Does selective acculturation work? Cultural orientations, educational aspirations and school effort among children of immigrants in Norway

ABSTRACT

This article examines educational aspirations, expectations and school effort among adolescents, using the first wave of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway. In comparative terms, youth in Norway have exceptionally high aspirations. Nevertheless, we find an immigrant advantage in terms of both educational aspirations, expectations and school effort, despite considerable disadvantage in terms of low parental socio-economic status and early educational attainment. A significant part of the immigrant advantage in aspirations and effort is associated with selective acculturation, defined as cultural distinctiveness in terms of religion, collective family orientation and regular use of parental language. This is however not the case for expectations. The findings support a central component of segmented assimilation theory, which states that in their efforts to overcome the challenges of integration, children of disadvantaged minorities may benefit from maintaining some aspects of their parents’ cultural orientations.

KEYWORDS:

• Children of immigrants
• educational aspirations
• school effort
• selective acculturation

Introduction

Over the last decades, international migration has led to unprecedented ethnic, racial and religious diversity within Western liberal societies, and integration – in terms of socio-economic outcomes, identity and social cohesion – has moved to the centre of policy and academic debate (Drouhot and Nee 2019). While immigrants face a wide range of challenges, the decisive test of integration is often thought to be the equal incorporation of their children, and the primary institution though which this can be achieved is the educational system (Alba and Holdaway 2013; Heath and Brinbaum 2014). There is today a bourgeoning literature exploring educational outcomes and trajectories for children of immigrants throughout Europe and the US. A key finding is that ethnic minorities often experience disadvantages in academic performance, yet are advantaged in terms of high educational aspirations and choice of educational path net of previous achievements (Jonsson and Rudolphi 2011; Heath and Brinbaum 2014; Alba and Foner 2015; Kalter and Heath 2018). While the immigrant disadvantage in performance can be explained by limited parental resources, the explanation as to why children of immigrants have so high ambitions, as well as under what conditions these can be translated into actual attainment, is less obvious (Jackson, Jonsson, and Rudolphi 2011; Lee and Zhou 2015; Engzell 2018). The first research question in this article is whether we can observe an immigrant advantage not just in educational aspirations and expectations, but also in terms of school effort, among children of immigrants in Norway. The second question is to what extent this advantage can be related to selective acculturation – defined as the maintenance of the immigrant generation’s cultural orientations measured in terms of language use, religiosity and collective family norms. The aim is to address educational ambitions among children of immigrants in light of a long-standing debate within the literature on immigrant assimilation, namely the relationship between cultural adaptation and socio-economic integration.

Classic and contemporary neo-assimilation theory assert that cultural adaptation and structural integration go hand in hand: by learning the language and acculturating to the habits and orientations of the host country, immigrants and their offspring gain access to a variety of resources and become less vulnerable to discrimination, making it easier to succeed within mainstream institutions (Warner and Srole 1945; Alba and Nee 2009). This view has been challenged by segmented assimilation theory, which argued that for today’s immigrants facing polarised labour markets, racial discrimination and street crime, and who lack the resources to confront these challenges head on, the best path may not lie in full acculturation into the surrounding society, but in keeping it at an arm’s length, instead utilising the ethnic capital available within their own families and communities (Portes and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes, Fernandez-Kelly, and Haller 2005; Portes and Fernández-Kelly 2008; Haller, Portes, and Lynch 2011a). They called this alternative route to upward mobility selective acculturation, which involves learning the language and culture of the host society while at the same time preserving central elements of immigrant generation’s language, values, and customs (Portes and Rivas 2011). This would have several benefits for vulnerable minorities: a firm identity and pride in one’s own heritage to strengthen confidence and self-esteem; a strong bond with their parents’ culture to strengthen parental authority, family discipline and support, and to mediate and transmit cultural capital from the home country; protection from the perils of ‘street life’ and access to resources and opportunity within the wider ethnic community (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes, Fernandez-Kelly, and Haller 2005; Portes and Fernández-Kelly 2008; Portes and Rivas 2011).

However, the notion that maintaining ethnic difference may lead to successful outcomes for the second generation has been controversial since it runs so contrary to traditional concepts of integration, and empirical research has not provided unambiguous support for its benefits (Thomson and Crul 2007; Waters et al. 2010; Alba and Foner 2015; Koopmans 2016). Moreover, the concept of selective acculturation is closely related to specific features of the US institutional context such as institutionalised racial hierarchies, residential segregation and urban crime. Testing the utility of the concept in the context of the Norwegian welfare state can therefore shed new light on its more general applicability.

This article uses the first wave of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway (CILS-NOR) to examine the relationship between cultural orientations, and educational aspirations, expectations and school effort. The results show that children of immigrants from the global south are disadvantaged in terms of parental resources and educational performance, yet show a substantial advantage in educational aspirations and expectations, as well as school effort measured as time spent doing homework. Moreover, the analyses show that cultural distinction in terms of language use, religiosity and collective family norms – cultural dimensions where many immigrants differ sharply from native Norwegians – can explain some of this advantage. However, while selective acculturation has positive effects on aspirations and effort, there is no such effect on educational expectations. To what extent selective acculturation may help disadvantaged children of immigrants translate aspirations into actual attainment remains to see.

Educational aspirations and outcomes for children of immigrants

Many immigrants from the global south to the wealthy west have modest levels of education, lack host country language skills and face discrimination in the labour market. Consequently, they are often found in the bottom of the receiving society class structure, with low levels of income and employment. This is the case for Latin Americans in the US, as well as labour migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle-East in Western Europe (Alba and Foner 2015). Since parental socio-economic status has a strong influence on educational aspirations, expectations and achievements of children (Haller and Portes 1973; Boudon 1974; Breen and Goldthorpe 1997), we may expect children of disadvantaged immigrants to inherit a considerable proportion of their parents’ often-disadvantaged position. In the US, children of low skilled immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean have higher risks of dropping out of high school compared to native whites, as well as higher levels of unemployment and incarceration (Haller, Portes, and Lynch 2011a). In Europe, despite considerable variations, children of immigrants from the global south tend to have lower educational attainments and higher unemployment than the majority (Heath et al. 2007; Heath, Rothon, and Kilpi 2008; Levels and Dronkers 2008; Heath and Brinbaum 2014). This has led some scholars to express concerns that the children of immigrants might stagnate in the marginal working class or even experience ‘downward assimilation’ (Gans 1992; Portes and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Haller, Portes, and Lynch 2011a).

Yet when compared to children of native parents with similar socio-economic status, children of immigrants often do better than expected. In the US, children of immigrants on average have higher test scores, educational ambitions and educational attainments than their native origin counterparts of similar socioeconomic backgrounds (Keller and Tillman 2008; Alon 2009; Duong et al. 2016; Feliciano and Lanuza 2016). Children of Caribbean and Pakistani immigrants in Britain have lower performance than native origin youths in examinations taken at age 16, but have higher rates of continuation in tertiary education (Rothon 2007). In Sweden, children of non-European immigrants are disadvantaged in their early school performance yet show high propensity to enrol in academic education (Jonsson and Rudolphi 2011). This growing body of research shows that while ethnic minorities tend to experience disadvantages in academic performance, they are often advantaged in terms of high educational aspirations and choice of educational path net of previous achievements. This matches Boudons distinction between primary effects of family background – which are those related to their actual levels of academic performance – and secondary effects – which are expressed via the educational choices that children make within the range of choice that their previous performance allows them (Boudon 1974; Jackson et al. 2007). Yet while native working-class children are often disadvantaged in both performance and choice, children of low skilled immigrants tend to be disadvantaged in the former and advantaged in the latter. This strong orientation towards education despite significant initial disadvantage has been given various labels, including ‘immigrant optimism’ (Kao and Tienda 1995), ‘second generation advantage’ (Kasnitz, Mollenkopf, and Waters 2009) or the ‘immigrant drive’ (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes and Rivas 2011; Portes 2012). Some also speak of an ‘immigrant paradox’ in education, in particular related to children of Asian immigrants in the US, who perform exceptionally well (Lee and Zhou 2015; Feliciano and Lanuza 2017). For most groups, however, the extent to which the immigrant drive is translated into actual attainments is more limited, and depends to a large part on the institutional context. A relatively robust finding is that minority students benefit from more open and choice-driven school systems like those in Scandinavia and the UK – where high ambitions and effort have a wide scope to play out – compared to systems based on early tracking as in Germany and the Netherlands – where weak early performance lock individuals into permanent disadvantage (Jackson, Jonsson, and Rudolphi 2011; Crul, Schneider, and Lelie 2012).

Different explanations have been proposed to explain this advantage. One is that ethnic capital – a form of social capital within ethnic communities – help propel children of immigrants through the educational system. This may consist of cultural norms of parental authority, obedience and social control within the family. Such norms are commonly found in less developed societies and often maintained within immigrant communities (Modood 2004). It may also be associated with the immigrant experience itself. Dreby (2010) describes an ‘immigrant bargain’, whereby parents sacrifice through the travails of migration and their children repay them with socioeconomic attainment through education. Ethnic capital also includes material resources and information available through bonds of solidarity and cohesion within the ethnic community (Lee and Zhou 2015). What makes it into capital is that it may compensate for some of the mainstream economic and cultural capital which children of disadvantaged immigrants tend to lack (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Modood 2004; Zhou 2005; Shah, Dwyer, and Modood 2010; Lee and Zhou 2015).

A different strand of literature focusses on the educational selectivity of immigrants – either in absolute terms (compared to natives) or in relative terms (compared to home country average). For example, Chinese immigrants to the US have far higher levels of education than the average in Chinese but also than the average American. This absolute positive selection help explain why their children outperform US natives (Lee and Zhou 2015; Feliciano and Lanuza 2017). In Europe, most immigrants from the global south have modest educational levels measured by the host country standards, yet when measured as their relative attainments within the social hierarchy of the origin country, they are often positively selected. As Marianne Kindt has pointed out – what is often interpreted as an ‘immigrant drive’ may very well just be a transnational version of a ‘middle class drive’ (Kindt 2017). For many, however, the effect amounts to what Engzell (2018) calls an ‘aspiration squeeze’. Parents’ social status from the origin country may imbue their children with high aspirations, but their modest levels of education in absolute terms – as well as disadvantage due to discrimination and lack of language skills and social networks – provide limited resources to support actual performance.

The role of selective acculturation

Ethnic capital and selectivity are sometimes framed as mutually exclusive explanations, but in reality they are highly compatible, since cultural capital from the home country can be sustained, reinforced and transmitted through ethnic capital (Portes and Rivas 2011; Lee and Zhou 2014; Lee and Zhou 2015). So is the notion of selective acculturation. The key mechanism has to do with intergenerational relations: by maintaining an orientation towards the immigrant culture and identity, children of immigrants are more likely to maintain close emotional bonds and a normative alliance with their parents. Whether the ultimate cause of immigrant optimism is to be found in their parents’ culture or their relative class position in the origin country or both, such an intergenerational alliance may be conductive for its transmission. They are more likely to internalise high parental expectations and to be influenced by extended family, co-ethnics etc. who reinforce such norms; they are more susceptible to social control; and they are more protected from the perils of street life in their immediate surroundings (Portes and Fernández-Kelly 2008; Feliciano and Lanuza 2016). The alternative may be role reversal and loss of parental authority, which is particularly risky for adolescents facing barriers to integration in the form of poverty and racism (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes and Fernández-Kelly 2008; Portes, Fernández-Kelly, and Haller 2009).

Both theoretically and empirically, the concept of selective acculturation is contested. The original CILS study showed that fluent bilingualism – used as a proxy for selective acculturation – was significantly associated with positive outcomes in late adolescence, including higher school grades, educational aspirations and self-esteem, and lesser intergenerational conflict (Portes and Rumbaut 2001). The study’s qualitative component indicated that instances of success-out-of-disadvantage are was almost invariably undergirded by selective acculturation in the form of strong parental control and family discipline (Portes and Fernández-Kelly 2008; Portes, Fernández-Kelly, and Haller 2009). Other US studies showed that high parental expectations, strong interest in school and regular use of parental language support and reinforce educational expectations among children of immigrants (Feliciano and Lanuza 2016). Waters et al. (2010) on the other hand, find that type of acculturation has no significant impact on integration outcomes whatsoever, reflecting how the concept of selective acculturation has been a key point of disagreement between proponents of neo-assimilation and segmented assimilation theory (Alba, Kasinitz, and Waters 2011; Haller, Portes, and Lynch 2011b). A related empirical literature within psychology, measuring the effects of acculturation in terms of identification with the ‘mainstream’ or ‘ethnic’ culture, have neither provided entirely coherent reults. Schotte et al. find that ethnic identification is beneficial for aspects of psychological adaptation but not for academic achievement (Schotte, Stanat, and Edele 2018). A comparative study in six European countries found that mainstream orientation predicted better outcomes in all countries, whereas the added value of ethnic orientation was only observed in some countries (Schachner et al. 2017). Makarova and Birman (2015) suggest that the relation between immigrant students’ acculturation orientations and school adjustment may be moderated by between-country variation in the acculturative climate.

Children of immigrants in Norway

Like other Western European countries, immigration has over the last half century fundamentally changed the ethnic composition of Norwegian society. From the late 1960s until the so-called ‘Immigration-stop’ in 1975, a substantial number of labour migrants from Pakistan, Morocco, India, and Turkey arrived in response to the country’s recent economic growth (Brochmann & Kjeldstadli 2008). From the late 1970s, successive groups of refugees from countries like Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Ethiopia, Syria and Eritrea also entered Norway, and subsequent family reunification and transnational family formation have been an important source of immigration throughout the period. As part of the open EU/EEA area from 1994, Norway also attracted immigrants from Nordic countries and Western Europe, and after the eastwards EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007, labour migration – this time from new EU members like Poland, Lituania and Romania – once again became a major source of immigration (Friberg 2016; Friberg and Midtbøen 2018). By 2018, 17.3% of the Norwegian population were either immigrants (14.1%) or native-born children of immigrants (3.2%), according to Statistics Norway. Among the younger generations, and in major urban areas, immigrants and their descendants make up a much larger proportion. In the capital city Oslo, 42% of children born in 2017 were born to parents who were immigrants or children of immigrants.

While high thresholds into the labour market is a significant hurdle for integration of low-skilled immigrants to Norway (Bratsberg, Raaum, and Røed 2014; Brochmann 2015), recent studies suggest that the opportunity structure is more favourable for their children. Along with its Nordic neighbours, Norway has developed into one of the most equal societies in the world, with high rates of intergenerational socioeconomic mobility (Corak 2013). Recent evidence suggests this also apply to children of immigrants. Using administrative registry data, Hermansen (2016) find that native-immigrant gaps in completed education and relative earnings position are strongly reduced among children of immigrants and natives compared to the parental generation, and that the level of intergenerational gains are highest within groups characterised by the lowest parental statuses (Hermansen 2016). He argues that institutional features of Norwegian society, including a generous universal welfare state, low levels of socio-economic inequality and a publically funded comprehensive and open education system, are particularly conductive for upward mobility among children of immigrants (Hermansen 2017).

Compared to more closed educational systems based on early tracking and/or school tuition fees, Norway’s open, choice-driven educational system, with generous public funding arrangements, is exactly the kind of system where high aspirations and effort may have wide scope to play out and translate into actual attainment. However, the context of reception in Norway is very different from where the theory of selective acculturation was first developed. Selective acculturation is claimed to protect vulnerable minorities from the negative effects of discrimination and the lure of street life, while at the same time provide access to ethnic resources that compensate for lack of institutional support. Norway, however, does not share the US’ history of slavery and institutionalised racial hierarchies, its patterns of residential segregation, nor its levels of crime. Norway also has a lot more to offer in the form of integration programmes and welfare arrangements. Finding support for benefits of selective acculturation here would thus indicate the concept’s general applicability.

Data, methods and measures

The analyses use data from the first wave of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway. In 2016 a baseline survey of adolescents enrolled in their first year of secondary schooling (VG1) was conducted, when most were 16–17 years old. Secondary education is a universal right in Norway, and since practically everyone enrols for the first year, this represents a good approximation for the full cohort. Students in Oslo and Akershus counties, plus selected schools in the nearby city of Drammen was targeted, and the data covers the capital city as well as major adjacent areas and communities. Students could fill out an extensive questionnaire during school hours, while those not present received the questionnaire via the school email system. A gift card lottery was used to boost participation. In total, 7627 students filled out the questionnaire, which constitutes 48% of the total student cohort. Attrition was mainly due to the fact that some schools did not facilitate the survey. Among most of those schools that did facilitate, individual response rates were between 60% and 80%. Nonetheless, some caution is necessary when drawing conclusions. Through personal ID-numbers obtained from school authorities, the survey data were linked with administrative registry data, providing reliable information on demographic, household and economic background variables. Unfortunately, it was not possible to link approx. 10% of the sample with register data.

We show descriptive statistics on three sets of indicators: (1) parental socio-economic resources and the students own previous school achievements; (2) educational aspirations, expectations and school effort; and (3) indicators of linguistic, religious and cultural orientation. We then perform three separate multivariate regression analyses, using dummy variables indicating educational aspirations, educational expectations and school effort as dependent variables. Each regression is done in four steps. In step 1 we regress on parental country of origin, generational status and gender, in order to measure the immigrant advantage in absolute terms. We then introduce independent variables indicating parental socioeconomic status (step 2), the students’ previous educational achievements (step 3), and finally the three indicators of selective acculturation (step 4). We use Linear Probability Model (OLS regression with binary dependent variable) since this allows us to compare coefficients across models with different independent variables (Mood 2010).

Dependent variables

Educational aspirations (the level of education that respondents would ideally like to achieve) is measured using a dummy variable indicating those who aim to complete a university education at the level of master’s degree. In the descriptive statistics, we also indicate those who aim to complete a Bachelor degree level education. Since students generally have exceptionally high levels of aspirations, we only use the highest indicator in the multivariate analyses. Educational expectations (the level of education they realistically expect to achieve) are measured using a dummy variable indicating those who realistically expect to complete the same type of education. School effort is measured by a dummy variable indicating those who say that they spend two hours or more doing homework every day.

Independent variables

Parental socioeconomic status and previous achievements

Parental income is based on information from tax registers linked with survey data. In the descriptive statistics, we summarise income over the last three years for both the mother and father, and a dummy variable indicating students whose parents’ total income over the last three years amount to less than 60% of the median in the sample. This measure is commonly used for relative poverty in Norway. In the multivariate analyses, we report on the effects of the father’s and mother’s income separately, for each divided into income quintiles. Parental educational level is measured using information from The National Education Database, which registers the highest completed education for the entire population. For the descriptive statistics, we use a dummy variable indicating whether at least one of the students’ parents have completed education at university or college level. For the regression, we report on the students’ father’s and mother’s educational status separately, using a four-point scale (0 = less than secondary education; 1 = secondary level education; 2; university/college degree bachelor level; 3 = university/college degree masters level). Previous achievement is measured as the students’ grade average from compulsory school (completed 10th grade), which form the basis for enrolment into secondary education. Information for each individual student was provided by the county educational authorities. For the descriptive statistics, we use a dummy variable indicating whether the students’ grades were above the average for the sample as a whole. For the regression analyses, we divide the sample into quintiles based on grade average from compulsory school.

Selective acculturation

The literature often measures selective acculturation using bilingualism and/or use of parental language as a proxy for broader cultural orientations. However, the mechanisms through which selective acculturation is claimed to work is not related to language proficiency in itself, but to the maintenance of cultural norms and social practices and relations associated with the origin country. In this article I aim to use a broader measure of selective acculturation, using religiosity and family-orientation in addition to language use. Norway is one of the most secular and individualistic countries in the world, while many of its immigrants come from societies where both religion and collective family relations play a far greater role (Norris and Inglehart 2011; Basáñez and Inglehart 2015). High levels of religiosity and strong family-orientation, in addition to regularly using the parental language, is therefore a robust indicator selective acculturation. Religiosity is measured using the question ‘How important is religion in your life’. In the descriptive statistics we use a dummy variable indicating those respondents who say that religion is ‘very important’. In the regression, we use a four-point scale (0 = ‘not important’; 1 = ‘somewhat important’; 2 = ‘fairly important’; 3 = ‘very important’). Family-orientation is measured by the question ‘To what extent do you agree’ with the following statement: ‘To make my parents proud is one of the most important goals in my life’. This question is commonly used to measure the level of collectivism or familialism (Basáñez and Inglehart 2015). In the descriptive statistics we use a dummy variable indicating those who ‘completely agree’. For the regressions, we use a four-point scale (0= ‘completely disagree’; 1= ‘partially disagree’;2= ‘Partially agree’; 3= ‘Completely agree’). Parental language use is measured with a dummy variable indicating whether the respondents report that they regularly use a language other than Norwegian when talking to their parents.

Demographic information

We use information from the official population registers to classify the students according to immigration origin, immigrant generation and gender. We define children of immigrants as those with at least one foreign-born parent. Based on their parents’ country of birth students are grouped into ten categories. In addition to native origin youth, we show results for the three largest non-European country-groups (Pakistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka), as well as six regional categories. These categories, including the largest country groups and the number of respondents within each category, is presented in Table 1. These categories include both immigrants and Norwegian-born children of immigrants. In the multivariate analyses, we distinguish between those who are born abroad, and those are born in Norway to immigrant parents.

Table 1. Sample description: regional categories and largest country groups.

Regional/national group, according to parents place of birth	Largest national groups within category	Number of respondents (n)
Norway	Norway	4726
Western Europe, North America	Sweden, Denmark, Germany, UK and USA	825
Eastern Europe and the Balkans	Poland, Russia, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lithuania	352
Latin America	Chile, Brazil, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic	106
Pakistan	Pakistan	281
Middle East & North Africa	Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Morocco	511
Somalia	Somalia	169
Other Sub-Sahara Africa	Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Congo	169
Sri Lanka	Sri Lanka	160
Other South, South-East, East Asia	Vietnam, Phillippines, India, Thailand	328
Total		7627

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway (CILS-NOR) (linked with information from public registers, Statistics Norway).

Descriptive statistics

The first set of columns in Table 2 show how immigrant origin groups from the global south are substantially disadvantaged in terms of parental socio-economic resources. Among native origin youth, only 5% belong to what we have defined here as low-income families, and 58% have at least one parent with higher education. Children of immigrants from the wealthy west have even more resources available than natives. Children of immigrants from the global south on the other hand have significantly fewer resources. Most disadvantaged are children of Somali immigrants: 70% have parents with low income and only 14% have one parent with higher education. Students of Pakistani origin – the largest single group among children of immigrants in Norway – also have modest socioeconomic resources available: 57% have parents with low income, and only 21 have one parent with higher education. Similar levels of resources are found among students with parents from the Middle East and North Africa. Students originating from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Latin America, South and East Asia and to some extent Sub-Sahara Africa outside Somalia, have slightly more resources, but are still disadvantaged compared to natives and immigrants from the wealthy west. At the groups level, the students’ own grade averages from compulsory school vary according to a pattern strikingly similar to the distribution of parental resources. Among native origin students, 56% have grade averages from compulsory school above the median, and this is the case for as much as 65% among students with immigrant parents from the wealthy west. Students with parents from the global south perform significantly worse. Among Somali origin youth, only 14% have grade averages above the median; for Pakistani origin youth this applies to 28%. Children of immigrants from Sri Lanka the only exception to an otherwise consistent pattern, with relatively low levels of parental socioeconomic resources, yet grade averages from compulsory school on par with children of natives. In all groups, girls tend to have higher grade averages from compulsory school than boys.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

	(1) Parental socioeconomic status and educational resources				(2) Aspirations, expectations and effort				(3) Selective acculturation: Bilingualism, religiosity and family-orientation			n
	Low income family	One parent higher educ.	Grades above median (M/F)		Aim for university (bachelor’s degree)	Aim for university (master’s degree)	Realistic to complete master's degree	More than two hours homework every day	Speak foreign language with parents	Religion very important	Make parents proud main life goal
Origin
Native	5	58	56	(47/69)	62	38	36	38	7	4	23	4726
Western Europe etc.	4	68	65	(53/77)	64	42	40	42	48	4	24	825
Eastern Europe & the Balkans	30	38	35	(25/45)	55	35	30	51	68	22	40	352
Latin America	26	42	36	(36/37)	55	37	32	37	57	6	28	106
Pakistan	57	21	28	(22/35)	68	47	34	55	69	59	74	281
Middle East & North Africa	56	35	30	(25/34)	61	38	30	50	67	36	61	511
Somalia	70	14	14	(8/20)	65	35	28	58	62	70	69	169
Other Sub-Sahara Africa	33	37	30	(17/41)	57	34	31	55	47	39	50	169
Sri Lanka	22	26	56	(41/69)	71	54	38	63	66	15	60	160
Other South, South-East, East Asia	22	43	47	(36/58)	62	40	30	56	60	15	46	328
Total	14	52	50	(42/62)	62	39	35	42	25	11	31	7627

Notes: Indicators of structural resources, educational orientation and selective acculturation, by immigration origin. N = 7627.

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway (CILS-NOR) (linked with information from public registers, Statistics Norway).

The next set of columns show educational aspirations, expectations and effort. They show that students in Norway generally have exceptionally high ambitions: six out of ten report that they aim to complete a bachelor’s degree, and almost four out of ten report that they aim to complete an education at master’s degree level. Compared to the relatively similar CILS4EU survey, these results suggest that youth in Norway in fact have higher educational aspirations than young people in both Germany, the Netherlands, UK and Sweden (Hadjar and Scharf 2019). Young people’s aspirations are shaped by the socioeconomic status and human capital of their parents (Kao & Tienda 1995; Feliciano 2006), and grade averages from compulsory school are even more determining for the educational ambitions of young people, reflecting both the influence of family resources so far and the students’ own cognitive abilities (Haller and Portes 1973; Portes et al. 2013). Given what we know so far, we would expect children of disadvantaged immigrant groups to have substantially lower ambitions than natives. Yet the opposite is true – at least when we look at ideal aspirations. Children of immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa, and Somalia – despite huge disadvantages in terms of parental resources and grade averages – have aspirations on par with those of native origin youth. Children of immigrants from Pakistan and Sri Lanka – who suffer equal or even greater disadvantages in terms of parental resources – in fact have higher aspirations than native origin youth.

Once the distinction between ideal aspirations and realistic expectations is introduced, the lack of parental and educational resources to some extent ‘catches up’. In general, the discrepancy between ideal aspirations and realistic expectations is much larger for children of disadvantaged immigrants than for natives. This leads us to question whether the observed ‘immigrant optimism’ is just that; overly optimistic aspirations which most likely will not be realised? However, even their slightly more modest expectations are high once we control for socio-economic disadvantage. Moreover, children of immigrants – and in particular the most disadvantaged groups – spend substantially more time doing homework. While 38% of native origin youth report spending more than two hours on homework every day, the same is true for 55% among children of Pakistani immigrants, 58% among Somali origin youth and 63% among children of immigrants from Sri Lanka. Cautious optimism, yes, but hard work also.

Segmented assimilation theory proposes that children of disadvantaged immigrants can compensate for their lack of parental resources by relying on social norms and resources within their own families and ethnic communities. In order to make use of these resources, however, they must retain an orientation towards the culture and identity of their parents. The final three columns of Table 2 summarise three indicators of selective acculturation. The first show regular use of parental language. It shows that, not surprisingly, few children of natives regularly use a foreign language when talking to their parents, while this is, however, the case for a majority within most immigrant groups. The next two columns show indicators of religiosity and family-orientation, both of which are important sources of identity and social control within immigrant communities – in stark contrast to the secularism and individualism which otherwise permeates Norwegian society. Religion is particularly important for some Muslim immigrant groups; while only 4% of native origin youth report that religion is ‘very important’ in their lives, this is the case for 59% of students born to immigrants from Pakistan and as much as 70% among children of immigrants from Somalia. Religion is far less important for children of immigrants from the wealthy West and Latin America. Children of immigrants from South and East Asia and Eastern Europe, are less religious than Muslims, yet significantly more religious than natives. Children of immigrants from the global south also display significantly higher levels of collective family-orientation. Only 23% of native origin youths strongly agree that one of their main goals in life is to make their parents proud. To compare – this is the case for 60% among children of immigrants from Sri Lanka; 61% of those with parents from the Middle East and North Africa; 69% of Somali origin students; and as much as 74% among children of Pakistani immigrants.

Multivariate analysis

We now turn to the multivariate analyses, showing results for aspirations, expectations and effort separately. On each dependent variable, we perform the analyses in four steps.

Aspirations

The first step of the analysis shows that in absolute terms, children of immigrants from three groups – Western Europe, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – are significantly more likely to aspire towards completing a university education at master’s degree level or more, compared to native origin students. It also shows that girls on average have higher aspirations than boys. Immigrant generation has no significant effect. In step 2 we introduce four variables indicating parental socio-economic status. They show that both parental income and education, for both mothers and fathers, have a substantial effect on educational aspirations (parental education has a stronger effect that parental income; fathers’ income means more than mothers income; while mothers education matters more than fathers income). When parental socioeconomic status is introduced, the advantage among western European origin students is reduced, meaning that much of their absolute advantage is due to their parents’ high status. For children of immigrants from the global south, however, the effect is opposite – once parental socioeconomic status is taken into account, their relative advantage comes clearly into view. Once we take the students own educational achievements so far into account in step 3 – by far the strongest predictor of educational aspirations – this pattern is accentuated even more. Immigrant origin youth from the wealthy west no longer show any significant advantage, but all major groups from Africa, Asia and the Middle East now show substantial aspirational advantage, net of previous achievements and parental resources. Interestingly, when grades are introduced, the effect of gender is reversed, showing that girls’ advantage is related to performance, not aspirations.

In step 4 we introduce the three indicators of selective acculturation. The results show that while religiosity does not have any significant effect on educational aspirations, both familialism and bilingualism has a significant positive effect on educational aspirations. Moreover, the effect of immigrant origin is now substantially reduced for most groups, showing that these variables can explain at least some of the immigrant advantage (Table 3).

Table 3. Determinants of educational aspirations.

	Step 1 B(Beta)	Step 2 B(Beta)	Step 3 B(Beta)	Step 4 B(Beta)
Immigrant origin (ref. non-immigrant parents) - Westen Europe, etc. - Eastern Europe & the Balkans - Latin-America - Pakistan - Middle East & North Africa - Somalia - Other Sub-Sahara Africa - Sri Lanka - Other South and East Asia	.063 (.046)*** –.046 (–.019) .008 (.002) .140 (.052)*** .036 (.018) .038 (.011) .012 (.003) .244 (.068)*** .046 (.019)	.043 (.030)* .036 (.014) .116 (.022) .366 (.139)*** .208 (.102)*** .308 (.071)*** .097 (.025) .448 (.135)*** .175 (.066)***	.021 (.015) .093 (.034)* .120 (.022) .363 (.133)*** .241 (.114)*** .337 (.073)*** .124 (.030)* .373 (.111)*** .160 (.059)***	.009 (.006) .058 (.021) .120 (.021) .268 (.095)*** .184 (.085)*** .264 (.054)*** .088 (.021) .293 (.086)*** .119 (.044)**
Immigrant generation and gender - Foreign born (ref. Native born) - Girl (ref: boy)	–.039 (–.023) .039 (.040)***	.021 (.010) .043 (.043)***	.041 (.019) –.031 (–.031)*	.007 (.003) –.036 (–.036)**
Parental SES - Fathers income (quintiles) - Mothers income (quintiles) - Fathers education (4-point scale) - Mothers education (4-point scale)		.031 (.089)*** .024 (.069)*** .053 (.115)*** .070 (.145)***	.022 (.061)*** .015 (.043)** .028 (.061)*** .038 (.079)***	.022 (.061)*** .017 (.048)** .028 (.060)*** .041 (.083)***
Previous attainment - Grade average (quintiles)			.118 (.329)***	.120 (.334)***
Selective acculturation - Religiosity (4-point scale) - Familialism: (4-point scale) - Bilingualism: (dummy)				.011 (.022) .024 (.043)** .075 (.065)***
Constant Adjusted R square Observations	.383*** .008 7033	–.002 .092 5592	–.179*** .176 5570	–.248*** .181 4811

Notes: Dependent variable: aim to complete higher education at master’s degree level or higher. OLS regression.

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway (CILS-NOR linked with information from public registers, Statistics Norway).

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Expectations

We perform the same analysis using educational expectations as dependent variable. We now find a similar, yet somewhat different pattern. Except for those of Western European origin, there is no immigrant advantage in expectations in absolute terms, and we now find a negative effect of being born abroad. While girls have higher aspirations in absolute terms, they do not have higher expectations. However, when we take parental socioeconomic resources into account, and in particular achievements in terms of grades, a more moderate immigrant advantage emerges. Net of socio-economic resources and previous achievement, all immigrant origin groups from the global south except Latin America show advantage also in terms of expectations, although this advantage is more moderate than the advantage in aspirations. Indicators of selective acculturation introduced in step 4 does not, however, have any significant effect. In other words, selective acculturation, which appear to instil immigrant origin youth with high aspirations, do not appear to provide them with the confidence that they will actually succeed (Table 4).

Table 4. Determinants of educational expectations.

	Step 1 B(Beta)	Step 2 B(Beta)	Step 3 B(Beta)	Step 4 B(Beta)
Immigrant origin (ref. Non-immigrant parents) - Westen Europe, etc. - Eastern Europe & the Balkans - Latin-America - Pakistan - Middle East & North Africa - Somalia - Other Sub-Sahara Africa - Sri Lanka - Other South and East Asia	.053 (.039)** –.070 (–.029)* –.028 (–.007) .009 (.003) –.023 (–.011) –.011 (–.003) .005 (.001) .065 (.019) –.039 (–.016)	.033 (.023) .005 (.002) .060 (.011) .233 (.090)*** .148 (.073)*** .277 (.066)*** .117 (.030)* .268 (.082)*** .072 (.027)*	.011 (.008) .059 (.022) .076 (.014) .232 (.086)*** .171 (.081)*** .333 (.074)*** .153 (.038)** .155 (.047)*** .051 (.019)	.009 (.006) .054 (.020) .090 (.016) .193 (.070)*** .152 (.070)*** .314 (.066)*** .137 (.033)* .137 (.041)** .030 (.011)
Immigrant generation and gender - Foreign born (ref. Native born) - Girl (ref: boy)	–.057 (–.034)* .007 (.007)	.005 (.002) .000 (.000)	.028 (.013) –.084 (–.086)***	.026 (.012) –.089 (–.090)***
Parental SES - Fathers income (quintiles) - Mothers income (quintiles) - Fathers education (4-point scale) - Mothers education (4-point scale)		.030 (.086)*** .017 (.049)** .052 (.114)*** .087 (.182)***	.017 (.048)** .007 (.020) .023 (.049)** .052 (.107)***	.018 (.051)*** .009 (.026) .021 (.045)** .050 (.103)***
Previous attainment - Grade average (quintiles)			.137 (.385)***	.139 (.389)***
Selective acculturation - Religiosity (4-point scale) - Familialism: (4-point scale) - Bi-lingualism: (dummy)				.008 (.015) –.001 (–.001) .024 (.021)
Constant Adjusted R square Observations	.386*** .002 6987	.010 .092 5561	–.197*** .207 5046	–.210*** .208 4798

Notes: Dependent variable: Realistically expect to complete higher education at master’s degree level or higher. OLS regression.

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway (CILS-NOR linked with information from public registers, Statistics Norway).

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Effort

Fulfilling high aspirations in the face of disadvantage takes hard work. When we perform the same analysis using school effort – measured by a dummy variable indicating those who spend more than two hours doing homework every day – we find that immigrants origin youth from Asia, Africa and the Middle East show a significant advantage in absolute terms. The fact that immigrant-origin students spend more time on homework could reflect reverse causality, e.g. because they have low grades, they have to spend more time doing homework. However, we find that the positive relationship between immigrant origin and time spent doing homework remains after controls for prior academic achievement. Moreover, the relationship between grade average and time spent doing homework is in fact positive, suggesting instead that those who spend much time doing homework also do get better grades. There is also a significant effect of being born abroad, and there is a strong effect of gender – girls do more homework than boys. Parental socioeconomic status on the other hand, has no effect.

Finally, and most importantly for our present purposes, we find that both religiosity and familialism – but not bilingualism – has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of spending more than two hours doing homework every day. Once again, we observe that when the indicators of selective acculturation are introduced, the effect of immigrant origin is strongly reduced, suggesting that these variables can explain at least some of the observed immigrant advantage. This is particularly the case for youth originating in Pakistan, Somalia and The Middle East, where selective acculturation in the form of religiosity and familialism goes a long way in explaining the immigrant advantage in effort (Table 5).

Table 5. Determinants of educational effort.

	Step 1 B(Beta)	Step 2 B(Beta)	Step 3 B(Beta)	Step 4 B(Beta)
Immigrant origin (ref. Non-immigrant parents) - Westen Europe, etc. - Eastern Europe & the Balkans - Latin-America - Pakistan - Middle East & North Africa - Somalia - Other Sub-Sahara Africa - Sri Lanka - Other South and East Asia	.032 (.023) .061 (.025) –.017 (–.004) .165 (.065)*** .093 (.047)*** .151 (.044)*** .134 (.041)** .24 (.071)*** .16 (.067)***	.021 (.015) .096 (.036)* –.09 (–.017) .177 (.071)*** .127 (.063)*** .123 (.030)* .190 (.051)*** .258 (.083)*** .196 (.077)***	.006 (.004) .088 (.032) –.075 (–.014) .170 (.067)*** .147 (.070)*** .154 (.035)* .247 (.064)*** .239 (.076)*** .199 (.077)***	–.002 (–.001) .042 (.015) –.092 (–.016) .059 (.022) .078 (.036)** .007 (.001) .179 (.044)** .146 (.046)** .159 (.062)***
Immigrant generation and gender - Foreign born (ref. Norwegian born) - Girl (ref: boy)	.076 (.048)** .131 (.132)***	.054 (.027) .132 (.134)***	.085 (.041)* .126 (.128)***	.036 (.017) .122 (.124)***
Parental SES - Fathers income (quintiles) - Mothers income (quintiles) - Fathers education (4-point scale) - Mothers education (4-point scale)		.011 (.031) –.006 (–.018) –.005 (–.011) .000 (.000)	.012 (.034) –.006 (–.019) –.009 (–.020) –.005 (–.011)	.012 (.036) –.006 (–.018) –.003 (–.006) –.007 (–.015)
Previous attainment - Grade average (quintiles)			.020 (.055)***	.024 (.066)***
Selective acculturation - Religiosity (4-point scale) - Familialism: (4-point scale) - Bilingualism: (dummy)				.046 (.093)*** .027 (.049)** .038 (.033)
Constant Adjusted R square Observations	.310*** .039 6290	.296*** .041 4973	.244*** .046 4512	.149*** .056 4195

Notes: Dependent variable: on average spend two hours or more doing homework every day. OLS regression.

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study in Norway (CILS-NOR linked with information from public registers, Statistics Norway).

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Discussion

A large body of research has accumulated documenting high educational aspirations among otherwise disadvantaged minorities. The analyses in this article confirm this pattern. Although immigrants from the global south are disadvantaged in terms of both parental resources and educational performance, they are significantly advantaged in terms of ambition. The fact that this pattern holds in Norway is interesting, given the remarkably high levels of ambition found in the general student population. Importantly, we find an immigrant advantage not just in terms of aspirations and (to a more moderate extent) expectations, but also effort. Immigrant origin youth on average spend far more time doing homework than native origin youth – suggesting that aspirations may translate into actual attainment.

There is substantial disagreement over what lies beneath the observed immigrant advantage in ambition. This article contributes to the literature by offering a small part of the explanation. We show that selective acculturation – defined as maintenance of cultural distinction in terms of religion, family-orientation and language – does have a positive effect on educational aspirations and school effort, and that these variables can account for a significant part of the observed immigrant advantage. More specifically, family-orientation and bilingualism is linked to higher educational aspirations, while religiosity and family-orientation is linked to educational effort. However, we find no such effect on expectations. In other words, selective acculturation appears to instil immigrant origin youth with high aspirations and inspire them to work hard, but it does not necessarily provide them with expectations of success.

To what extent the immigrant advantage in aspirations and effort – at least partially spurred on by selective acculturation – will translate into actual attainment remains to see. This will be a key question in the longitudinal follow-up studies of this sample which will be conducted in the future. However, it should be noted that Norway’s comprehensive, tuition-free and choice-driven educational system with generous arrangements for financial support, is exactly the type of context where we should expect that ambitions and hard work have ample room to play out. Previous research does show that many succeed despite initial disadvantage, and that children of immigrants in Norway display relatively high levels of upward social mobility (Hermansen 2016).

The present findings support a central component of segmented assimilation theory, which states that disadvantaged minorities may benefit from maintaining some of their parents’ cultural orientations. The fact that we find this pattern in Norway – in some ways a ‘least likely case’, given that other components of segmented assimilation theory do not fit – only strengthens the general application of this concept. We cannot determine the exact mechanisms through which selective acculturation has this effect, but a plausible hypothesis is that it is related to the maintenance of an ‘intergenerational alliance’ between parents and children. Such an alliance may be conductive both for the transmission of class-based resources from the home country, as well as to preserve parental authority and social control (Portes and Rivas 2011). The beneficial effect of selective acculturation is thus fully compatible with both explanations that emphasize immigrant selectivity and parental relative educational attainment from the country of origin and explanations that emphasize culturally embedded “ethnic capital”. However, concerns over the integration of immigrants and their children, as well as the long term consequences of immigration, are not confined to socio-economic outcomes. In fact, the major debates over immigration and integration in today’s Europe are centred on values, culture and religion (Alba and Foner 2015). If concerns related to the cultural and social dimensions of integration are to be taken seriously, any positive effects of selective acculturation upon educational outcomes must be weighed against the downsides of not adapting to the host country culture, for example in terms of tolerance and social trust. The present findings, however, suggest that for some disadvantaged minorities, the path to integration may perhaps best be traversed ‘one step at a time’ (Portes 2004).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Norges Forskningsråd [237004].