6 Pages: Contemporary Issues in Asian American Communities

educational ReseaRcheR378

Educational Researcher, Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 378–389 DOI: 10.3102/0013189X11424222

© 2011 AERA. http://er.aera.net

The authors studied more than 1 million Asian American and Pacific

Islander (AAPI) and White seventh graders in a statewide California

testing program between 2003 and 2008, examining their reading and

math achievement. AAPI student performance is often reported as

an aggregate in discussions of the success of schoolchildren and

issues of racial and ethnic achievement gaps. The authors disaggre-

gated the performance of 13 AAPI subgroups and found significant

achievement gaps between White Americans and their AAPI peers in

reading and math. The data refuted the premise of the model minor-

ity myth. The evidence indicated that AAPI students are diverse

in their achievements and demonstrate a continuum of academic

performance.

Keywords: achievement gap; ANOVA; Asian American education;

correlational analysis; equity

A lthough the achievement gap is one of the most impor- tant issues in U.S. education, the academic needs of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students

are frequently overlooked. Defined as disparities in academic per- formance between mainstream and marginalized populations, the achievement gap has been measured by various characteristics such as standardized test performance, grades, and dropout rates. Many educators have a monolithic view of AAPI students as being high achievers who have little need for educational services. Few teachers or principals understand the vast diversity and com- plexities in academic performance found within the AAPI stu- dent community. This article presents the first data-driven study of AAPI achievement investigating the academic performance of seventh graders in 13 AAPI ethnic groups on the California Achievement Test as compared with that of their White American peers from 2003 through 2008.

AAPI Population

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders comprise a heterogeneous population. Asian Americans include approximately 17.3 million individuals, and Pacific Islanders include about 1.2 million indi- viduals; together, these two communities made up approximately 5.5% of the 2010 population of the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The states with the largest AAPI numbers are

California, New York, and Hawaii. The AAPI population in the United States has continued to grow at a record pace, increasing by over 40% in the past decade (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). By 2050, it is estimated that AAPIs will number more than 43 mil- lion and account for almost 10% of the U.S. population.

AAPIs include a wide range of cultural groups that differ in many aspects, such as history in the United States, languages spoken at home, and cultural values (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1991; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Pang & Cheng, 1998; Zhou & Bankston, 1998). The term AAPI includes, among others, the fol- lowing American ethnic groups: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Burmese, Chinese, Filipino, Guamanian, Indonesian, Iwo Jiman, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Malaysian, Maldivian, Marshallese, Native Hawaiian, Nepalese, Okinawan, Pakistani, Palauan, Singaporean, Samoan, Tahitian, Taiwanese, Thai, Tibetan, and Vietnamese. This is not an exhaustive list, but it is important to understand that the AAPI designation represents a diversity of cultures and communities. In addition, many AAPIs are members of more than one ethnic or racial group.

Theoretical Constructs: The Model Minority Myth, Relative Functionalism, and the Glass Ceiling

In a population as heterogeneous as AAPIs, achievement will dif- fer across various subgroups. Unfortunately, many researchers and educators view AAPI students as members of a successful, monocultural community and have not considered the influence of factors such as racism and prejudice. In this article, because of the complex connections between achievement and society, we discuss the research in the context of two conceptual orienta- tions. The first is the model minority myth; many educators view AAPI achievement through this filter. The term model minority was first used by William Peterson (1966), a sociologist who pub- lished an article in the New York Times about Japanese Americans. In this view, AAPI students are “whiz kids” or “geeks” who raise the grading curve. This perception has resulted in schools’ over- looking the needs of AAPIs (Goodwin, 2010; Lew, 2006; Palmer, 2010; Pang, 1990; Pang, Kiang, & Pak, 2004; Tanabe & Rochon, 2006).

The second conceptual orientation is the ethnic minority view- point, which posits that as members of underrepresented groups, AAPIs are victims of social bias and so face perennial obstacles to equity. Like other populations of color, AAPIs face barriers in their ability to access educational opportunities and career advancement. In much of the research representing this view, the

Asian American and Pacific Islander Students: Equity and the Achievement Gap Valerie Ooka Pang, Peggy P. Han, and Jennifer M. Pang

novembeR 2011 379

constructs of relative functionalism (Sue & Okazaki, 1990) and the glass ceiling (Woo, 2000) are presented as explanations for the suc- cess of some AAPI students. The perspective of relative functional- ism is based on the premise that social oppression is a major element in society; this view posits education as the primary means of attaining professional success, as opposed to sports, entertain- ment, or politics (Sue & Okazaki, 1990). In addition, research shows that AAPI adults are subjected to a glass ceiling, which may be defined as a set of discriminatory obstacles placed before under- represented people or women to limit their advancement in employment. In keeping with this construct, researchers have found that AAPIs’ levels of educational attainment are not com- mensurate with their incomes and professional status, in compari- son with their White counterparts (Woo, 2000). The constructs of relative functionalism and the glass ceiling point to social oppres- sion as a powerful element in society and one that affects the achievements of AAPIs.

The Model Minority

The model minority myth advances the view that AAPIs have successfully assimilated into mainstream society. In addition, it presents an underlying message that racism is no longer an obsta- cle to social mobility (Goodwin, 2010; Lee, 1996; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Palmer, 2010; Pang, 1990). The model minority myth ignores the prejudice and discrimination that AAPIs regularly experience and must overcome in school and society (Kiang, Nguyen, & Sheehan, 1995; Lee, 1996; Lew, 2006; Pang & Cheng, 1998; Tanabe & Rochon, 2006; Tran & Birman, 2010; Turney & Kao, 2009). In fact, it promotes the belief that the United States is a color-blind society wherein schools operate in an equitable system of merit. Suggesting that AAPIs have advanced in life through hard work, strong family values, and assimilation, the myth, therefore, encourages other people of color to follow their example, implying that racism can always be transcended. Thus the model minority designation keeps AAPIs at a distance, especially from other racial minority groups, and reinforces the perception that equality in society is achievable.

This stereotyped view hampers the education of AAPIs. In a study of 197 in-service teachers, Chang and Sue (2003) found biased views of Asian American children. Among other results, the researchers found that the teachers viewed the children as overly controlled and were often unresponsive to the children’s individual and group educational needs.

Relative Functionalism and the Glass Ceiling

Historically, as a response to social oppression and racism, AAPIs developed a mind-set of relative functionalism; to become suc- cessful, they and their children saw education as the best avenue for pursuing the American Dream. Therefore, AAPIs believed that academic and educational achievement were means to rise above discrimination and to secure social mobility (Sue & Okazaki, 1990). AAPIs considered that to be as successful as Whites they had to earn perfect grades in school, score high on tests, and earn more educational degrees.

In addition, many AAPIs knew about the historical experiences of AAPI immigrants who had attempted to establish themselves in the United States (Leong & Okazaki, 2009). The history of many AAPI groups points to extensive discrimination by individuals and

governmental institutions, at both state and federal levels. The facts are disturbing: The U.S. government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; this was the first time an ethnic group by name was barred from immigration. In California, the Alien Land Law of 1913 was passed, prohibiting Asians and Asian Americans from purchasing property. In 1933, the California legislature passed an amendment that forbade Filipino Americans from marrying White Americans. Later, in 1942, Executive Order 9066 called for the removal and internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans, a majority of whom were native born. They lost civil rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to vote. This is a short illustration of the historical and political oppression aimed at Asian Americans in the United States; we recommend the following his- torical sources for further information: Chan, 1991; Cordova, 1983; Goodwin, 2010; Kana’iaupuni, 2005; Leong and Okazaki, 2009; Odo, 2002; Takaki, 1993.

The history of AAPIs demonstrates that racism and social oppression have been barriers to their full inclusion in this democracy. In response to racial and ethnic bias, elders, parents, teachers, and others shared with their families historical examples of discrimination and then conveyed to youth that they must work harder and accomplish more than their mainstream peers in order to succeed. Therefore, relative functionalism is a prag- matic response to a long history of exclusion and exploitation. Education was seen as the most equitable path to equal opportu- nity and therefore upward mobility, in keeping with the ethos of civil rights, one of the most powerful themes of the last half of the twentieth century. Even though social justice is an important value of our democracy, the model minority myth persists, rein- forcing the “otherness” of AAPIs and thus hindering AAPI suc- cess in the form of the glass ceiling.

Although the model minority myth enhances the image that AAPIs have overcome pervasive prejudice and racism and are full participants in a meritocracy, the construct of relative functional- ism is supported by research on the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling is a system of everyday policies and practices in businesses and institutions that results in bias and discrimination (Barringer, Takeuchi, & Xenos, 1990; Woo, 2000). Woo (2000) and Barringer et al. (1990) found that equity did not exist for AAPIs in employment; their levels of educational attainment were not commensurate with the income levels and status they achieved in comparison with White Americans and other ethnic groups.

Woo (2000) and Barringer et al. (1990) also found that preju- dice and discrimination arose not only from individuals but also from institutions. For example, Japanese Americans in one study had one to two years more schooling than their White American counterparts, but their salary levels were lower and they held less prestigious positions (Barringer et al., 1990). A similar pattern was discovered in national corporations; AAPIs were less likely to advance into leadership positions (Woo, 2000). In addition, AAPIs have more problems with tenure and reappointment in higher education (Woo, 2000).

The literature often posits that AAPIs may earn less than Whites because they are immigrants and may have difficulties with language. However, the research of Lee (2002), Woo (2000), and Barringer et al. (1990) uncovered that being native born does not result in significantly higher income than being an

educational ReseaRcheR380

immigrant; social oppression is a more powerful element than cultural assimilation or language abilities in AAPI career mobility and income. For example, although many AAPIs who were born in the United States are native English speakers and understand mainstream norms, they are continually seen as “foreigners” or “outsiders.” These stereotypes can act as obstacles to their pro- fessional success. Therefore, even if AAPIs assimilate into society, they face structural barriers to inclusion. These findings reinforce the belief of many AAPIs in relative functionalism.

Past Educational Context of AAPI Achievement

Discussions of the achievement gap frequently do not provide a comprehensive study of AAPIs because educators may lack knowledge of the diversity of the population, often using an aggregate to represent AAPI student success (Eng et al., 2008; Kana’iaupuni, 2005; Pang et al., 2004; Sue, 2009; Tanabe & Rochon, 2006; Xie & Goyette, 2004). Although AAPIs represent more than 67 cultural/ethnic and national communities (Uy, 2009), national assessments customarily report only aggregate data for AAPI students. For example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress reported representative national samples randomly chosen from students in Grades 4, 8, and 12, which were used to generate AAPI aggregates (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). However, researchers have identified the crucial need for educational and policy organizations to col- lect and analyze disaggregated data on AAPI students because of the wide diversity in achievement performance (Goodwin, 2010; Kao, 1995; Kiang, 2002; Lesser, Fifer, & Clark, 1965; Pang, 1990; Pang et al., 2004; Uy, 2009).

Several recent reports have shown that AAPI ethnic commu- nities differ in their achievement (Education Trust, 2010; Takeuchi & Hune, 2009). For example, in 2008 a national descriptive report titled Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders— Facts, Not Fiction: Setting the Record Straight (National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education, 2008) discussed the vast diversity within the AAPI community. In contrast to the stereotype that AAPIs are over- represented in technical fields, a majority of AAPI undergradu- ates in 2003 did not earn degrees in math, science, engineering, or technology. In fact, most of the undergraduate degrees that AAPIs earned were in the social sciences, business, and the humanities. The report also highlighted the fundamental respon- sibility of K–12 educators to address the educational needs of AAPI students who are repeatedly neglected.

These reports emphasize the idea that AAPI subgroups differ and that therefore their achievement performance also may vary. For example, the different AAPI groups have divergent immigra- tion histories, child-rearing practices, and home languages. To show diversity within the AAPI population, in the latter part of the present study we examined the academic performance of two AAPI groups. We chose one Asian American subgroup, Chinese Americans, and one Pacific Islander subgroup, Samoan Americans, for further analysis. Our reason for choosing Chinese American students was that this ethnic group was one of the first immigrant communities in the United States. In addition, the Chinese American group comprised more than 54,000 students, the second-largest AAPI group. Samoan Americans were chosen for extended analysis because they have been studied by other

researchers who recommended that the students would benefit from educational interventions (Takeuchi & Hune, 2009). Immigration is also important in the discussion of ethnic groups such as Cambodian Americans and Lao Americans because many arrived in the United States as refugees and from agrarian envi- ronments. These elements may contribute to their achievement.

This study breaks new ground in three ways. First, the data set was composed of the total AAPI population of seventh-grade stu- dents in the state of California who took the California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6) between 2003 and 2008. Second, the study included a large number of AAPI students, more than 272,000. Finally, this is the first study to disaggregate the total population into various ethnic subgroups and make comparisons with White Americans and among the AAPI communities. Inferential statistics identified statistically significant differences among the academic performance levels of AAPIs and their White American counterparts.

Research Questions

Four major research questions were analyzed in this study. First, how does the academic achievement of AAPI seventh graders, as an aggregate, compare with that of their White American peers on the CAT/6 in reading and math from 2003 to 2008? Second, how does the academic achievement of specific AAPI ethnic groups compare with that of their White American peers on the CAT/6 in reading and math from 2003 to 2008? Third, what are the comparisons among the AAPI ethnic groups on the CAT/6 in reading and math from 2003 to 2008? And finally, adjusting for gender, economic status (as defined by lunch status), and par- ent education level, how does ethnicity relate to the achievement of Chinese Americans and Samoan Americans as compared with their White American counterparts on the CAT/6 in reading and math from 2003 to 2008?

Method

Instrument: California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey

California administered the CAT/6 (California Department of Education, 2003b, 2004) standardized achievement tests to all sev- enth graders from 2003 through 2008 (the tests were discontinued because of lack of funding). The CAT/6 is a norm-referenced stan- dardized test through which student scores can be compared with the performance of a nationally representative group of students (California Department of Education, 2003a, 2004). This assess- ment is not used for individual student evaluation.

Data from the CAT/6 include raw scores, scaled scores, national percentile rank scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores, and stanines (standard nine). NCE scores are standardized and offer a major advantage for research because they can be used in making comparisons between different achievement tests and for statistical computations such as determining the average score for a group of students. In this particular study, NCE scores were used for all the analyses.

Research Population

It was crucial to locate a database with achievement data in which the ethnic memberships of AAPIs, rather than racial affiliations,

novembeR 2011 381

were collected. Many national organizations and school districts do not have adequate samples of AAPI students, and most states and districts collect AAPI achievement data only with the aggre- gate label of Asian American. California, however, has both a large sample of AAPI students and a recent history of collecting data utilizing a variety of characteristics, including ethnic mem- bership. The ethnic and racial characteristics of students were collected by California as part of the state’s evaluation and assess- ment of student performance. The categories utilized in this study were AAPI (all Asian American and Pacific Islander stu- dents combined as an aggregate), Asian Indian (includes Nepalese, Bengali, Pakistani, Sri Lankan), Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Guamanian, Native Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Other Asian (includes Indonesian, Malay, Thai, and mixed-race students), Other Pacific Islander (includes Fijian, Marshallese, Polynesian, Tahitian, Tongan), Samoan, and Vietnamese. Initially, the study was to include Tahitians as a separate AAPI ethnic group, but because there were fewer than 150 of these students, the sample was added to the Other Pacific Islander designation.

Initially the total population for AAPIs and White Americans included 1,253,749 reading scores and 1,252,673 math scores for seventh graders who took the CAT/6 from 2003 to 2008. The research population was reduced further to avoid any missing data and to achieve homogeneity of sample size for both the read- ing and math study populations; this resulted in the final popula- tion of 1,025,205.

Study Variables

In addition to race (White and AAPI) and ethnicity (all AAPI ethnic groups), the following variables were utilized: gender (female, male), student lunch status (free/reduced price lunch, no free/reduced price lunch), and parent education level (five levels). For the purpose of conducting comparisons of AAPI ethnic groups and White Americans, the racial group White Americans was treated as an ethnic group. In addition, socioeconomic status was defined through the use of student school lunch eligibility, which was based on the income requirements of the National School Lunch Act. Each year the federal government provides guidelines for family income levels. For example, in 2007–2008 a family of four could not earn more than $26,845 annually to be eligible for free lunch status and $38,203 annually to be eli- gible for reduced price lunch status (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007). The five levels of parent education were less than high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, and postgraduate school.

Statistical Analysis

NCE test scores and a set of independent variables were initially screened for the requisite assumptions associated with each statis- tical procedure prior to analysis. The box plot, histogram, and normal probability plot, along with the normality test, were con- ducted to provide information on the normality of the popula- tion distribution (Samuels & Witmer, 1999). An independent Welch-Satterthwaite unequal variance t test was conducted to compare the mean differences between White Americans and the AAPI aggregate on reading and math scores (Satterthwaite, 1946; Welch, 1947). Moreover, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

employed to test for academic performance differences among the ethnic groups. In addition, a four-way ANOVA was con- ducted that included ethnicity (14 groups), gender (2 groups), lunch program status (2 levels), and parent education level (5 levels), The results of the analyses were extensive, so only the findings that examined Chinese Americans and Samoan Americans as they compared with White Americans are reported in this study. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS ver- sion 9.2.

Results

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the 1,025,205 seventh-grade students tested annually in California on the CAT/6 from 2003 to 2008, including ethnicities of AAPIs, gen- der, National School Lunch Program status, and parent educa- tion level. The majority of seventh graders who took both the reading and math tests were White American students (73%). The numbers of students in the remaining 13 AAPI groups ranged from Filipino Americans (63,860, about 6%), the largest group, to Guamanian Americans (1,169, about 0.1%), the small- est group. In the study population, 51% were boys and 49% were girls. Of the seventh graders, 23% qualified for the National School Lunch Program. Almost half of the students had parents who had graduated from college (college graduate, 30.00%, post- graduate school, 19.03%). The parents of the other participants

Table 1 Student Population Characteristics: Ethnicity, Gender, Participation in School Lunch Program, and Level of

Parent Education (N = 1,025,205)

Characteristic Frequency Percentage

Ethnicity Chinese 54,330 5.30 Japanese 10,905 1.06 Korean 21,362 2.08 Vietnamese 28,737 2.80 Asian Indian 18,816 1.84 Lao 6,763 0.66 Cambodian 7,009 0.68 Other Asian 45,748 4.46 Native Hawaiian 1,961 0.19 Guamanian 1,169 0.11 Samoan 3,505 0.34 Other Pacific Islander (includes Tahitian)

8,311 0.81

Filipino 63,860 6.23 White 752,729 73.42 Gender Male 523,869 51.10 Female 501,336 48.90 National School Lunch Program Yes 238,162 23.23 No 787,043 76.77 Parent education level Less than high school 54,138 5.28 High school graduate 188,710 18.35 Some college 280,256 27.34 College graduate 307,534 30.00 Postgraduate school 195,107 19.03

educational ReseaRcheR382

indicated that they had attended college (27.34%), had gradu- ated from high school (18.35%), or had not finished high school (5.28%).

The seventh-grade students’ NCE score means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2. The table reports the overall means for White Americans and AAPIs as an aggregate and for the individual AAPI ethnic groups. In reading, the mean for White Americans was 58.15 (SD = 20.29) as compared with the AAPI aggregate mean of 56.72 (SD = 20.16). In reading, AAPI ethnic group means ranged from a low of 41.42 (for Samoan Americans) to a high of 63.04 (for Japanese Americans). In math, the mean for White Americans was 57.72 (SD = 19.66) as com- pared with the AAPI aggregate mean of 62.21 (SD = 20.69). In math, AAPI ethnic group means ranged from a low of 43.96 (for Samoan Americans) to a high of 71.37 (for Chinese Americans).

Because of unequal variances, the Welch-Satterthwaite separate-variance t test (Satterthwaite, 1946; Welch, 1947) was employed to test the significance of mean differences between White Americans and the AAPI aggregate on reading and math scores. Table 3 shows the analysis of mean differences between White Americans and the AAPI aggregate. In reading, the White American mean was found to be significantly higher than the AAPI aggregate mean, t(485,336) = 31.66, p < .001. In math, the mean for White Americans was significantly lower than the mean for the AAPI student aggregate, t(461,819) = –98.31, p < .001.

To test for academic performance differences among White Americans and the 13 AAPI ethnic groups, a one-way ANOVA was conducted; the summary is found in Table 4. The results show that the differences in score means were significant for read- ing, F(13, 1,025,204) = 1,368, p < .001, and for math F(13, 1,025,204) = 3,594, p < .001. Multiple comparisons using the

post hoc test were applied to measure all comparisons among the 14 groups; these can be found in Table 5. In reading, White American seventh graders (M = 58.15, SE = 0.02) scored signifi- cantly higher than students in nine AAPI ethnic groups: Vietnamese Americans (M = 56.77, SE = 0.12), Other Asian Americans (M = 55.32, SE = 0.09), Filipino Americans (M = 54.35, SE = 0.08), Guamanian Americans (M = 51.84, SE = 0.59), Native Hawaiians (M = 51.29, SE = 0.45), Other Pacific Islander Americans (M = 47.77, SE = 0.22), Cambodian Americans (M = 45.71, SE = 0.24), Lao Americans (M = 44.73, SE = 0.24), and Samoan Americans (M = 41.42, SE = 0.34). In contrast, the scores of Asian Indian Americans (M = 57.69, SE = 0.15) did not differ significantly from those of White Americans. Moreover, in reading, Japanese Americans (M = 63.04, SE = 0.19), Chinese Americans (M = 62.86, SE = 0.09), and Korean Americans (M = 61.20, SE = 0.14) scored significantly higher than White Americans.

In math, the academic performance of White American stu- dents (M = 57.72, SE = 0.02) was significantly higher than that of seven AAPI ethnic groups: Filipino Americans (M = 57.13, SE = 0.08), Guamanian Americans (M = 51.76, SE = 0.57), Native Hawaiians (M = 51.61, SE = 0.44), Cambodian Americans (M = 49.70, SE = 0.23), Other Pacific Islander Americans (M = 49.10, SE = 0.21), Lao Americans (M = 48.22, SE = 0.24), and Samoan Americans (M = 43.96, SE = 0.33). In math, Chinese Americans (M = 71.37, SE = 0.08), Korean Americans (M = 70.76, SE = 0.13), Japanese Americans (M = 68.69, SE = 0.19), Vietnamese Americans (M = 64.12, SE = 0.12), Asian Indian Americans (M = 62.50, SE = 0.14), and Other Asian Americans (M = 60.05, SE = 0.09) scored significantly higher than White Americans.

Academic performances in reading and math differed signifi- cantly across the 13 AAPI groups. Table 5 reports significant dif- ferences among AAPI ethnic groups, as indicated by 10 different letter designations. The letters are not rankings; rather, they show which groups are statistically indistinguishable in their mean scores from each other. If groups have the same letter, then they are not significantly different.

In reading, Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans did not show statistically significant differences from each other but were found to perform significantly higher than all other AAPI groups. The following 7 AAPI groups differed significantly from each other in reading scores: Korean Americans, Asian Indians, Vietnamese Americans, Other Asian Americans, Filipino Americans, Other Pacific Islanders, and Samoan Americans. In addition, the reading scores of Guamanian Americans and Native Hawaiians did not differ significantly from each other but were significantly different from the scores of the other 11 AAPI groups. Similarly, Cambodian Americans and Lao Americans did not differ significantly from each other but differed significantly from all other groups.

Table 5 also reports how in math the 14 racial/ethnic groups, based on their performance, constitute 10 significantly different achievement groups, as indicated by the letter designations. The performances of the following 8 groups differed significantly from each other: Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, Japanese Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Asian Indian Americans, Other Asian Americans, Filipino Americans, and

Table 2 Reading and Mathematics Performance of the

Student Population on the CAT/6, 2003–2008, Among White Students, All AAPI Students, and Individual AAPI

Ethnic Groups

Reading Math

Group M SD M SD

Total 57.77 20.27 58.91 20.04 White 58.15 20.29 57.72 19.66 All AAPI 56.72 20.16 62.21 20.69 Chinese 62.86 20.07 71.37 18.53 Japanese 63.04 19.15 68.69 18.38 Korean 61.20 19.23 70.76 17.88 Vietnamese 56.77 19.12 64.12 19.00 Asian Indian 57.69 20.28 62.50 21.24 Lao 44.73 18.25 48.22 19.00 Cambodian 45.71 19.14 49.70 19.82 Other Asian 55.32 20.87 60.05 21.56 Native Hawaiian 51.29 19.91 51.61 20.15 Guamanian 51.84 19.69 51.76 19.69 Samoan 41.42 18.88 43.96 18.70 Other Pacific Islander 47.77 20.10 49.10 19.77 Filipino 53.35 18.31 57.13 18.77

Note. CAT/6 = California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey; AAPI = Asian American and Pacific Islander.

novembeR 2011 383

Table 3 Means and Results of t Tests Comparing Reading and Mathematics Performances Between White Students

and All AAPI Students in the Study Population on the CAT/6, 2003–2008

7th-Grade Students

Subject Area White All AAPI Mean Difference t df

Reading 58.15 56.72 1.430 31.66* 485,336 (20.29) (20.16)

Math 57.72 62.21 −4.488 −98.31* 461,819 (19.66) (20.69)

Note. This table reports the comparisons between White Americans and the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) aggregate. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means. The Welch-Satterthwaite t test was used. *p < .001.

Table 4 Means and Results of the Analysis of Variance Comparing Reading and Mathematics Performance Among White

Students and Individual AAPI Ethnic Groups on the CAT/6, 2003–2008

Reading Math

Comparison Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F

Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F

Between groups 7,183,647 13 552,588 1,368* 17,396,589 13 1,379,738 3,594* Within groups 4.14 × 108 1,025,191 403.9 3.93 × 108 1,025,191 383.9 Total 4.21 × 108 1,025,204 4.11 × 108 1,025,204

Note. This table reports the comparisons among White Americans and 13 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) ethnic groups. *p < .001.

Table 5 Comparisons of Means in Reading and Mathematics Performance of Seventh-Grade White

Students and AAPI Ethnic Group Students on the CAT/6, 2003–2008

Reading Math

Group Mean Standard Error Categorya Mean Standard Error Categorya

Japanese 63.04 0.19 A Chinese 71.37 0.08 A Chinese 62.86 0.09 A Korean 70.76 0.13 B Korean 61.20 0.14 B Japanese 68.69 0.19 C White 58.15 0.02 C Vietnamese 64.12 0.12 D Asian Indian 57.69 0.15 C Asian Indian 62.50 0.14 E Vietnamese 56.77 0.12 D Other Asian 60.05 0.09 F Other Asian 55.32 0.09 E White 57.72 0.02 G Filipino 54.35 0.08 F Filipino 57.13 0.08 H Guamanian 51.84 0.59 G Guamanian 51.76 0.57 I Native

Hawaiian 51.29 0.45 G Native

Hawaiian 51.61 0.44 I

Other Pacific Islander

47.77 0.22 H Cambodian 49.70 0.23 I

Cambodian 45.71 0.24 I Other Pacific Islander

49.10 0.21 I

Lao 44.73 0.24 I Lao 48.22 0.24 I Samoan 41.42 0.34 J Samoan 43.96 0.33 J

Note. CAT/6 = California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey; AAPI = Asian American and Pacific Islander. aThe letters used in the category column show which groups were significantly different from each other. Groups that have the same letter designation did not demonstrate statistical differences at the .05 level.

educational ReseaRcheR384

Samoan Americans. Five groups demonstrated no significant differences from each other in math, although they showed sig- nificant differences from the other groups: Guamanian Americans, Native Hawaiians, Cambodian Americans, Other Pacific Islander Americans, and Lao Americans.

We wanted to determine if ethnicity was a major factor in student achievement when controlling for gender, lunch status, and parent education level. Chinese Americans and Samoan Americans were chosen to be studied further because, in addition to having cultural and historical characteristics of interest, they were the highest and lowest achieving groups, respectively. The results demonstrate that ethnicity continues to be the significant main effect when comparing White Americans, Chinese Americans, and Samoan Americans in reading and math. Tables 6 and 7 report the adjusted means for these analyses. In reading, ethnicity was found to be a significant factor in the comparison of White Americans (M = 54.11, SE = 0.03) and Chinese Americans (M = 59.64, SE = 0.08). In addition, in math, a sig- nificant main effect for ethnicity was found comparing White Americans (M = 53.86, SE = 0.03) and Chinese Americans (M = 68.13, SE = 0.08). In comparing White Americans with Samoan Americans in reading, the adjusted means were 54.11 (SE = 0.03) and 43.81 (SE = 0.32), respectively. In math, the White American adjusted mean (M = 53.86, SE = 0.03) was also significantly higher than the Samoan American adjusted mean (M = 46.29, SE = 0.31).

Conclusions and Recommendations

To provide educational opportunity, educators must consider the performance of AAPI students in the achievement gap issue. This is the first large-scale achievement study of AAPI students. The

research included more than 272,000 seventh graders from 13 AAPI ethnic groups who took the CAT/6 from 2003 to 2008 in California. This study found that the use of the large AAPI aggregate is an impediment to providing AAPI students with educational equity because statistically significant achievement differences among AAPI ethnic groups remain hidden (Pang, 1990; Pang et al., 2004).

When AAPIs’ scores were combined as an aggregate in reading and math, these students performed significantly lower than White Americans in reading but significantly higher in math. However, comparisons between White American students and specific AAPI ethnic groups demonstrated that a majority of AAPI ethnic groups performed at significantly lower levels in reading and math. The achievement gaps between White American students and many AAPI ethnic groups are disturbing in their magnitude. For example, the means of Samoan American students on the CAT/6 were approximately 17 points lower than those of their White peers in reading and almost 14 points lower in math. We recommend that national organizations, state departments of education, and school districts use disaggregated data so that they can more clearly identify the educational needs of specific AAPI ethnic groups.

Implications of Major Findings

Educational policies and statistical practices in which achieve- ment is measured using an AAPI aggregate result in overgeneral- ized findings. These practices and policies have contributed to the model minority myth, which educators often believe to be an accurate perception of most, if not all, AAPI students. This research refutes the model minority myth according to which all AAPI groups perform at high levels. Our findings indicate

Table 6 Comparisons of Means and Adjusted Means in Reading and Mathematics Performance of

Seventh-Grade White and Chinese American Students on the CAT/6, 2003–2008

Reading Math

Group Mean Adjusted Meana

Standard Error

95% Confidence Limit Mean

Adjusted Meana

Standard Error

95% Confidence Limit

White 58.15 54.11 0.03 (5.24, 5.82) 57.72 53.86 0.03 (14.04, 14.61) Chinese 62.86 59.64 0.08 71.37 68.13 0.08

Note. CAT/6 = California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey. aAdjusted for gender, National School Lunch Program status, and parent education level.

Table 7 Comparisons of Means and Adjusted Means in Reading and Mathematics Performance of

Seventh-Grade White and Samoan American Students on the CAT/6, 2003–2008

Reading Math

Group Mean Adjusted Meana

Standard Error

95% Confidence Limit Mean

Adjusted Meana

Standard Error

95% Confidence Limit

White 58.15 54.11 0.03 (–11.39, –9.20) 57.72 53.86 0.03 (–8.64, –6.50) Samoan 41.42 43.81 0.32 43.96 46.29 0.31

Note. CAT/6 = California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey. aAdjusted for gender, National School Lunch Program status, and parent education level.

novembeR 2011 385

that the AAPI population demonstrates a spectrum of perfor- mance, showing that ethnic subgroups have diverse strengths and weaknesses.

Educators must reflect upon how the use of aggregate data to represent the performance of all AAPIs is misleading and hides the substantial educational needs of many AAPI students. For example, we found that, in reading, White Americans signifi- cantly outperformed students from nine AAPI ethnic groups (Filipino American, Vietnamese American, Cambodian American, Lao American, Samoan American, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian American, Other Pacific Islander American, and Other Asian American). These results point to the crucial need for educators to focus on developing the reading skills of AAPI students. Teachers should examine the performance of AAPI stu- dents on literacy elements such as decoding, vocabulary develop- ment, comprehension, and text analysis.

Many AAPI students are English learners; it can be difficult to learn reading skills in a second language. The cultural contexts of reading passages may be a hindrance. If literacy materials describe culturally unfamiliar experiences, students may have difficulty learning new reading skills and vocabulary while they grapple with cultural displacement. For example, a passage may discuss a pro- tagonist who is a member of a yacht club, but Lao American chil- dren may not have had experiences with elite social organizations. The authors recommend that educators identify weaknesses in stu- dent reading skills and develop appropriate interventions that are also culturally relevant and meaningful (Gay, 2000; Goodwin, 2010; Pang, 2010). In earlier studies, researchers have recom- mended that educators address the needs of AAPI students in writing and communication skills (Pang, 1990; Pang et al., 2004). AAPI high school students have reported that they suffer from “communication anxiety” (Ramist & Arbeiter, 1986). They revealed fears of writing and public speaking. Such apprehensions may result in students’ selecting technical and scientific fields of study rather than professions of creative expression such as litera- ture or theater.

In the area of math, seven AAPI ethnic groups (Filipino American, Cambodian American, Lao American, Samoan American, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian American, and Other Pacific Islander American) scored at significantly lower levels than White Americans—results that also refute the model minor- ity myth. We recommend that educators identify math skills that need improvement in AAPI students and create appropriate interventions, which may include instruction in areas such as number sense, math computation, algebraic reasoning, geometry, and problem solving. This study supports the work of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Committee (Gutstein et al., 2005). The committee identified equity as an important value and orientation for research in the teaching of math. The committee expressed the belief that ineq- uities may not be apparent unless one of the purposes of the research is to examine math achievement from the perspective of a target underrepresented group. This study recommends that future research investigate the needs of each AAPI group.

Considerations: Potential Explanations

Educators seek to identify the important factors in the achievement process. The reasons for student performance are multilayered and

interwoven; next, we describe possible sociological, historical, eco- nomic, and psychological considerations.

One of the major findings of this study is the role of ethnicity. The analyses that examined disaggregated data that compared Chinese American and Samoan American students with their White American peers found ethnic membership to be a main effect. Chinese Americans and Samoan Americans are members of two distinct ethnic groups. The two groups are diverse in many ways: Their countries of origin are geographically different, they have distinct home country histories and U.S. chronologies, and their cultural orientations and languages are diverse. Although they are considered to be members of a population called Asian American and Pacific Islander, the groups are heterogeneous (Coloma, 2009; Goodwin, 2010; Pang, 1990). In this study, there were 11 other AAPI ethnic collectives that also are distinct sub- groups of the larger AAPI population. The heterogeneity of the AAPI population is extensive; therefore, the resulting range of per- formance within the AAPI population should not be surprising.

Chinese American, Japanese American, and Korean American students were the highest performing groups in both reading and math. We believe that their performance is partly due to relative functionalism (Sue & Okazaki, 1990) and their belief that education is the most effective avenue in the quest for success in society. The glass ceiling construct (Woo, 2000)—social bias in employment—also adds to their educational efforts to achieve. Historically, in their early migration experiences, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrants were subjected to racism, being prohibited, for example, from gaining citizenship, purchasing land, or attending mainstream schools. Asian American children were sent to segregated schools from the middle of the 19th cen- tury into the 1900s. In 1859, the San Francisco Board of Education created a separate Chinese school rather than allow Chinese American students to attend public schools. In 1906, Japanese American and Korean American students were also sent to the Chinese School, which was later renamed the Oriental School (Wilson & Hosokawa, 1980). In 1924, Martha Lum tried to go to a public school in Mississippi. When she was denied entry, her father, Gong Lum, filed a lawsuit, and the case landed in the U.S. Supreme Court (Bow, 2007). As recently as 1927, the court found that Chinese Americans were to be categorized as “colored” and therefore had to attend segregated schools (Bow, 2007). Chinese, Japanese, and Korean American students were not considered equals in mainstream society. As Sue and Okazaki (1990) posited, many AAPIs believe that they must demonstrate higher levels of achievement than their White counterparts in order to fight discrimination and societal oppression.

Economic development in AAPI students’ or their families’ native countries may also contribute to differences in perfor- mance. In this study, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, and Asian Indian Americans demonstrated higher levels of achievement than did Cambodian Americans, Lao Americans, and Pacific Islanders, in general. A majority of AAPI students are members of immigrant families (Goodwin, 2010), and their native-country knowledge about education may contribute to the achievement process.

Many immigrants from countries such as Vietnam, Taiwan, India, South Korea, China, and Japan entered the United States with high levels of education. During the 20th century, these

educational ReseaRcheR386

countries invested heavily in economic growth (Hsieh, 2011; Kim, 2002; Paik, 2002). When nations commit abundant resources to building up infrastructures, this is often accompanied by invest- ments in their educational systems. For example, the French occu- pied Vietnam from the 1860s until after World War II (Kim, 2002). During this time, the French modernized and westernized Vietnam by building roads, industries, schools, and hospitals (Kim, 2002). They also introduced the Roman alphabet to the Vietnamese (Kim, 2002). This move was not undertaken in Cambodia and Laos (Kim, 2002). Paik (2002) described similar efforts in the past 60 years in South Korea. The country engaged extensively in the development of trade and military alliances and in strengthening its educational establishments such as schools, colleges, and universities. The present educational system was developed in 1949 and is structured like the U.S. system. It includes elementary school (Grades 1–6), middle school (Grades 7–9), high school (Grades 10–12), and college (Grades 13–16; Paik, 2002). Students face extensive competition in the process of being admit- ted to high schools and universities. Immigrants and/or refugees from Vietnam, Taiwan, China, India, and Japan brought practices and expectations based on these development experiences to the United States. Many Asian American young people and their par- ents understand competitive admissions into high school and uni- versities. Since economic development was not a strong force in Cambodia, Laos, Guam, and other Pacific Islands, individuals from these countries do not bring to the United States the same educational and professional backgrounds. This may account for the lower academic achievement of these subgroups.

Although Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam are neighboring coun- tries, they have different patterns of immigration to the United States, which may account for the higher achievement of Vietnamese American students. During and following the Vietnam war, Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodian families sought safety in the United States as refugees escaping war, genocide, and death (Kim, 2002). The first wave of Vietnamese immigrants arrived in 1975, before the fall of Saigon, and was composed primarily of wealthy and elite professionals (Takaki, 1993). The second wave arrived approximately five years later; this group was less educated and poorer than the first wave (Ngo & Lee, 2007). Kim (2002) believed that although many of the second-wave immigrants had few finan- cial resources, they benefitted from a more established Vietnamese community that helped them to resettle. In contrast, Cambodians arrived in the United States in one large movement and with few resources; they had more difficulty adapting to mainstream culture (Kim, 2002). Many Lao refugees arrived with agrarian back- grounds (Takaki, 1993). One of the refugee communities from Laos was the Hmong. A preliterate society with an oral tradition, the Hmong had lived primarily in the mountains (Ngo & Lee, 2007). During the Vietnam War, the United States recruited many Hmong to fight a secret war in the mountains of Southeast Asia (Tanabe & Rochon, 2006). These examples illustrate that refugees from the three Southeast Asian groups differ not only in their cul- tures but also in their levels of education, professional degrees, and financial resources, all of which is reflected in their differences in achievement.

We suggest that the achievement of Filipino American stu- dents is highly influenced by the context of colonialism. In this study, the academic performance of Filipino American students

was approximately in the middle of the AAPI spectrum. Although Filipino immigrants arrive in the United States speaking English, their performance on the reading assessment indicates a need for literacy skills intervention. This is surprising because in 1898 the Philippines became a colony of the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, and the educational system was modeled after U.S. schools. Coloma (2009), however, contends that the United States created an education system in the Philippines that was patterned after the curriculum taught to Black Americans. Similar viewpoints were held about Filipinos; the population was considered to be uncivilized and primitive. Therefore, the United States set up schools that emphasized manual and industrial training for positions such as gardener, woodworker, weaver, and building maintenance worker (Coloma, 2009). Strong academics were not taught. Coloma believes that the people had few oppor- tunities to develop high-quality professional careers because they were thought of and treated as inferior. Espiritu’s (1994) study of second-generation Filipino Americans found children of immi- grant professionals struggling with marginality. In a society where race is a powerful force, the identity of many Filipino youth has been shaped by racial oppression in both the Philippines and the United States. We recommend further study on the impact of colonialism on achievement.

Complexities in Explaining Ethnic Group Achievement

As discussed above, numerous layers must be peeled back in the effort to understand and explain the achievement of AAPI stu- dents. In this context, we also suggest that educators consider the complex nature of the knowledge being measured by any assess- ment. Kana’iaupuni (2005) argued that knowledge in schools is culturally constructed. He described Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders as self-determined people who had extensive sci- entific knowledge and strong family ties, although mainstream schools do not recognize these strengths. His work discussed the ability of Polynesian navigators to travel 2,200 miles to Hawaii without Western instruments or maps. Native Hawaiians trav- eled from Tahiti to Hawaii repeatedly; their migration to Hawaii was not accidental. Although mainstream society questioned their cultural and scientific knowledge, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders sailed thousands of miles over open seas in relatively small vessels. As Kana’iaupuni carefully explained, intelligence is culturally defined. In line with his perspective, we caution educators from stereotyping the performance of Chinese American, Samoan American, or any AAPI students.

Researchers have often utilized the cultural values construct as the explanation for the educational and professional success of Asian Americans (Paik, 2002; Pearce, 2006; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). Some researchers believe that Asian American young peo- ple are socialized to accept certain cultural values, such as hard work, respect for authority, and education, that were transmitted through child-rearing practices and that this has led to high aca- demic achievement (Chen & Stevenson, 1995; Paik, 2002; Ngo & Lee, 2007). Identifying cultural values as the single explana- tion for academic achievement of various AAPI groupings nar- rows the ability to describe the complex phenomenon of educational achievement.

The social context of AAPIs must also be considered. Not only are AAPI students and their parents members of minority

novembeR 2011 387

subcultures; they also live within a mainstream society where they face societal oppression based on their race (Goodwin, 2002, 2010; Kana’iaupuni, 2005; Kiang et al., 1995; Lee, 1996; Palmer, 2010; Pang, 1990; Pang & Cheng, 1998; Rumbaut & Ima, 1988; Sue, 2009; Tanabe & Rochon, 2006; Tran & Birman, 2010; Turney & Kao, 2009). One example of prejudice can be found in higher education. The admissions of some AAPI indi- viduals to prestigious universities have been used to denigrate rather than to celebrate their accomplishments. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has been labeled “Made In Taiwan” and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), has been renamed the “University of Caucasians Living Among Asians” (Martin, 2009). These stereotypical labels serve to reinforce the view that AAPIs are not full members of society. Martin (2009) identified these prejudicial attitudes as evidence that racism has not been eliminated. In addition, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, like other historically oppressed minority groups, are disadvantaged but often do not benefit from race- based policies such as affirmative action (Goodwin, 2010).

The achievement gap is repeatedly presented as a Black–White dichotomy. This orientation not only marginalizes the academic needs of many AAPI students (Goodwin, 2010; Lei, 2006) but also promotes the invisibility of other students: Latinos and Latinas, Native Americans, and multiracial individuals (Lei, 2006; Sue, 2009). The discourse about the achievement gap must be expanded to include and address the importance of equity in education. The dichotomous discussion about the achievement gap must consider more than racial membership; it should con- sider the social and educational aspects of schooling, such as refu- gee history, family economic status, immigration status, home language, parent education levels, and culturally relevant curricu- lum (Irvine, 2003; Paik & Walberg, 2007; Pang & Cheng, 1998; Yu, Huang, Schwalberg, Overpeck, & Kogan, 2002).

Researchers have investigated many variables in the achieve- ment process, such as acculturation levels (Eng et al., 2008), prejudice and racism (Alvarez & Juang, 2010; King, 2005; Lee, 1996), child-rearing practices (Chen & Stevenson, 1995; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993; Sue & Okazaki, 1990), English pro- ficiency levels (Ngo & Lee, 2007), parent education levels (Pearce, 2006), generation in the United States (Pang, 1990; Woo, 2000), immigrant status (Fuligni, 1997; Rumbaut & Ima, 1988; Woo, 2000), teacher prejudice (Chang & Sue, 2003; Goodwin, 1997, 2010), and teacher development (Gay, 2000; Pang, 2010; Pang & Park, 2011; Tanabe & Rochon, 2006). However, it is apparent that future research must address the complex interactions of social, familial, and educational factors, along with the use of disaggregated data, in order to more com- prehensively identify critical elements in educational achieve- ment. Moreover, the characteristics of various AAPI communities and families are not the only essential elements in this discussion; we recommend that research in areas such as teacher prejudice, instructional curriculum, and school climate (Pang, 2009) also be considered.

Educational equity is one of the hallmarks of our democracy; the national value of social justice calls for a critique of the edu- cational system. The high achievement of several AAPI ethnic groups may have resulted from their belief in relative functional- ism, an educational response to social oppression. However,

the outcomes of this study demonstrate the importance of identifying AAPI ethnic membership when collecting achieve- ment records and using disaggregated data in research on the achievement gap. AAPI children and young people must be treated equitably in schools and society. We hope that the research presented in this study will motivate educators, researchers, and policy makers to consider how past educational practices utilizing AAPI aggregates resulted in overgeneralized perceptions and rein- forced the model minority myth. Educators must reflect upon the complex nature of the AAPI population and include its members’ disaggregate academic performance when considering the achieve- ment gap issue.

NoTE

We would like to acknowledge the support of Stanley Sue, the Freeman Foundation, San Diego State University’s President Leadership Fund, the National Center for Urban School Transformation at San Diego State University, Gerald C. H. Pang, Eric Poliak, Ramón Valle, Ric Hovda, Joseph Johnson, Lionel “Skip” Meno, Carl Grant, Francisco Rios, Margie Kitano, James Park, Cynthia D. Park, Yuji Shimogori, Melissa Hartley, Merry Merryfield, Tracy Lai, Educational Researcher editor Steve Yussen and associate editor Frances Lawrenz, and the anonymous peer reviewers.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, A. N., & Juang, L. P. (2010). Filipino Americans and racism: A multiple mediation model of coping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(2), 167–178.

Barringer, H. R., Takeuchi, D. T., & Xenos, P. (1990). Education, occu- pational prestige, and income of Asian Americans. Sociology of Education, 63, 27–43.

Bow, L. (2007). Racial interstitiality and the anxieties of the “partly col- ored”: Representations of Asians under Jim Crow. Journal of Asian American Studies, 10(1), 1–30.

California Department of Education. (2003a). About STAR 2003. Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/aboutSTAR.asp

California Department of Education. (2003b). Stanford 9–CAT/6 link- ing study. Retrieved from http://www.startest.org/pdfs/SAT9-CAT6_ linkstudy1.pdf

California Department of Education. (2004, May). Key elements of testing. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/ keyelements0504.pdf

Caplan, N., Choy, M. H., & Whitmore, J. K. (1991). Children of the boat people: A study of educational success. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Chan, S. (1991). Asian Americans: An interpretive history. Boston: Twayne.

Chang, D. F., & Sue, S. (2003). The effects of race and problem type on teachers’ assessments of student behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 235–242.

Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Asian-American, Caucasian- American, and East Asian high school students. Child Development, 66, 1215–1234.

Coloma, R. S. (2009). Destiny has thrown the Negro and Filipino under the tutelage of America: Race and curriculum under the age of empire. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(4), 495–519.

Cordova, F. (1983). Filipinos: Forgotten Asian Americans. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Education Trust. (2010). Overlooked and underserved: Debunking the Asian “model minority” myth in California schools. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/

educational ReseaRcheR388

ETW%20Policy%20Brief%20August%202010--Overlooked%20 and%20Underserved.pdf

Eng, S., Kanitkar, K., Cleveland, H. H., Herbert, R., Fischer, J., & Wiersman, J. D. (2008). School achievement differences among Chinese and Filipino American students: Acculturation and the fam- ily, Educational Psychology, 28(5), 535–550.

Espiritu, Y. E. (1994). The intersection of race, ethnicity, and class: The multiple identities of second-generation Filipinos. Identities, 1(2–3), 249–273.

Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The role of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68(2), 351–363.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and prac- tice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodwin, A. L. (1997). Multicultural stories: Preservice teachers’ con- ceptions of and responses to issues of diversity. Urban Education, 32(1), 117–145.

Goodwin, A. L. (2002). Teacher preparation and the education of immi- grant children. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 156–172.

Goodwin, A. L. (2010). Curriculum as colonizer: (Asian) American edu- cation in the current U.S. context. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3102–3138.

Gutstein, E., Middleton, J. A., Fey, J. T., Larson, M., Heid, M. K., Dougherty, B., et al. (2005). Equity in school mathematics education: How can research contribute? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 92–100.

Hsieh, M. F. (2011). Similar opportunities, diverse responses: Explaining the divergent patterns of development between Taiwan and Korea. International Sociology, 26(3), 364–391.

Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kana’iaupuni, S. M. (2005). Ka’akalai Ku Kanaka: A call for strengths- based approaches from a Native Hawaiian perspective, Educational Researcher, 34(5), 32–38.

Kao, G. (1995). Asian Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. American Journal of Education, 103(2), 121–159.

Kiang, P. N. (2002). K–12 education and Asian Pacific American youth development. Asian American Policy Review, 10, 31–47.

Kiang, P. N., Nguyen, N. L., & Sheehan, R. L. (1995). Don’t ignore it: Documenting racial harassment in a fourth-grade Vietnamese bilingual classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 28(1), 31–35.

Kim, R. Y. (2002). Ethnic differences in academic achievement between Vietnamese and Cambodian children: Cultural and structural expla- nations. Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 213–235.

King, J. E. (2005). Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, S. M. (2002). Do Asian American faculty face a glass ceiling in higher education? American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 695– 724.

Lei, J. L. (2006). Teaching and learning with Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 9(1), 85–101.

Leong, F. T. L., & Okazaki, S. (2009). The history of Asian American psychology. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(4), 352–362.

Lesser, G. S., Fifer, G., & Clark D. H. (1965). Mental abilities of chil- dren from different social class and cultural groups. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 30(4), 1–115.

Lew, J. (2006). Asian Americans in class: Charting the achievement gap among Korean American youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 295–338.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). NAEP overview. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education. (2008). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders—Facts, not fiction: Setting the record straight. New York: College Board. Available at http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/08- 0608-AAPI.pdf

Ngo, B., & Lee, S. J. (2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of Southeast Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 415–453.

Odo, F. (Ed.). (2002). The Columbia documentary history of the Asian American experience. New York: Columbia University Press.

Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64, 36–56.

Paik, S. J. (2002). Educational productivity in South Korea and the United States [Monograph]. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 535–607.

Paik, S. J., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). Narrowing the achievement gap: Strategies for educating Latino, Black, and Asian students. New York: Springer.

Palmer, J. D. (2010). The dance of identities: Korean adoptees and their journey toward empowerment. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Pang, V. O. (1990). Asian American children: A diverse population. Educational Forum, 55(1), 49–66.

Pang, V. O. (2009). The beliefs of successful Asian American Pacific Islander teachers: How culture is embedded in their teaching. AAPI Nexus, 7(1), 55–82.

Pang, V. O. (2010). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. San Diego, CA: Montezuma.

Pang, V. O., & Cheng, L. L. (1998). Struggling to be heard: The unmet needs of Asian Pacific American children. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Pang, V. O., Kiang, P. N., & Pak, Y. K. (2004). Asian Pacific American students: Challenging a biased educational system. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural educa- tion (2nd ed., pp. 542–563). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2011). Creating interdisciplinary multicul- tural teacher education: Courageous leadership is crucial. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 61– 78). Boston: Rowman and Littlefield.

Pearce, R. R. (2006). Effects of cultural and social structural factors on the achievement of White and Chinese American students at school transition points. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 75–101.

Peterson, W. (1966, January 9). Success story: Japanese American style. New York Times Magazine, Section 6, pp. 20–43.

Ramist, L., & Arbeiter, S. (1986). Profiles: College-bound seniors 1985. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima, K. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family Support Administration, Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Samuels, M. L., & Witmer, J. A. (1999). Statistics for the life sciences (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 110–114.

Sue, S. (2009). Ethnic minority psychology: Struggles and triumphs. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(4), 400–415.

Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achieve- ments: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45(8), 913–920.

novembeR 2011 389

Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston: Little, Brown.

Takeuchi, D. T., & Hune, S. (2009). Growing presence, emerging voices: Pacific Islanders and academic achievement in Washington. Olympia: Washington State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs.

Tanabe, C. S., & Rochon, R. S. (2006). Seeking educational justice for Hmong children: The journey and transformation of two professors given the opportunity of working with Hmong students. In E. W. Ross & V. O. Pang (Eds.), Race, ethnicity, and education: Principles and practices of multicultural education (pp. 183–200). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Tran, N., & Birman, D. (2010). Questioning the model minority: Studies of Asian American academic performance. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 106–118.

Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257–271.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Facts for features: Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month May 2011. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ newsroom/releases/pdf/cb11ff-06_asian.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture (2007). Federal register: Child nutrition programs–Income eligibility guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.fns .usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/IEGs07-08.pdf

Uy, P. S. (2009). Asian American dropouts: A case study of Vietnamese and Chinese high school students in a New England urban school district. AAPI Nexus, 7(1), 83–104.

Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of “student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34, 28–35.

Wilson, R. A., & Hosokawa, B. (1980). East to America. New York: William Morrow.

Woo, D. (2000). Glass ceilings and Asian Americans. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Xie, Y., & Goyette, K. A. (2004). The American people: A demographic portrait of Asian Americans. New York: Russell Sage.

Yu, S. M., Huang, Z. J., Schwalberg, R. H., Overpeck, M. D., & Kogan, M. D. (2002). Association of language spoken at home with health and school issues among Asian American adolescents. Journal of School Health, 72(5), 192–198.

Zhou, M., & Bankston, C. L., III. (1998). Growing up American: How Vietnamese children adapt to life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage.

AUTHoRS

VALERIE OOKA PANG is a professor of teacher education at San Diego State University, College of Education, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1153; [email protected]. Her research focuses on teacher education, multicultural education, social studies education, and the education of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

PEGGY P. HAN is a senior epidemiologist/biostatistician at the Naval Health Research Center, Department of Medical Modeling, Simulation, and Mission Support, 140 Sylvester Road, San Diego, CA 92106; [email protected]. Her research focuses on large-data health outcomes and longitudinal studies.

JENNIFER M. PANG is a postdoctoral fellow at the Seattle Biomedical Research Institute, 307 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98109; [email protected]. Her research focuses on science edu- cation outreach, equity in education, and bacterial genetics.

Manuscript received March 15, 2011 Revisions received August 29, 2011

Accepted August 31, 2011