A Structural Analysis of Success and Failure of Asian Americans: A Case of Korean Americans in Urban Schools

A Structural Analysis of Success and Failure of Asian Americans: A Case of Korean Americans in Urban Schools

A Structural Analysis of Success and Failure of Asian Americans: A Case of Korean Americans in Urban Schools

Permalink: ‎

In the last few decades, the Asian American population nationwide has undergone a dramatic increase in number and diversity. During the 1940s, Asian Americans living in the United States numbered some 250,000, a mere 1 percent of the U.S. population (Hing, 1993). In 1990, that number had risen to 7.3 million with over 13 different ethnic popu- lations under the Asian category (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993).

370 Teachers College Record

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the Asian population has increased to 11.9 million, totaling 4.2 percent of the population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001).

Despite the changing demographics, portrayal of Asian Americans has remained overwhelmingly homogeneous and essentialized. Often referred to as a model minority, Asian American children have been noted for their academic achievement and economic mobility. The most common explanation used to describe such “success” has resorted to cul- tural discourses focused on homogenized notions of “Asian” values such as work ethic, education, and nuclear family (Mordkowitz & Ginsberg, 1987; New York Times, 1966; Sung, 1987; U.S. News and World Report, 1966). However, such cultural explanations ignore important structural or class issues; overlook the diverse backgrounds and experiences between and among the Asian American groups; pit Asian Americans against other minority groups; and ignore children who are poor, failing, or dropping out of school (Fong and Shinagawa 2000; Kao, 1995; Kiang and Kaplan, 1994; Lee, 1996; Lew, 2003, 2004, 2006; Louie, 2001, 2004; Pang and Cheng, 1998; Park et al., 2003; Suzuki, 1977; Woo, 2000).

One of the least-examined structural factors regarding academic achievement of Asian Americans is the role of class, and how it impacts parental strategies, access to schooling resources, and accumulation of social capital. That is, how do socioeconomic backgrounds affect variabil- ity of educational achievement among children of Asian immigrants? How do middle-class Asian parents, compared to working-class Asian par- ents, gain different resources from schools or from co-ethnic communi- ties? In what ways do variability of economic, social, and cultural factors affect the “success” and “failure” of Asian American students?

This research begins to answer some of these questions. By using Korean Americans as a case study, it illustrates how school performance of Asian American children changes and adapts to given social and eco- nomic contexts—families’ socioeconomic backgrounds, schooling resources, and economic opportunities within co-ethnic networks. This research compares the schooling experiences of two groups of Korean American youths in New York City urban schools (see Table 1). One group represents academically achieving students who attend a competi- tive magnet high school, while the other group represents “at-risk” high- school dropouts attending a community-based GED program (General Educational Development test for a high school equivalency diploma). The study examines how Korean American high-school students, from different socioeconomic backgrounds and schooling contexts, gain resources from their immigrant parents’ co-ethnic networks; moreover, it examines different educational strategies employed by the two groups of

A Structural Analysis of Success and Failure of Asian Americans 371

parents and how this process affects their children’s educational attain- ment.

While Korean Americans have been homogeneously touted for their entrepreneurial success and economic mobility, this study points to the socioeconomic variability within co-ethnic networks, and examines how the difference of social class backgrounds impacts educational strategies employed by the two groups of parents. This study argues that first-gen- eration parents and co-ethnic networks are extremely important for sec- ond-generation Korean American youths; however, it is also critical to dis- tinguish socioeconomic differences within Korean American communi- ties and who benefits more from such enclaves (Lew, 2004, 2006). For instance, this study shows that while most of the parents of the academi- cally achieving students at the magnet high school are entrepreneurs, most of the parents of the high-school dropouts are employees of co-eth- nic entrepreneurs and do not own their own businesses. A greater per- centage of Korean high-school dropouts, compared to the magnet high- school students, come from single-parent households, which further lim- its their family income. In addition, the dropout students compared to the academic students also attended urban schools that were wrought with limited institutional resources. Therefore, in such different social and economic contexts, the two groups of Korean American students receive different sets of structural support from their families, co-ethnic networks, and schools (Lew, 2006).

The findings show that the magnet high-school students, by being embedded in strong first-generation co-ethnic networks, gain access to important information on schooling and colleges. That said, how the

Table 1: Students’ Backgrounds

Students’ Backgrounds Magnet High GED Total

Number of respondents N=42 N=30 N=72 Male 36% 60% 48% Female 64% 40% 52% 1.5 Generation 38% 40% 39% 2nd Generation 62% 60% 61% Single Parent Household 12% 40% 26% Eligible for Reduced Lunch 36% 80% 58% Lives in Queens, New York 79% 90% 85% At least one parent works in ethnic economy 60% 80% 70% At least one parent owns their own business 53% 13% 33% At least one parent works for co-ethnic entrepreneurs 7% 67% 37%

372 Teachers College Record

information is actually used to provide educational support for the stu- dents also depends on the socioeconomic backgrounds of the parents. For instance, although both groups of parents value education, the mag- net school parents are more likely to send their children to private tuition-based after-school academies in order to provide them with addi- tional schooling and college counseling. These academies, called hag won, mostly located in Korean ethnic enclaves, provide tutorials on school subjects and standardized exams, as well as bilingual college coun- selors. These resources provide institutional support for the children, as well as important bilingual support for the immigrant parents who are limited in English language skills and knowledge of the U.S. educational system. Through such educational support, the magnet high-school stu- dents received important college and career counseling, as well as tutor- ing on the school subjects and standardized exams throughout their high-school years. In contrast, the low-income Korean high-school dropouts rarely attended hag won since their parents could not afford the tuition. Moreover, these students had to work after school to compensate for their limited family income. Consequently, their parents predomi- nantly relied on their children’s schools for educational and counseling support. However, the Korean high-school dropouts in this study attended urban schools with limited educational resources to effectively assist them in school.

The study shows how middle-class parents at the magnet high school, compared to working-class parents of the high-school dropouts are more likely to overcome schooling and language limitations while advancing edu- cational opportunities for their children. It further illustrates how Asian families’ class position may affect the nature and quality of their chil- dren’s education, and how the cumulative effects of social, economic, and cultural resources to overcome limited schooling resources are deeply implicated in reproduction of social inequalities. This compara- tive study notes the importance of considering variability within Asian ethnic groups—their socioeconomic backgrounds, parental strategies, and schooling resources—in order to understand how academic achieve- ment and aspirations are integrally linked to important social and eco- nomic contexts (Lew, 2006).

ROLE OF CLASS, RACE, AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN SCHOOL ACHEIVEMENT

An overwhelming body of research shows that structural factors of family income, parental education level, and access to schooling resources

A Structural Analysis of Success and Failure of Asian Americans 373

greatly impact students’ academic achievement and economic mobility: In the aggregate, middle-class students, compared to poor and working- class students, are more likely to achieve in school, attend better quality schools, and graduate from college (Anyon, 1997; Apple, 1993; Bourdieu, 1977; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Coleman, 1987 Jencks, 1972; Kozol, 1991, Orfield, 1992; Willis, 1977). Conversely, high-school dropouts are disproportionately those students from low-income fami- lies, attending poor ineffective schools, and facing institutional barriers in and outside of schools (Ekstrom et al, 1986; Natriello et al, 1990; Rumberger et al, 1990; Whelage and Rutter, 1986).

Research on parental involvement indicates that middle-class parents have a great advantage over working-class parents in terms of the avail- ability of resources and cultural capital with which to assist their children in schooling. Parents of lower socioeconomic status, compared to parents of higher socioeconomic status, are less able to provide structural and economic resources to their children, gain cultural and institutional sup- port from schools and personnel, and be actively involved in their chil- dren’s home and school work, despite the desire for their children to excel in schools (Astone and McLanahan, 1991; Epstein, 1990; Lareau, 1987, 2003; Louie, 2001, 2004). For instance, Louie (2001, 2004) showed that middle-class Chinese parents compared to the working-class Chinese parents were more likely to provide educational resources and guidance for their 1.5- and second-generation children. Lareau’s work on cultural capital (2003) illustrates how middle-class white and black parents, given their higher occupational status, as well as access to important cultural capital at home, work, and schools, engage in a pattern of “concerted cul- tivation” (pg. 38), or highly structured educational activities that helps them learn academic skills and cultural discourses—a process that fur- ther helps them excel in and outside of school. On the other hand, while the working-class white and black parents also have educational aspira- tions for their children, they could not readily provide such structured educational activities, as a result of economic limitations and an inability to mobilize their cultural capital into institutional resources for their chil- dren’s schooling. As such, working-class parents often resort to and rely on the teachers and schools to take care of their children’s schooling. However, poor children often attend schools that are limited in impor- tant institutional resources necessary for school achievement, such as access to guidance counselors, teachers, and other community members who are integrally connected to mainstream economic opportunities and institutional resources that are pivotal for academic achievement and social mobility. Moreover, schools are less likely to value the cultural cap- ital of poor and working-class parents and children (Croninger and Lee,

374 Teachers College Record

2001; Fine, 1991; Lareau, 1987, 2003; Lew, 2004, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 2001).

The salience of class on school achievement is important to note, par- ticularly in light of the growing number of studies on social capital and immigrant communities. Research shows that social networks from eth- nic entrepreneurship, local churches, and community organizations cre- ate job opportunities, reinforces values that promote education, and sanctions trust and norms that are conducive to academic achievement for children of immigrants. That is, immigrants who join a well-estab- lished co-ethnic community gain a range of moral and material resources—a process that has served as a prime avenue for mobility for second-generation youths. (Light and Bonacich, 1988; Portes and Rumbaut, 1996; Portes and Zhou, 1993; Zhou and Bankston III, 1998). Compared to any other immigrant groups, children of Asian immigrants, in particular, have been cited as those who consistently achieve academi- cally and attain social mobility as a result of their parents’ accumulation of social capital and strong co-ethnic networks (Portes and Zhou, 1993; Zhou and Bankston III, 1998).

However, in the midst of these important studies, there is a limited understanding of class variability within co-ethnic Asian communities and how this factor impacts second-generation children’s access to social capital, educational resources, and parental guidance (Lee, 2004; Lew, 2004, 2006; Louie, 2001, 2004). As this research indicates, class variability within the Korean American communities does impact whether and how the parents and students gain access to social capital, as well as educa- tional resources from ethnic communities and schools toward achieving in school.

Notwithstanding the benefits of co-ethnic networks for Asian immi- grants and their children, researchers point to the economic limitations of ethnic solidarity and argue that theories of enclave economy should take into account class differences among the immigrants within the eth- nic enclaves themselves (Abelmann and Lie, 1995; Kwong, 1996; Sanders and Nee, 1987). Sanders and Nee (1987) point to the limitations of eco- nomic and social mobility in the ethnic enclaves and argue that the ben- efits of the enclave economy apply mostly to entrepreneurs, or “immi- grant bosses,” but not necessarily to co-ethnic “immigrant workers.” The economic success of many Korean Americans has been attributed to their middle-class urban backgrounds as well as their high educational and occupational levels prior to immigration (Kim 1981; Light and Bonacich, 1988). However, researchers show that despite the benefits of co-ethnic networks, it is also important to address varied socioeconomic back- grounds, poverty, racism, and other institutional barriers faced by Korean

A Structural Analysis of Success and Failure of Asian Americans 375

American communities (Ablemann and Lie, 1995; Hurh and Kim, 1984; Lee, 2004; Lew, 2004, 2006; Min, 1996).

When addressing issues of social capital in school context, it is also important to distinguish variability of class and network orientation within ethnic and racial groups. If social capital derives from social rela- tionships, then different groups of students and parents also have varying degrees of advantage based on class, race, and institutional discourses within the network. Thus, social networks are implicated in the reproduc- tion of inequality (Bourdieu, 1977; Lin, 2000; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001; Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch, 1995). For middle-class white stu- dents, since their family members have connections and ties to middle- class institutional resources and opportunities, parents themselves often act as a valuable institutional resource. In other words, the students are embedded in middle-class and privileged networks in their families and communities. However, working-class minority and immigrant students need to face and traverse the boundaries of racial minority, language acquisition, and low socioeconomic status in order to access middle-class institutional resources and economic opportunities (Bourdieu, 1977; Lareau, 1987, 2003; Lew, 2006; Phelan and Davidson, 1993; Stanton- Salazar, 1997, 2001; Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco, 1995, 2001). Moreover, poor minority students living and attending schools in low- income isolated communities are literally cut off from capital, networks, and institutional resources that are needed to gain jobs, college admit- tance, and opportunities for moving into the mainstream economy (Anyon, 1997; Noguera, 2003; Orfield and Eaton, 1996).

Ogbu’s (1987) research on race and achievement further illustrates the significance of historical racial barriers that minority students face and their cultural frame of reference in response to such institutional barri- ers. He argues that for involuntary immigrants, such as African American students, a low school performance is a form of adaptation or a survival strategy to endure historical and structural barriers such as inferior schooling, job ceiling, and racial discrimination. In order to resist these societal limitations and barriers, African Americans form an oppositional cultural frame of reference and oppositional social identity to dominant white society. He argues that this oppositional cultural frame of reference leads some African American students to attribute characteristics leading to academic success as “white peoples domain,” and, therefore, resist excelling in school to avoid being labeled as “acting white.” Notwithstanding the significance of Ogbu’s theory, the findings in this research on Korean American students complicates the dichotomy of vol- untary and involuntary immigrant groups, and points to the significance of social-class division within groups, as well as school context that may

376 Teachers College Record

explain variability of school achievement (Lew, 2004; 2006). Other emerging studies also show that minority students may be adopting and negotiating a set of different cultural repertoires depending on the given social, economic, and school context (Butterfield, in press, Carter, 2003; O’Conner, 1999; Tyson et al., 2005). For instance, Carter (2003) draws a distinction between dominant and non-dominant cultural capital, and argues that the low-income black youths may be negotiating both of these forms of cultural capital as a way to maintain “status-positioning” in schools and communities. That is, the role of race, class, and culture on school achievement among minority students may be more nuanced and multidimensional than what has been previously argued.

Despite these important studies, experiences of Asian American chil- dren remain either static or invisible. Moreover, the “success” of Asian Americans is often compared and contrasted with the “failure” of other minorities, without adequately taking into account important structural factors and schooling resources to frame their experiences. As Slaughter- Defoe and colleagues (1990) have argued, research design of family and educational achievement of African American and Asian American chil- dren has been historically influenced by societal stereotypes. Meaning, while research in education predicts educational failure for Blacks and Hispanics, it predicts educational success for Asians and Whites. As they have poignantly argued, research design and theoretical framework should challenge the stereotype of various ethnic and racial groups, and critically examine variations across as well as among ethnic and racial groups.