“Starting at the Top”: Identifying and Understanding Later Generation Chicano Students in Schools

Abstract

Research on Latinos in schools tends to focus on first-generation immigrant and second-generation students. This article raises the profile of the later-generation (third or later) Chicano (LGC) or Mexican American students who continue to experience academic neglect despite their citizenship and English monolingualism. Using 31 oral histories from a multi-generational Mexican American family, this paper describes LGC ethnic identity and school experience in relation to race and class. I propose that schools “start at the top” to improve Latino educational attainment by identifying LGC early for placement in advanced tracks and by providing consistent access to quality academic and career counseling.

Key words:

• later-generation Mexican American students
• ethnic identity
• academic success
• academic guidance

Notes

¹The term Chicano does not connote any political affiliation or attitude. It is used as an identifying label interchangeable with Mexican American, an ethnic label.

²According to Valenzuela and Gonzalez (2000), nativity in studies on Latinos is often “ignored” or “oversimplified” because a large percentage of the population is foreign born and illegal. Furthermore, “several methodological issues and structural problems to this population,” such as change in census labels, make it “difficult to accurately measure and compare Latinos over time” (p. 252). Nevertheless, Bean, Trejo, Capps, and Tyler (2001), Gonzalez (2002), and Groger and Trejo (2002) provided a good analysis of first- through third-generation Mexican Americans with regard to education, income/earnings, occupation, and other relevant factors.

³The difference between these two populations is significant, but not extreme, and is relatively small compared to Anglos. Third-generation Chicanos who own their homes have an 11% advantage over the first generation (53% vs. 42%). Dividend income for the first-generation population is 2.5%, whereas for the third generation it is 12.1% (Gonzalez, 2002). These statistics indicate mobility in the third generation, but social economic activity is still within a working- to lower middle-class position.

⁴ Bean et al. (2001) stated that the statistics on Latinos are dramatically affected by the economic conditions of the foreign born and newly arrived. This downplays the positive economic situation experienced by the native born, particularly their middle-class status, which has grown considerably since 1979. Latino middle-class households increased the most in 1998 and included 42% of native-born individuals who earned an annual income of at least $40,000. This statistic appears to be contrary to the claim that LGC families remain working class. Upon closer inspection, Bean et al.'s findings indicate that 42% of native-born Mexicans are middle class, whereas the remaining 58% make less than $40,000 a year. It is important to note that these statistics do not disaggregate for generation, conflating the increase in educational gains for the second generation; they also do not identify whether households have a single wage earner versus dual-wage earners. This latter type of household (which suggests a combined income from two working-class jobs) is particularly vulnerable to downward mobility if one earner loses his or her job.

⁵Although LGC families resemble the diverse American marital and family patterns, more than half (53%) of Mexican Americans are married (Ramirez, 2004).

⁶Current research (Duarte, 2006; Jiménez, 2007; Macias, 2006) has begun to detail the complexity of LGC ethnicity. Although different from Mexican immigrants and second-generation persons, LGCs have an affinity for immigrants as a result of their direct experience with immigrant relatives or members of the community, suggesting that sustained or intermittent contact might play a role in the degree to which they foster a connection to their Mexican past. Jiménez explained the assimilative or “restrictive” tendency of LGCs toward immigrants as a result of the social costs to LGCs' social position in relation to Anglos. But Jiménez also described how LGCs espouse a cultural affinity for Mexican immigrants because increased immigration has created an occupational niche for LGCs as ethnic representatives

⁷Although these studies support a decline in LGC achievement, Bettie (2003) noted mixed results regarding the influence of generation on achievement, as some studies support the effect whereas others refute it. She claimed that “no studies are comprehensive enough to control for all variables that need to be considered, including generation, socioeconomic status of family before immigration, socioeconomic status in the United States, ethnicity … gender, language fluency … and whether academic achievement is disaggregated by vocational and college prep curriculums” (p. 218, Note 5). A more accurate interpretation may be that, rather than a decline in educational level, there is a diminishing gain, as the educational gains are greater between the first and second generations than they are between the second and third generations (Gonzalez, 2002).

⁸The primary data, collected from 1998 to 1999, derived from my study of the Fuentes family, which comprised oral history interviews with 33 members, including myself, aged 7 to 91, in addition to participant observations of large and small family events, from anniversary parties to funerals to holiday celebrations. I applied narrative analysis to the interviews to find patterns of change and continuity between and within generations. Methodologically, I experienced advantages similar to those of other insider accounts (ease of access to the field and efficiency of rapport building) as well as complications (modified interview style and constraints to the research process due to preexisting social roles). A more detailed account of the methodological issues exists in Chávez (2008).

⁹Since the study, 10 of the 11 third-generation members and 6 of the 7 fourth-generation members own their own home.

¹⁰For a fuller account of the Fuentes family demographics, see Chávez (2007b).

¹¹ Bettie (2003) described her LGC Mexican American female students using Howell's (1973) working-class category as “settled living” to distinguish from the tenuous and unpredictable lives of first- and second-generation Mexicans/Mexican American students. Families of this type have “jobs that have relative security, higher pay, and at times health benefits … are orderly and predictable and sometimes include the ownership of a modest home” (p. 13). This brief description seems generally to apply to the families of the Fuentes LGC members. Note, however, that the degree of stability that these families experience in comparison to earlier generations is far from high, as their jobs are those most likely to be directly influenced by economic downturns.

¹²Some may argue that this designation of LGCs as bicultural is unwarranted because they may not exhibit “enough” of the Mexican cultural values. A problem with the term bicultural is that it does not clearly specify “how much” of each culture warrants this designation. Phinney (1996) concurred, stating that studies conceptualize ethnicity linearly even though evidence has shown acculturation to be a dynamic process and culture has only been measured indirectly with demographic data. “Thus, individuals may participate to varying degrees in their ethnic culture and that of larger society and may be bicultural” (pp. 921–922), suggesting that measures of acculturation must account for this variance in levels of ethnic culture.

¹³ Gans (1997) made the point that research on ethnic groups (past and present) has not been able to discern whether the retention of ethnic culture, such as bilingualism or endogamy, is a voluntary or involuntary behavior. He claimed that retaining elements must be voluntarily chosen as an indicator of ethnic retention. The use of the word select does not imply that Fuentes members have chosen (voluntarily) which Mexican cultural elements to retain when those elements may have become an element of family interaction (involuntary), which “involuntarily” socializes members into group behaviors, attitudes, and values.

¹⁴For simplicity of presentation, names, generation, and/or cohort or age are used to identify members.

¹⁵For a more detailed account of the Fuentes family ethnicity, see Chávez (2007a).

¹⁶The majority of Fuentes members completed high school with a diploma or general equivalency diploma but experienced academic invisibility. A minority (one in the third generation and three in the fourth generation) were, in the strictest sense, “returners.” These members did not return to their respective high schools but rather completed high school at an adult or night school. See Chávez (2007a) for a fuller description of the school experiences of the Fuentes family.

¹⁷It is duly noted that high school counselors face extreme working conditions that can compromise their ability to counsel all students effectively. Counselors have faced several challenges in the past few decades, including an increasingly diverse student population, greater administrative duties, higher counselor-to-student ratios, and a lack of preparation and training for the current labor market. Krei and Rosenbaum (2001) also acknowledged the controversy over the ethical role of advising for college those students who do not have the appropriate academic preparation. Some counselors often feel conflicted about advising students about college when it may be an unrealistic goal.

^aThis assistance consisted of general and specific information about progress toward graduation or college.

^bAt the time of the study, the older third-generation cohort ranged in age from 40 to 54 years and had gone to high school from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s. The younger third-generation cohort was between 33 and 40 years old and had attended high school from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. The fourth generation, from 26 to 34 years of age, had gone to high school from the early to late 1980s.

¹⁸ Chávez (2007a) made it clear that the educational attainment of second-generation Fuentes members was colored by the social expectations and norms for Mexican American students not to complete high school. In fact, during the second generation's adolescence, Mexican Americans began to drop out after elementary school. Thus, the high school graduation of three male Fuentes members and the middle and high school education of the three women in this generation were significant accomplishments. Furthermore, second-generation members experienced social mobility into the working class as a result of the economic boom after World War II. It should be noted that it is necessary to consider the historical period to understand the later generation Mexican American experience.