.0
42.2
46.3
238
321
232
287
Native Stock/English, Second Generation
Native Stock/English, Third Generation
47.3
59.8
56.2
63.8
203
400
210
411
Native Stock/Irish, Second Generation
Native Stock/Irish, Third Generation
41.2
51.1
53.4
60.6
102
546
103
518
Native Stock/German, Second Generation
Native Stock/German, Third Generation
36.0
50.3
45.5
57.3
189
979
202
992
Total
48.9
55.4
17,680
16,673
Polish, First Generation
Polish, Second Generationa
Jewish, First Generation
Jewish, Second Generationa
a
Delivered 32.0
by Ingenta to 26.4
:
American Sociological Association
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
Sons
Daughters
Includes a small number of third-generation respondents.
ment in school attendance across most groups,
there were considerable disparities in school
enrollment even within the same generation.
About half the second-generation English
daughters versus only 35.8 percent of the second-generation German daughters were
enrolled in school, for example. Similar patterns
were found among the new ethnics; whereas
48 percent of second-generation Jewish sons
attended school, only 32 percent of Polish sec-
ond-generation sons did so. Disparities in
school attendance remained even among the
third generation. Young adults of mixed ancestry appear to have done better than singleancestry young adults of the same generation.
The results of the multivariate analysis clarify
whether such differences narrow after age,
household characteristics, and residential location of school-aged youths are controlled for.
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
ANALYTIC STRATEGY AND
RESULTS
11
significant difference, it is clearly not evidence
of educational progress. Children of intermarried parents appear to have been advantaged
The analysis of the impact of ethnicity, gen- relative to their single-ancestry counterparts
eration, family context, and location on in terms of school enrollment. Sons with
young adults’ school enrollment proceeds in some English ancestry seem to have benefitstages. I first model the effect of ethnicity ed more than did those in the other mixedand generation on children’s school atten- ancestry groups. Not all these patterns, howdance, with native-stock sons and daughters ever, remain consistent after the control variserving as the reference category. Model 2 ables are incorporated.
Including measures for age, family characincludes controls for individual attributes and
family characteristics, as well as for several teristics, and location improves the fit of the
dummy variables, to capture the effect of models considerably (Model 2). Because ethlocation on school attendance. Models are nic groups varied widely in their geographic
run separately for sons and daughters dispersion, accounting for rural and southern
because the factors that shape high school residence modifies the ethnic results slight16
enrollment are expected to differ by sex. ly. The findings provide evidence that immiLogistic regression is used to model the prob- grant adaptation was much more variable
ability of school attendance. Unweighted than has heretofore been described.
The old ethnic groups exhibit the classic
logit coefficients show changes in the log
odds of school enrollment. Coefficients in the straight-line assimilation process. Variation in
tables have been exponentiated for easier the pace of acculturation among groups,
interpretation. Numbers lower than 1 indi- however, suggests that the centrality of
cate the reduced odds of attending school school in immigrants’ integration into the
Delivered by Ingenta
to : class needs further examination
middle
relative to the reference group;
numbersSociological
sur- white
American
Association
(see18:40:20
also Morawska 1996). Generational
passing 1 depict an enrollment advantage.
Wed, 16 Sep 2009
adaptation occurred within two generations
for the English. By the third generation, the
Multivariate Results
English had surpassed the native stock in
The relationship among ethnicity and gener- school enrollment, although the difference is
ation, individual age, family characteristics, not statistically significant. More notable is
and location on the likelihood of school par- that third-generation English-ancestry daughticipation is depicted in Table 3. The effects of ters were significantly more likely than were
the baseline model (Model 1) replicate the their second-generation counterparts to
descriptive results presented in Table 2. These attend school. The Irish also adhered to the
patterns are largely supportive of straight-line straight-line model of assimilation. Secondassimilation, although sharp disparities across generation Irish sons and daughters had significantly greater odds of attending school
groups are evident.
Among representatives of the old immi- than did the first generation, although they
grant groups, each with three data points, were still less likely to be enrolled than were
the gap in school enrollment relative to the the native stock; by the third generation, they
native stock declined with each generation. were largely indistinguishable from their
For those from the new ethnic groups, in con- native-stock counterparts. German sons and
trast, daughters’ improvement in the odds of daughters, in contrast, demonstrated a much
school enrollment across generations was slower rate of adaptation. Third-generation
much smaller than sons’, particularly among German sons were only 57 percent as likely to
the second generation. In fact, generational be enrolled in school as were fourth- or highimprovement in the odds of attending school er-generation native-stock sons. The relative
is not always apparent. For example, Polish schooling disadvantage of third-generation
second-generation daughters had lower odds German daughters was even greater. For
of attending school than did their foreign- some groups, adaptation took longer than
born counterparts; although not a statistically two generations. Grouping third-generation
12
Sassler
Table 3. Likelihood of 15 to 18 Year Olds Attending School, by Sex
Sons
Independent Variables
Single-Ancestry Ethnicity (Native Stock = Reference)
English
First generation
Second generation
Third generation
Irish
First generation
Second generation
Third generation
German
First generation
Second generation
Third generation
Italian
First generation
Second generationa
Polish
First generation
Second generationa
Jewish
First generation
Second generationa
Mixed-Ancestry Ethnicity
English and Native Stock
Second generation
Third generation
Irish and Native Stock
Second generation
Third generation
German and Native Stock
Second generation
Third generation
Model 1
Model 2
0.546**
0.631***
0.917
0.660+
0.687*
1.250
0.485***
0.648**
1.040
0.568*
0.653**b
1.289
0.495
0.552***
0.727*
0.866
0.710***
0.876
0.156**
0.548***
0.708**
0.211*
0.714**
0.953
0.183***
0.503***
0.565***
0.192***
0.492***a
0.551***
0.201***
0.348***
0.456***
0.189***
0.352***
0.426***
0.351***
0.523***
0.497***
0.567***
0.224***
0.256***
0.295***
0.265***
0.371***
0.419***
0.495***
0.429***
0.238***
0.224***
0.326***
0.295***
0.645***
0.821+
0.882
0.823
0.456***
0.539***
0.563***
0.513***
Model 1
0.801
1.097
0.893
0.995
Delivered
by Ingenta 0.842
to :
0.799
American Sociological
Association
1.322**
1.211
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
Model 2
0.623*
0.931
0.901
0.915
0.715+
0.961
0.890
1.025
0.501***
0.900
0.555***
0.773***
0.522***
0.836**
0.575***
0.755***
Age (18 = Reference)
15
16
17
Family Characteristics
Head's occupational score (SEI)
Self-employed head
Head is home owner
Female-headed household
Boarders in household
Number of young siblings (< 15)
Number of working-age brothers (15+)
Number of working-age sisters (15+)
Location (Metropolis of 1 Million or more = Reference)
Farm
Rural, nonfarm (< 2,500 population)
South
Intercept
Likelihood ratio (chi-square)
DF
Daughters
10.596***
3.453***
1.685***
9.908***
3.620***
1.759***
1.019***
1.075+
1.821***
0.776***
0.979
1.000***
1.018**
1.141***
1.684**
0.844*
0.910***
0.894***
0.981
0.908***
0.947***
1.031
1.324***c
1.081
1.485***c
1.167***
1.169***
0.116***
372.7973***
21
-1.659***
3971.34
35
1.043
0.471***
796.208***
21
Note: Italics denote significant differences between sons and daughters (p < .05).
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
a Significant difference between the first and second generation (p < .05).
b Significant differences between the second and third generation (p < .05).
c Significant difference between farm and rural nonfarm (p < .05).
-1.336***
3831.3095
35
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
13
Germans with other long-term ethnic groups German ancestry were only 56 percent of
could deflate educational attainment.
their native-stock counterparts’, and even the
Unlike their old ethnic counterparts, the third generation were only about threenew immigrants’ likelihood of school enroll- fourths as likely to be enrolled. Furthermore,
ment did not increase with each subsequent those of mixed-German ancestry differed siggeneration. Furthermore, by the second gen- nificantly from other mixed-ancestry groups
eration, a marked gender discrepancy in the even into the third generation. A hierarchy
likelihood of school attendance emerged, at remained even among the intermarried, with
least for Italians and Poles. Whereas Italian those having any German ancestry at a dissons followed the expected pattern, second- tinct disadvantage.
The remaining independent variables exert
generation Italian daughters had lower odds
of school enrollment than did their foreign- effects that are largely as expected. School
born counterparts, as well as second-genera- enrollment declined sharply with age. The
tion Italian sons. Both Polish sons and daugh- drop was most precipitous between ages 15
ters experienced declining odds of school and 16, since labor laws no longer restricted
enrollment across the generations. Yet sec- young adults’ employment in the paid labor
ond-generation Polish daughters were doubly force. Grade retardation may have delayed
disadvantaged in that they were substantially school leaving among those who were aged
less likely to attend school than were second- 16, who perhaps remained in school until
generation Polish sons, as well as native-stock they completed primary school. Alternatively,
white daughters. While Jewish sons did not economic need or other family factors may
differ significantly from the native stock in this have prematurely pushed even those who
regard, even among those who were foreign were most interested in attaining a diploma
born, net of controls for family characteristics out of school and into the labor market.
Delivered by Ingenta
:
Positivetoindicators
of family economic characand location, Jewish daughters experienced
American Sociological Association
teristics
also
facilitated
young adults’ school
the same patterns as did other Wed,
new 16
immiSep 2009 18:40:20
grant daughters. The enrollment gap enrollment. The higher a household head’s
between second-generation Jewish daughters SEI score, the greater the likelihood of school
and the native stock is much smaller than that enrollment; this effect did not vary by the sex
of other new groups. Nonetheless, the differ- of the child. Daughters and sons with selfence is highly significant and quite large: employed heads also benefited in terms of
American-born Jewish daughters had odds of school attendance. Home ownership was parschool participation that were only about half ticularly advantageous, particularly for sons.
that of native-stock daughters. There was no On the other hand, markers of family need
significant improvement in enrollment odds reduced attendance. Those who resided in
across the generations among representatives female-headed households were substantially
from the new groups. In fact, for some, the less likely to be enrolled in school than were
those whose fathers were present. The presenrollment disadvantage increased slightly.
As hypothesized, parental intermarriage ence of boarders exerted a negative impact
appears to have sped up the assimilation on the school enrollment chances only of
process for the offspring. By the second gen- daughters; those whose homes included payeration, there were no real differences in the ing nonrelatives were only 84 percent as likepropensities for schooling between fourth- ly to attend school as were daughters whose
and higher-generation native-stock youths households did not engage in such incomeand those whose parents had some English or supplementation strategies, perhaps because
Irish ancestry as well as native-stock parents their labor was needed in the home.17
The presence of additional mouths to feed,
or grandparents. German ancestry, on the
other hand, continued to differentiate young as well as the needs posed by the family life
adults’ propensities for schooling even cycle, clearly affected young adults’ ability to
among those of mixed parentage. The odds forgo work for school. Young siblings
of school enrollment among second-genera- decreased the likelihood of school enrollment
tion children of mixed native-stock and for both sons and daughters. Working-age
14
Sassler
brothers also had a deterrent effect on young ther supports the operation of segmented
adults’ school attendance, regardless of their assimilation described earlier.
Table 4 disaggregates generational status
sex. In contrast, working-age sisters did not
significantly reduce or increase sons’ odds of by age of arrival in the United States; controls
attending school. Their effect on daughters for age, family characteristics, and location
are also included in the model. The results
was also insignificant.
School enrollment was greater in rural indicate that among Italian, Polish, and
than in urban areas, although for sons, this Jewish daughters, as well as among Italian
effect was limited to those who resided on and Jewish sons, those who arrived in the
farms. Farming sons had odds of school United States prior to age 8 (or the new 1.5
attendance that were 1.3 times greater than generation) had lower odds of school enrollcoresident sons who lived in urban locales, ment than did their later-arriving counterwhile for daughters, the odds were 1.49 times parts. Although later-arriving immigrants
as great. Sons who lived on farms were also therefore differed from their native-born
significantly more likely to attend school than counterparts, they did so because they were
were those who lived in small rural towns. more, rather than less, likely to attend
Daughters who lived in small rural towns, on school.19 Furthermore, the second generation
the other hand, had higher odds of attending did not increase their likelihood of school
school than did their urban counterparts, a attendance over their counterparts who
result that is not replicated for sons. Contrary arrived in the country when they were aged 8
to previous studies (Walters and O’Connell or older. These results indicate the persistence
1988), I found a positive effect of living in the of an enrollment disadvantage across generaSouth on sons’ odds of school enrollment. A tions—consistent with segmented assimilafurther look at this result, however, indicates tion theory.20 Nonetheless, second-generaDelivered
to :
tion new-immigrant
sons were significantly
that this effect was among native-stock
sonsby Ingenta
American Sociological
Association
more likely than were their female counterliving in urban locations in the South,
and
so
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
does not run counter to the previous findings. parts to attend school. For white ethnic
Southern residence had no significant effect young women in the early decades of the
on daughters’ odds of school enrollment, net 20th century, those who were predominantly
socialized in the United States may have been
of other factors.18
To what extent does age at immigration better able to take advantage of attractive
differentiate the schooling experience of for- employment options than their later-arriving
eign-born youths from the new groups? counterparts who, no doubt, spoke English
Current research on immigrants’ educational poorly and may have had fewer social netattainment has suggested that those who works to assist them in finding jobs.
arrived in the United States before they began Alternatively, these girls (as well as Polish
school should more closely resemble the sons) perhaps realized that their time in
native born than their foreign-born counter- school did not buy them what it did equivaparts who arrived at older ages (Rumbaut lently educated native-stock daughters or
1994). Such work has theorized that older resented how teachers treated them.
immigrant children are disadvantaged in their
acquisition of English, grade placement, and
advancement, whereas young immigrants are
predominantly socialized in their new country. Many current studies have therefore disaggregated the foreign born into two groups:
a delimited “Generation 1,” made up of the
older arrivals, and “Generation 1.5,” composed of immigrants who arrived prior to
school age. A closer examination of the
impact of age at arrival on the schooling
opportunities of ethnic youths as of 1920 fur-
CONCLUSIONS
It is commonly assumed that in the past,
immigrant youths rapidly adopted the norms
and values of the wider society, including a
new appreciation of formal education as a
route to upward mobility. The reality of such
assertions has not been adequately tested
with historical data. This article has provided
information on the school enrollment of up to
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
15
Table 4. Does Age at Immigration Affect School Enrollment?
Ethnicity (Native Stock = Reference)
Italian
New “first” generation
1.5 generation
Second generation
Polish
New “first” generation
1.5 generation
Second generation
Jewish
New “first” generation
1.5 generation
Second generation
Sons
Daughters
0.594*
0.455***
0.567***
0.253***
0.314***
0.264***
0.384*
0.565*
0.429***
0.267**
0.355***
0.229***
0.928
0.865
0.823
0.554 +
0.566**
0.513***
Note: First generation = those who were 8 years old or older when they arrived in the
United States; 1.5 generation = those who arrived by age 7. Italics denote significant differences between sons and daughters (p < .05). The model includes controls for age, family characteristics, and location (Table 3, Model 2).
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; + p < .10.
three generations of white ethnic youths who the operation of straight-line assimilation,
Delivered by Ingenta to :
may require data on three or more genwere coresiding with their parents,
as well
as then,Association
American
Sociological
erations
of immigrants.
fourth- and higher-generation whites.
ExamWed, 16
Sep 2009
18:40:20
At the same time, some groups did achieve
ining ethnic and generational variation in the
school participation of working-age young enrollment parity with the native stock, as
adults is one way of assessing the pace of proscribed by classical assimilation theory. For
assimilation, as well as its universality. I con- example, immigrants from English-speaking
sidered whether white ethnics, with genera- countries, both those of single-ancestry martional succession, increasingly assumed the riages and those of intermarriages with the
school participation patterns of the native native stock, were indistinguishable by the
third generation from the native-stock referstock.
As this article has shown, any adoption of ence group. They also no longer differed from
the educational pursuits exhibited by the each other. These patterns are consistent with
dominant group occurred slowly for most those from earlier periods (Jacobs and Greene
white ethnic immigrants. Numerous studies 1994; Sassler 2000; Zunz 1982), when differof immigrant mobility have adhered to a ences in the schooling propensities of Irish
three-generation model, largely because of and English youths and those of German
limitations in the available data. My findings ancestry were large. That longer-term white
indicate that disparities in schooling ethnics from England and Ireland were the
remained beyond the second generation. For main ones to have experienced rapid and draexample, third-generation single- and mixed- matic improvements in school enrollment
ancestry Germans were significantly less likely provides support for status advantage theory
to have attended school in the year prior to (Collins 1971).
This study of immigrant adaptation has
the census than were fourth- and higher-generation whites, while the discrepancy also clearly revealed that segmented assimilabetween second-generation Italian and Polish tion is not a recent development. Not all
youths and native-stock youths was also groups demonstrated even a gradual acceplarge. The assimilation process was clearly not tance of school as a route into the white midcompleted by the third generation. Testing dle class. Whether owing to financial exigen-
16
Sassler
cies that curtailed school attendance or education were available to immigrant chilbeliefs that time could be better spent in dren. As of 1920, the link between school
other pursuits, as of 1920, several ethnic enrollment and subsequent occupational
groups had failed to experience generational attainment was not a strong-enough induceimprovement in school participation. These ment for many young adults and their famifindings persisted even after I accounted for lies. While controlling for location is an
family characteristics and a variety of mea- attempt to account for differential access to
sures that capture the importance of residen- employment opportunities, smaller-scale
tial location—whether in regions, in rural or studies are perhaps more appropriate for
urban areas, in towns and cities of various teasing out how place shaped ethnic-groups’
sizes, or in major cities. Of note is that atten- strategies regarding schooling. For example,
uated educational participation is evidenced Morawska (1996) found that Jews who
mainly among daughters from the new immi- resided in small towns did not pursue schoolgrant groups. Girls may have perceived few ing to nearly the same extent as their more
rewards for continuing in school, since many urban counterparts did because their occupaof the jobs that were available to educated tional success did not require it. Whether simwomen (such as nursing and teaching) fre- ilar explanations can explain the distinctive
quently precluded marriage. Alternately, fam- and long-standing schooling pattern demonilies may have downplayed the importance of strated by German youths requires additional
educating girls, seeing it as an unnecessary exploration; the results from this analysis,
expense. Regardless of why American-born however, indicate that the lower rates of
daughters were less likely to be enrolled in school participation by German youths were
school than were their foreign-born counter- not due simply to these youths’ greater conparts, the end result was a widening educa- centration in rural areas or the Midwest.
Delivered
to :
tional gap between new-immigrant
daugh-by Ingenta
Shortcomings
in the data also precluded
American Sociological Association
ters and other girls.
an
examination
of
the impact of World War I
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
Both historical and contemporary studies or the influenza pandemic of 1918 on young
have failed to pay adequate attention to the adults’ propensities for schooling. Although
outcomes of children of intermarriages. the young men in this sample were not old
Mobility-oriented white ethnics may have enough to have served during the war, the
been more likely to marry outside their own loss of family members to either of those
ethnic groups. Such interethnic marriages events would have been detrimental to the
appeared to benefit the children of such economic position of their families and could
unions, at least in terms of schooling. Perhaps have pushed working-age children into the
intermarriage was not, as Gordon (1964) labor force. I was also limited in my ability to
hypothesized, the final stage in the process of ascertain the extent to which the retention of
cultural and structural adaptation to life in the a foreign language may have hindered school
United States. Rather, intermarriage helped participation, since the mother tongue was
speed up structural adaptation, increasing the obtained only for the foreign born. Finally,
odds of attending school relative to their sin- because information on family class backgle-ancestry counterparts. In terms of school- ground and composition was limited to chiling propensities, children of intermarriages dren residing in the parental home, this study
occupied an interim position between their did not explore the educational pursuits of
single-ancestry coethnics and the native young adults who were living away from their
stock.
families.
This study of immigrant children in the
There are some strong parallels between
early 20th century has shed light on patterns today’s immigrant groups and the experiof educational progression with increasing ences of those in the 1920s in terms of the
duration in this country. It did not test struc- slow pace of adaptation to the normative
tural explanations for increases in school behaviors that are expected of “American”
attendance. The benefits of school depended children. Perhaps the interpretations of conlargely on whether occupations requiring an temporary studies, often limited to only two
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
generations, have been too negative. The
research on how today’s immigrant youths
adjust to the challenges posed by life in the
United States should be more sensitive to the
myriad ways in which youths have historically adjusted to life in the United States.
Attempts to understand ethnic-group adaptation must recognize that it is a process—one
that historically may have taken more than
17
three generations. In conclusion, those who
are attempting to understand the challenges
facing today’s school-aged youths, including
those who focus on racial/ethnic disparities in
the modern era, would do well to reacquaint
themselves with the historical research on
school enrollment in the early years of the
20th century.
Delivered by Ingenta to :
American Sociological Association
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
18
Sassler
APPENDIX
Coding of Generation and Ethnicity
The 1920 census asked an extensive array of questions on birthplace and mother tongue that
enable researchers to determine ethnicity and nativity. Generation and ethnicity codes were
ascertained by using a combination of seven variables. Generational status was determined via
NATIVITY, a constructed variable that is available in the IPUMS data, as well as the constituent
birthplace (BPL), mother’s birthplace (MBPL), and father’s birthplace (FBPL) from which the
NATIVITY variable was devised. Ethnicity was first constructed for the coresident child, using
the birthplace and parents’ birthplace variables. Father’s and mother’s ethnicity was constructed next, using their birthplace and their parents’. When young adults were third generation or higher, information on their parents’ nativity was used to ascertain whether their
grandparents (their parents’ parents) were foreign-born ethnics from the groups that were
examined in this analysis or fourth- or higher-generation residents of the United States (designated as the native stock). If the parents had married across generations (but within the ethnic group), the daughter was designated according to the lowest parental generation; for
example, a daughter with a first-generation English mother and a second-generation English
father was designated as second-generation English.
As an additional check on ethnicity, three variables designating the home language—mother tongue, mother’s mother tongue, and father’s mother tongue—were used for several nonEnglish-speaking groups. In 1920, MTONGUE was asked only of foreign-born persons. Mother
tongue meant the primary language spoken in the home country prior to immigration. It was
used to supplement the identification of Poles and Germans and was the sole identifier for
Delivered by Ingenta to :
Jews.
Americangroup,
Sociological
Association
To be considered a single-ancestry
both parents
had to share the same ethnicity.
Wed, 16
Sep
2009
18:40:20 ancestor and at least one ethnic
Mixed-ancestry groups included those
with
one
native-stock
parent/grandparent from the single-ancestry groups examined in this article. If information on
both parents was available, information on both the father (the head) and the mother (the
head’s wife) was used; if information on only one parent was available, ethnicity was determined on the basis of that parent’s ancestry, as in Table A1.
Table A1. Determining Ethnicity
Designation
Variables
Native Stock
Nativity = 1 AND (head’s nativity = 1 AND wife’s nativity = 1)
Single-Ancestry Groups
English
First generation
Second generation
Third generation
Irish
First generation
Second generation
Third generation
(Nativity = 5) AND (born in England)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 4) AND (father and mother
English)
(Nativity = 1) AND (Head’s & Wife’s Father and Mother English)
England, Scotland, and Wales § BPL > 41,000 and BPL <
41,300
(Nativity = 5) AND (born in Ireland)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 4) AND (father and mother Irish)
(Nativity = 1) AND (head’s and wife’s father and mother Irish)
Ireland and Northern Ireland § BPL > 41,400 and BPL <
41,410
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
German
First generation
Second generation
Third generation
Italian
First generation
Second generation
Polish
First generation
Second generation
Jewish
First generation
Second generation
Mixed Ancestry Groups
Native Stock/English
Second generation
Third generation
Native Stock/Irish
Second generation
Third generation
Native Stock/German
Second generation
Third generation
19
(Nativity = 5) AND (born in Germany/mother tongue
German)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 4) AND (father and mother
German and mother tongue German)
(Nativity = 1) AND (head’s and wife’s father and mother
German and mother tongue German)
Germany § (BPL >
45,300 and BPL < 45,400) AND
(MTONGUE = 200)
(Nativity = 5) AND (born in Italy)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 4) AND (father and mother Italian)
Italy § BPL = 43,400
(Nativity = 5) AND (born in Poland) and (MTONGUE = 2,100)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 4) AND (father and mother Polish,
their mother tongue Polish)
Poland § BPL > 45,500 and < 45,530; Polish mother tongue =
2,100.
(Nativity = 5) AND (mother tongue = Yiddish)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 4) AND (father’s and mother’s language = Yiddish)
Yiddish or Hebrew mother tongue § MTONGUE > 300 and <
320 Delivered by Ingenta to :
American Sociological Association
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 3) AND (either father or mother
are English) AND one grandparent U.S. born
(Nativity = 1) and (father’s or mother’s Nativity GE 2 and LE 3)
AND (at least one grandparent is English, and the remainder are
native stock)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 3) AND (either father or mother
Irish) AND one grandparent U.S. born
(Nativity = 1) AND (father’s or mother’s Nativity GE 2 and LE 3)
AND (at least one grandparent is Irish, and the remainder are
native stock)
(Nativity GE 2 and Nativity LE 3) AND (either father or mother
German) AND one grandparent U.S. born
(Nativity = 1) AND (father’s or mother’s Nativity GE 2 and LE 3)
AND (at least one grandparent is German, and the remainder
are native stock)
Note: Ranges for BPL refer to the detailed codes for birthplaces that are designated in the
IPUMS data. See http://www.ipums.umn.edu/usa/pethnicity/bpldb.html for further elaboration
of the places that are included.
20
Sassler
leges (Dinnerstein 1994; Perlmann and
Waldinger 1997), and quotas were imposed
1. In fact, the data allow for a more com- to limit their attendance.
5. They did not, however, indicate if these
plete assessment of acculturation processes
than either contemporary censuses or recent differences were statistically significant.
6. The majority of 15 to 18 year olds (87.3
community studies (Alba and Nee 1997;
Gans 1997). The 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. percent) in these ethnic groups resided with
censuses did not contain questions on their parents as of 1920. Of course, not all
parental birthplace, which limits the analysis young adults in this age range did so (Sassler
of immigrants’ adaptation to two generations 1996). Foreign-born young adults who immiat most (the foreign born and second gener- grated without their families, those who
ation and higher). Community studies on the moved from rural areas for better job opporattainment of particular ethnic groups have tunities in cities, and those who married
also failed to include nativity questions that young were among those in this age range
would enable an examination of accultura- who lived apart from their parents. They were
tion beyond the second generation (e.g., also, however, significantly less likely to be
Portes and MacLeod 1996; Rumbaut 1994). enrolled in school (analysis not shown).
7. The occupational status of the mothers,
Although such studies have attempted to
proxy several generations by constructing whether the mothers were married or female
interim groups, such as the 1.5 generation heads of households, is less reliable than for
(those who immigrated to the United States men because much work in the home was
at young ages), who are then distinguished frequently not considered gainful employfrom foreign-born children who arrived at ment. Additional variables for female headolder ages, such analyses still remain limited ship and the presence of boarders in the
Delivered by Ingenta
to : used in an attempt to proxy the
home were
to the first, second, and higher generations.
American Sociological Association
mothers’
possible income-earning roles.
2. Adherents of segmented Wed,
assimilation
16 Sep 2009
18:40:20
8. Because I expected that the experiences
theory have suggested that there are three
possible adaptation patterns. In addition to of daughters and sons would be different, I
the two mentioned, a third possibility is eco- did not limit the selection to one working-age
nomic integration into middle-class America child from each family.
9. Small shares of children—2.6 percent of
without the loss of the distinctive attributes of
ethnicity, or what has been called “lagged the daughters (N = 441) and 6.9 percent of
acculturation” (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou the sons (N = 1,219)—reported both attend1997). Because I could not explore this possi- ing school and being gainfully employed in
bility with the extant census data (which lacks the past year. Those who combined school
measures of cultural behaviors, as well as the with work were concentrated in the youngest
home language spoken by the second gener- ages and in rural areas.
10. I subsequently refer to first-, second-,
ation), I do not discuss this variant.
3. In the first few decades of the 20th cen- and third-generation “immigrants,” although
tury, neither urbanization nor industrialization only the first generation are foreign-born resincreased school enrollment (Fuller 1983; idents of the United States.
11. A question on religion has never been
Meyer et al 1979; Walters and O’Connell
1988), despite the greater abundance of asked in the U.S. census. Using Yiddish mother tongue as a means of identifying the Jewish
white-collar jobs in cities.
4. The social elite in the South, for exam- population captures a substantial proportion
ple, did not view schooling for black children of the members of a religious and cultural
as necessary; the perceived threat of an edu- group. This approximation does not capture
cated black population detrimentally affected non-Yiddish-speaking Jews residing in
the enrollment of black youths (Walters et al. America, such as those who arrived from
1990). In the Northeast, there was opposition countries where Yiddish was either not spoto the increasing proportion of white eth- ken or discouraged, or long-term Jewish
nics—particularly Jews—enrolling in elite col- Americans.
NOTES
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
21
12. For example, the German designation (e.g., changing the cut-off age at arrival to
limited the respondents to those who report- age 10) had little effect on the results for
ed a German birthplace (or Germany as their Italian and Polish daughters.
20. In fact, Hirschman (2001) reported
parents’ or grandparents’ birthplace) and
German language, to improve the likelihood similar patterns for first- and 1.5-generation
of capturing only Germans, rather than eth- immigrant youths using 1990 census data.
nic Russians or Poles who were living in
Germany.
13. These three groups are not, technical- REFERENCES
ly speaking, ethnic groups. For comparative
purposes, they are separated into distinct Alba, Richard D. 1985. Italian Americans: Into the
groups. Intermarriage between the native
Twilight of Ethnicity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
born of native parentage and second-generaPrentice Hall.
tion English; Irish; and, to a lesser extent, Alba, Richard D., and Victor Nee. 1997.
“Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era
Germans was prevalent in the early years of
of Immigration,” International Migration
the 20th century (Pagnini and Morgan 1990;
Review 31:826–74.
Sassler 2005; Sassler and Qian 2003).
Alba, Richard D., Amy Lutz, and Elena Vesselinov.
14. A detailed discussion of the construc2001. “How Enduring Were the Inequalities
tion of this variable is available at
Among European Immigrant Groups in the
http://www.ipums.org.
United States?” Demography 38:349–56.
15. Additional measures of location, such Anderson, James D. 1988. The Education of Blacks in
as more detailed town population sizes and
the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University
residence in one of the 10 largest cities as of
of North Carolina Press.
1920, were also tested for their effects on Borjas, George J. 1999. Heaven’s Door: Immigration
Delivered by Ingenta
to and
:
Policy
the American Economy. Princeton,
school participation.
American Sociological Association
NJ:
Princeton
University Press.
16. School enrollment increases
most
Wed, 16 Sep 2009
18:40:20
Bowles,
Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 1976.
markedly for third-generation English youths,
Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic
second- and third-generation Irish youths,
Books.
and foreign-born youths from the new immi- Collins, Randall. 1971. “Functional and Conflict
grant groups.
Theories of Educational Stratification.”
17. The effect of boarders on school enrollAmerican Sociological Review 36:1002–18.
ment did not differ significantly by sex.
Dinnerstein, Leonard. 1994. Anti-Semitism in
America. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Incorporating alternative measures for
size of place yielded similar results. Residence Fernandez, Roberto M., Ronnelle Paulsen, and
Marsha Hirano-Nakanishi. 1989. “Dropping
in some of America’s 10 largest cities reduced
Out Among Hispanic Youth.” Social Science
the odds of school participation; for example,
Research 18:21–52.
sons and daughters living in New York City,
Fuller, Bruce. 1983. “Youth Job Structure and
Chicago, Philadelphia, and St. Louis had
School Enrollment, 1890-1920,” Sociology of
lower odds of attending school. In fact, the
Education 56:145–56.
relationship between the size of the city and Gans, Herbert J. 1992. “Second-Generation Decline:
the likelihood of attending school decreases
Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures
almost monotonically. One exception is that
of the Post-1964 American Immigrants.” Ethnic
and Racial Studies 15:173–92.
young adults who resided in towns with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 were sig- ____. 1997. “Toward a Reconciliation of
“Assimilation” and “Pluralism”: The Interplay
nificantly more likely to be attending school
of Acculturation and Ethnic Retention,”
than were those who were living in small rural
International Migration Review 31:875–92.
towns with fewer than 2,500 residents. Larger
Gibson, Campbell, and Emily Lennon. 1999.
locales offered a wider array of employment
“Historical Census Statistics on the Foreignoptions to both men and women and
born Population of the United States:
decreased the attractiveness of schooling.
1850–1990” (Working Paper No. 9).
19. Varying the age specifications for who
Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S.
would be considered the 1.5 generation
Bureau of the Census.
22
Sassler
Glick, Jennifer, and Michael J. White. 2000. Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary Waters. 1988. From
Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in
“Generation, Social Capital and the Routes
Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage
out of High School.” Sociological Forum,
Foundation.
15:671–91.
Goldin, Claudia. 1981. “Family Strategies and the Massey, Douglas. 1995. “The New Immigration
and Ethnicity in the United States.” Population
Family Economy in the Late Nineteenth
and Development Review 21:631–52.
Century: The Role of Secondary Workers,” Pp.
277–310 in Philadelphia: Work, Space, Family, Massey, Douglas, and Nancy A. Denton. 1993.
American Apartheid: Segregation and the
and Group Experience in the Nineteenth
Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA:
Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg. New
Harvard University Press.
York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American McKeever, M., and Stephen L. Klineberg. 1999.
“Generational Differences in Attitudes and
Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Socioeconomic Status Among Hispanics in
Guo, Guang. 1993. “Use of Sibling Data to
Houston,” Sociological Inquiry. 69:33–50.
Estimate Family Mortality Effects in
Meyer, John W., David Tyack, Joane Nagel, and
Guatemala.” Demography 30:15–32.
Audri Gordon. 1979. “Public Education as
Haines, Michael. 1981. “Poverty, Economic Stress,
Nation-Building in America: Enrollments and
and the Family in a Late Nineteenth-Century
Bureaucraticization in the American States,
American City: Whites in Philadelphia, 1880.”
1870–1930.” American Journal of Sociology
Pp. 240–76 in Philadelphia: Work, Space,
85:591–613.
Family, and Group Experience in the 19th
Century, edited by Theodore Hershberg. New Morawska, Ewa T. 1996. Insecure Prosperity: SmallTown Jews in Industrial America, 1890–1940.
York: Oxford University Press.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hallinan, Maureen T. 2000. “On the Linkage
Between Sociology of Race and Ethnicity and Neckerman, Kathryn M., Prudence Carter, and
Jennifer Lee. 1999. “Segmented Assimilation
Sociology of Education,” Pp. 65–84 in
andtoMinority
Cultures of Mobility,” Ethnic and
Handbook of Sociology of Education,
edited byby Ingenta
Delivered
:
American
Racial Studies 22:945–65.
Maureen T. Hallinan. New York:
Plenum.Sociological Association
16 Sep 2009
18:40:20
Pagnini,
Deanna, and S. Philip Morgan. 1990.
Hirschman, Charles. 2001. “The Wed,
Educational
“Intermarriage and Social Distance Among
Enrollment of Immigrant Youth: A Test of the
U.S. Immigrants at the Turn of the Century,”
Segmented-Assimilation
Hypothesis.”
American Journal of Sociology 96:405–32.
Demography 38:317–36.
Horan, Patrick M., and Peggy G. Hargis. 1991. Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess. 1969.
Introduction to the Science of Sociology.
“Children’s Work and Schooling in the LateChicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nineteenth-Century
Family
Economy.”
Perlmann, Joel. 1988. Ethnic Differences: Schooling
American Sociological Review 56:583–96.
and Social Structure Among the Irish, Italians,
Jacobs, Jerry, and Margaret E. Greene. 1994. “Race
and Ethnicity, Social Class and Schooling in
Jews, and Blacks in an American City,
1910.” In After Ellis Island: Newcomers and
1880–1935. New York: Cambridge University
Natives in the 1910 Census, edited by Susan
Press.
Cotts Watkins. New York: Russell Sage Perlmann, Joel, and Roger Waldinger. 1997.
Foundation.
“Second Generation Decline? Children of
Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda. 1995. “Optimism
Immigrants,
Past
and
Present—A
and
Achievement:
The
Educational
Reconsideration,” International Migration
Performance of Immigrant Youth.” Social
Review 31:893–922.
Science Quarterly 76:1–19.
Pleck, Elizabeth H. 1978. “A Mother’s Wages:
Kessner, Thomas. 1977. The Golden Door: Italian
Income Earning Among Married Italian and
and Jewish Immigrant Mobility in New York City,
Black Women, 1896–1911.” Pp. 490–510 in
1880–1915. New York: Oxford University
The American Family in Social-Historical
Press.
Perspective (2nd ed.), edited by Michael
Leloudis, James L. 1996. Schooling the New South:
Gordon. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Pedagogy, Self, and Society in North Carolina, Portes, Alejandro, and Dag MacLeod. 1996.
1880–1920. Chapel Hill: University of North
“Educational Progress of Children of
Carolina Press.
Immigrants: The Roles of Class, Ethnicity, and
Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks
School Context,” Sociology of Education
and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley:
69:255–75.
University of California Press.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New
School Participation Among Immigration Youths
23
Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation —-. 1999. Table 57. Available online:
and Its Variants.” Annals of the American
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98/d98t057
Political and Social Sciences 530:74–96.
.html
Powell, Brian, and Lala Carr Steelman. 1990. Walters, Pamela Barnhouse. 1984. “Occupational
“Beyond Sibship Size: Sibling Density, Sex
and Labor Market Effects on Secondary and
Composition, and Educational Outcomes.”
Postsecondary Educational Expansion in the
American Sociological Review 69:181–206.
United States: 1922 to 1979.” American
Ralph, John H., and Richard Rubinson. 1980.
Sociological Review 49:659–71.
“Immigration and the Expansion of Schooling
Walters, Pamela Barnhouse, and Carl M. Briggs.
in the United States, 1890–1970,” American
1993. “Child Labor and Schooling in the
Sociological Review 45:943–54.
Early-Twentieth-Century South.” American
Rubinson, Richard. 1986. “Class Formation,
Sociological Review 58:163–81.
Political Organization, and Institutional Walters, Pamela Barnhouse, and David James.
Structure: The Case of Schooling in the United
1992. “Schooling for Some: Child Labor and
States.” American Journal of Sociology
School Enrollment of Black and White
92:519–48.
Children in the Early Twentieth-Century
Rumbaut, Reuben G. 1994. “The Crucible Within:
South.”
American
Sociological
Review
Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented
57:635–50.
Assimilation among Children of Immigrants.” Walters, Pamela Barnhouse, Holly J. McCammon,
International Migration Review 28:748–94.
and David R. James. 1990. “Schooling or
Sassler, Sharon. 1995. “Trade-Offs in the Family:
Working? Public Education, Racial Politics, and
Sibling Effects on Daughters’ Activities in
the Organization of Production in 1910.”
1910.” Demography 32:557–75.
Sociology of Education 63:1–26.
—-. 1996. “Feathering the Nest or Flying the
Walters, Pamela Barnhouse, and Philip J.
Coop? Ethnic and Gender Differences in
O’Connell. 1988. “The Family Economy,
Young Adults’ Coresidence in 1910.” Journal
Work, and Educational Participation in the
of Family History 21:446–66.
Delivered by Ingenta
to : States, 1890–1940.” American Journal
United
—-. 2000. “Learning to Be an “American
AmericanLady”?
Sociological Association
of Sociology 93:1116–53.
Ethnic Variation in Daughters’ Pursuits
in Sep
the 2009 18:40:20
Wed, 16
Waters,
Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian
Early 1900s.” Gender & Society 14:184–209.
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities.
—-. 2005. “Gender and Ethnic Differences in
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marital Assimilation in the Early Twentieth
Century.” International Migration Review Werum, Regina. 1999. “Elite Control in State and
Nation: Racial Inequalities in Vocational
39:608–36.
Funding in North Carolina, Georgia, and
Sassler, Sharon, and Zhenchao Qian. 2003.
Mississippi, 1918–1936,” Social Forces
“Marital Timing and Marital Assimilation:
78:145–186.
Variation and Change Among European
Zelizer,
Viviana A. 1985. Pricing the Priceless Child:
Americans Between 1910 and 1980.”
The Changing Social Value of Children. New
Historical Methods 36:131–148.
York: Basic Books.
Strong, David, Pamela Barnhouse Walters, Brian
Driscoll, and Scott Rosenberg. 2000. Zhou, Min. 1997. “Growing Up American: The
Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children
“Leveraging the State: Private Money and the
and Children of Immigrants.” Annual Review of
Development of Public Education for Blacks.”
Sociology 23:63–95.
American Sociological Review 65:658–81.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Zunz, Oliver. 1982. The Changing Face of Inequality:
Urbanization, Industrial Development, and
Education Statistics. 1998., Table 39. Available
Immigrants in Detroit, 1880–1920. Chicago:
online:http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98/d9
8t039.html
University of Chicago Press.
24
Sassler
Sharon Sassler, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Department of Policy Analysis and Management,
Cornell University. Her main fields of interest are social demography, immigration and immigrant
adaptation, race and ethnicity, and young adult transitions. She is currently studying gender differences in immigrant adaptation.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association, Chicago. I thank Vinnie Roscigno, Daniel Lichter, Pamela Barnhouse
Walters, Morgan Kousser, and Timothy Jon Dowd for their helpful suggestions on improving the article. I also acknowledge support from the NIH/NICHD Population Center (Grant R21 HD047943),
awarded to the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University. Direct all correspondence
to Sharon Sassler, Department of Policy Analysis and Management, 134 Martha Van Rensselaer
Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4401; e-mail: [email protected].
Delivered by Ingenta to :
American Sociological Association
Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:40:20