The New Immigration:
Challenges Facing Social Studies Professionals

Xue Lan Rong

Immigration has been increasing at an unprecedented pace in the United States, with an average of about one million immigrants--legal and illegal--entering this country each year since the late 1970s. It peaked in 1991, when a record 1.8 million people were legally admitted as the result of annual immigration and a one-time government amnesty program. Given the total of about 10 million immigrants who entered the United States in the 1980s (with similar projections for the 1990s), immigration into the United States has surpassed its historic high of about 8 million during the 1910s.1

Massive immigration is the current reality and future prospect faced by the U.S. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,2 if immigration continues at present levels, the U.S. population will increase from the 248 million recorded in the 1990 census to 275 million in the year 2000, 347 million in 2030, and 394 million in 2050. This means that the population will grow by about half, with immigration accounting for more than one-third of this growth.

The most noticeable characteristic of the new immigration is that the majority of immigrants are from non-industrialized countries. This trend first emerged in the 1950s and accelerated after passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, which ended the racially discriminatory country quotas established by the National Origins Quota Acts of 1921/1924. By 1990, nearly three quarters of the new immigrants designated themselves Hispanic or Asian. This increase in Asian and Latino immigration entails not only a shrinking in the proportion of the non-Hispanic white majority. It also means that the proportion of blacks in the minority population has been declining; in fact, by 1992, blacks no longer constituted a majority of the U.S. minority population.

The new immigration has raised many political and social questions about the future of American society. Americans have been ambivalent about immigration since the countryís inception. Particularly since the great wave of immigration at the turn of the last century, we have demonstrated both pride in being a ìnation of immigrantsî able to convert ìhuddled massesî into thriving members of the middle class, and anxiety over the effects of immigration on economic competition, political stability, and cultural unity.

Some perceive the new immigration as detrimental to the national interest, and point to immigrants as the source of many of our societal problems. These concerns are reflected in the passage of laws with immigration components at all levels of government. This includes the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which aimed to reduce immigration by, among other things, cutting down on the number of legal immigrants who can enter the United States to reunite with their families. Meanwhile, welfare bills at the national and state level have aimed at changing the eligibility requirements for legal and illegal immigrants seeking government benefits, such as Medicaid and Medicare, unemployment compensation, federal food stamps, and federal student aid.

With the new immigration affecting so many aspects of life in the United States, schools have become the front line for meeting the newcomers. Our schools have long received intensive attention--even heated publicity--over the approaches they have adopted for integrating newcomers into American society. This includes debate over assimilation vs. acculturation as the proper model for teaching immigrant children. It also includes constant debate over the allocation of limited educational resources.

The disagreements are evident, for example, in the failed attempts to ban the children of undocumented (illegal) Mexican immigrants from local schools in Texas and Florida in the late 1970s; in the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994 limiting education and health services to illegal immigrants and their children (most parts of this bill have already been thrown out by the courts); and in the passage of Proposition 227 in California in 1998 to end bilingual education.

This article will describe and analyze the new immigration trends in terms of three major issues:

> The magnitude of the new immigration, and its impact on the total U.S. population and the school age population (children ages 5 to 17)

> Changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the total U.S. population and the school population

> Diversity in terms of the inter- and intra-group differences among the new immigrant groups

It will then discuss the implications of the new immigration for the nationís schools, with emphasis on the overall institutional response, the need to overcome stereotypes of immigrant groups, and the appropriate model for teaching immigrant children.

The New Immigration and Population Growth

The new immigration is producing dramatic changes in the proportion of the U.S. population represented by immigrants and their offspring, as well as in the countryís racial/ethnic composition. The Urban Institute projects that by 2010, one in five Americans will be an immigrant or a child of immigrants, and about one-third of the population will be composed of minority groups. By 2050, one in three Americans may be either an immigrant or a child of immigrants, and the proportion of the minority population may rise to about half of the total U.S. population.3

In 1995, there were 49 million children in the school age population of 5- to 17-year-olds. This group is expected to increase by 3 million (to 52 million) in 2000, and by another 17 million (to almost 70 million) in 2050. Taken in parts, the elementary and middle school population (children ages 5 to 13) is expected to increase from 34.4 million in 1995 to 36 million in 2000. The number will then stabilize until 2015, and then grow to 38 million in 2020, and nearly 48 million in 2050. The high school population (children ages 14 to 17) is projected to grow from 15 million in 1995 to 17 million in 2005. As the smaller cohorts born near the end of the century enter high school, this group should stabilize until after 2020, and then increase steadily to 21 million in 2050.4

Immigration has contributed to population growth in an increasing proportion (now about one-third) as the birth rate of native-born Americans has slowed. This means that schools in areas of booming population may expect an overflow of immigrants and their children. Between 1995 and 2025, the immigrant population in a number of states is expected to more than double. California is projected to see the largest number of new immigrants--9 million added to its current 8 million. The next largest additions are predicted for New York state, with 4 million joining its current 3.2 million; Florida, where the population will double from 2 to 4 million; and New Jersey, Illinois, and Texas, each more than doubling its current 1 million.5

The greatest difficulties in absorbing the new immigration are reported in already stressed urban school districts, where recent immigrants join concentrations of people occupying the lowest socioeconomic status. Urban schools have been struggling to find ways to serve both immigrants and the native poor from a diminishing resource base. Unhappily, their overcrowded classrooms, social and racial tensions, and controversy over curriculum and instruction are often the target of public criticism.6

The New Immigration: Racial and Ethnic Composition

The Immigration Act of 1965, which did away with country quotas and promoted family reunification, reflected that eraís domestic policy emphasis on improving civil rights, and its foreign policy emphasis on establishing better relations with newly independent Third World countries. As a result, legal immigration from the developing world began to rise substantially. At about the same time, termination of the Bracero program for Mexican farm workers in the United States caused an immediate increase in undocumented (mostly Mexican) immigration, as the demand for cheap farm labor did not abate.7

Today, the Hispanic population is the most rapidly growing minority in the United States. This is due to a continuing high rate of immigration, higher birthrates among Hispanic women in the United States (for example, about 60% higher than for non-Hispanic whites), and the relative youth of the Hispanic population (42% of Hispanics are under age 18, as compared with 29% of the overall U.S. population).

Between 1980 and 1990, the Hispanic population increased more than seven times as rapidly as other groups, and now stands at about 30 million. By 2010, the Hispanic population is expected to rise to 41 million, or 13.8% of the U.S. population. It would then exceed the black population (an estimated 37 million or 12.4%) to become the largest minority group in the country. This pattern is seen to a lesser extent among Asians. Mainly due to the very high level of immigration (approximately 300,000 per year), the Asian population increased from 3.5 million in 1980 to 9.5 million in 1997, and is expected to reach 15 million or 5% of the population by 2010.

These trends are changing the United States from a largely biracial society--consisting of a sizable white majority, a small black minority, and a less than 1% American Indian minority--into a multiracial and polyethnic society consisting of several racial/ethnic groups of considerable size.8 And these changes have important implications for the nationís schools.

Figure 1 shows the racial/ethnic composition of American school age children in 1980 and 1997, and as projected for 2010 and 2050. It indicates a rapid increase of Asian and Hispanic children. Minority children altogether made up 24% of American school age children in 1980 and 33.6% in 1997, with their proportion expected to reach 40% in 2010. By 2050, when the minority population is projected to be 45% of the total U.S. population, minority children should account for 56% of the U.S. school population.

Immigrant minorities share three problems: their immigrant background (associated with unfamiliarity with the language, culture, and social and political institutions of the host country); their immigrant status (arousing hostility, alienation, and suspicion from some native-born individuals); and their race or ethnicity (emphasizing their cultural differences and eliciting racial discrimination).

Studies of race and ethnic relations in American society have produced much knowledge about the dynamics of prejudice and discriminatory practices by dominant majority groups. Although in the past, immigrants from Europe faced difficulties in assimilating, non-European immigrants have historically been accused of being unassimilable.9 Increasing anxiety among majority whites about job competition and cultural unity may have less to do with the actual number of immigrants than with their national origins and racial/ethnic composition.10 Moreover, the widespread characterization of ìmodel minoritiesî constantly promoted by Americaís Anglo-American majority may help stir competition among native-born and immigrant minorities.

In recent years, attention has also been directed toward examining sources of conflict between and among minority groups.11 For example, Freer has suggested that tension between African Americans and Korean immigrants reflects a volatile situation in which two minority groups are forced to compete for low paying jobs and dwindling resources in a distressed inner city economy.12 Many African Americans believe that their share of the national and local social service budgets has decreased because new minority immigrants require the same services.

Confrontation may also arise over access to educational opportunities.13 Some recent immigrant minorities (mainly Caribbean blacks and non-Mexican Hispanics) are qualified for affirmative action programs originally designed to protect African Americans and some U.S.-born Mexicans from segregation in education and discrimination in employment. Some feel that to include recent immigrants under the umbrella of affirmative action undermines the legitimacy of both affirmative action and immigration policies.14

A recent flurry of research has examined sources of discord between people of different nationalities within the same race, people of differing geographic origin within the same nationality, and long-term U.S. residents and newcomers within the same nationality.

Educators need to be aware of the difficult psychological adjustment faced by immigrants who are assigned ìminorityî status for the first time after arriving in the United States. Such people, who are ambiguous in their legal status, unfamiliar with the American legal process, and lacking social connections and networks, may be especially vulnerable to discrimination of all kinds.15

The New Immigration: Diversity among Immigrants

There are many forms of diversity among the new immigrants. To begin with, ìHispanicî and ìAsianî are umbrella terms for large groups of people who differ substantially among themselves. These terms refer to the collective identification, and common labeling and stereotyping, of groups who shared only a tenuous bond before arriving in the United States.

ìHispanic,î or alternatively ìLatino,î is a category including people of various races, cultures, religions, and residencies across broad geographic areas. They may be connected by little more than similarity in language. For example, consider the differences between Cuban and Mexican Americans. Cubans, who are mostly white and include many professionals and entrepreneurs, escaped a communist regime and settled in the United States as political refugees.

Most Mexican Americans have entered the United States under very different conditions: Historically, a large number of Mexicans became U.S. citizens by circumstance after their nationís defeat in the Mexican-American War. In recent times, large numbers of Mexicans have entered the United States both legally and illegally, but never as refugees. In contrast to Hispanics, Asians have been bound not by spoken language, but by the culture, religion, written characters, philosophy, family customs, and personal values shared among some Asian groups.16

The new immigrants are diverse in other respects. Rumbaut has argued that todayís immigrants include the most-educated (e.g., Asian Indians and Taiwanese) and the least-educated (e.g., Mexicans and Salvadorans) people in U.S. society, as well as groups with the lowest poverty rates (Filipinos) and the highest poverty rates (Laotians and Cambodians).17 This polarization may reflect socioeconomic status in home countries, conditions under which immigrants entered the United States, and the processes and outcomes of acculturation.

For example, although many newcomers to the United States can qualify as the ìhuddled massesî named on the Statue of Liberty, a larger proportion of the new immigrants are among the best educated, the most skilled, and even the most affluent and powerful, of other nations. Although the least educated of todayís immigrants are only half as likely as native-born Americans to have finished high school, the most educated are more likely than the native-born to have graduate and professional degrees.

Diversity is also embodied in the various ways in which people came to this country. The new immigration has a larger proportion of ìadditional immigrationî than any cohort in U.S. history. Much of it is composed of refugees and some asylees. More than one million Cubans, 900,000 Southeast Asians, and upwards of 500,000 people from Eastern Bloc and other nations who have entered the country since the late 1960s make up the largest refugee flow in U.S. history.18

ìAdditional immigrationî also includes those who enter the United States illegally, and those who enter legally but then overstay illegally. People who have expired visas do not come predominantly from any one country, but as a group, do represent almost half of the illegal immigrant population in recent years.19

The diversity among the new immigrants has tremendous implications for the schools. Educators need to move away from the conventional stereotype that each racial or ethnic group has but one culture and its members a single identity. Empirical research shows the existence of a wide range of cultures and identitiesóreflecting such traits as nationality, socio economic class, generation, gender, and type of immigrationóamong members of a single racial or ethnic group. For example, one study of Mexican immigrant youth reported several identities among them, such as ìCholors,î ìChicanos,î and ìMexicans,î and found that variable academic achievement was often associated with these identities.20

The New Immigration and the Schools

By any description, the United States is facing a new immigration pattern with great implications for the nationís schools. The remainder of this article will examine three challenges to American educators in terms of the new immigration. These involve the overall institutional response, with particular attention to the composition of our teacher corps; the need for overcoming stereotypes of immigrants, especially those who belong to minority populations; and the choice of the best model for integrating immigrant students into American society.

The Institutional Response

Due to the population growth expected in the next five years, our nationís schools will require 200,000 to 300,000 additional teachers. Both elementary and secondary schools are encountering a general shortage of qualified teachers in all areas. There are also serious concerns about the social-demographic characteristics of our current public school teachers.

The U.S. Census for 1990 indicates that while minority students then constituted 28% of the school population, the proportion of minority teachers was only 15.5%. Moreover, research suggests an enlarging gap between the proportion of minority students and minority teachers over the next 15 years, if current teacher recruitment policies continue without major changes.

In addition to the shortage of minority teachers across the board, the shortage of Hispanic, Asian American, and actual immigrant teachers is worsening given the high rise in the Asian and Hispanic populations. Research indicates a parallel trend between all U.S. teachers and teachers of the social studies.

Many ethnographic studies indicate that teachers and students from the same cultural and linguistic backgrounds often interact in ways that promote high levels of engagement. Other studies indicate a gap in knowledge and attitudes between teachers with and without an immigrant background. For example, immigrant and first generation teachers showed more empathy for, and a greater willingness to teach, culturally different children than did native-born teachers in a study conducted by Lacattiva.21

Overall, the scarcity of minority and immigrant teachers in U.S. schools could result in a reduced awareness of what is needed to address the educational concerns of these populations. An essential response to the new immigration is to devise innovative plans to recruit minority and immigrant teachers, teachers with bilingual and bicultural competence, and teachers who are able and willing to work with linguistic minority students.

In teaching about immigration and in teaching immigrant students, both cognitive and affective domains are important; that is, students need to acquire knowledge of our immigration history and empathy with todayís newcomers. Social studies teachers bear the main responsibility for teaching immigrant students about U.S. history and government as preparation for becoming full and active citizens. Their subject matter is also well suited for teaching all students about cultural diversity within the United States and around the world. Social studies teachers thus have a unique opportunity to serve as a cultural bridge between native-born and immigrant students.

The Need to Overcome Stereotypes

The United States has been through anti-immigration movements every few decades since its founding. The prominence of this issue can be attributed, at least in part, to its inherently racial and ethnic character. Clearly immigration is not, and has never been, a racially or ethnically neutral issue.

Social studies educators are well placed to help immigrants fight racial discrimination and xenophobia at school and in society. But they must be aware of their own perceptions of immigration and their own racial attitudes in order to identify any possible sources of negative feeling. Teachers also need a clear understanding of the diversity among immigrants, and a balanced perception of immigration that sees not only its problems but also its benefits.

The prospect of a more racially and ethnically diverse population in our urban areas is often depicted in alarmist tones, as if such a situation must necessarily lead to increased competition and even overt racial conflict. But the new immigration has brought many positive changes to our cities. The jobs created by immigrant ethnic enclaves are helping to revive a declined urban economy, while the polyethnic social context may actually give minorities moreórather than lessóleverage to resolve the traditional racial problem of black versus white in U.S. society.

Urban schools may also benefit from the new immigration. While the entry of pupils from immigrant communities can pose challenges for educational institutions, the transition may also boost enrollment, encourage higher academic success, and foster other constructive changes. Moreover, the appearance of highly motivated immigrant students and their parents in an underfinanced public school can bolster staff morale, increase student achievement, and encourage other positive changes.22

An important aspect of the current anti-immigration sentiment is opposition to Hispanicóand especially Mexicanóimmigrants. Teachers can help by making a special effort to teach the history of Mexican Americans, who have suffered from long-term economic exploitation and racial oppression in this country. This historical mistreatment has continuing psychological effects on Mexican American and immigrant youth. Many respond by developing ambivalent attitudes toward school and authority, some withdrawing from active participation in school, others going further to become part of an anti-education student culture. Teachers should be prepared to help these students fight racial and social discrimination as well as to withstand pressure from their peers.23

Educators need to understand that all childrenóminority and majorityóare living in a society with increasingly complex racial and ethnic situations. They need to comprehend the special difficulties facing immigrant minority children as they struggle to balance the temptation of complete and quick Americanization against loyalty to their own cultures. This cultural transition may involve tremendous efforts, endless inner turmoil, and frequent identity collapses.

Educators can help by accepting immigrant studentsí self-chosen identities and by respecting their previous life experiences. Immigrant students need this support in order to develop the self-confidence to withstand stereotypical labels in which their cultures are usually viewed as underdeveloped and inferior. We should also recognize that by incorporating such a perspective fully into educational programs, we will promote a better understanding of all students.

Choosing a Model: Assimilation vs Acculturation

The philosophical issue at the core of teaching about immigration and teaching immigrant students involves the model that should guide the process of integration into U.S. society. There have always been two major categories of models for explaining the immigrantís adaptation process: the classic assimilation model, also called ìfull Americanization,î the ìmelting pot,î or ìsink or swimî; and the acculturation model, variously termed ìmulticulturalism,î ìaccommodation without assimilation,î or the ìadditive model.î

The assimilation model so widely advocated among the nationís educators proposes a straight line of progress for immigrant youth in educational attainment. It is based on the premise that the more Americanized immigrants become, the more parents will be effective advocates for their childrenís education, and the better youth will perform in schools. This will be so especially if immigrants move out of ethnic neighborhoods and retreat from their native language, ethnic beliefs, and cultural behaviors. The assimilationists assume that, regardless of the initial placement of an ethnic group within the larger social structure, all immigrant and racial or ethnic groups will, in a natural and revolutionary way, become like the dominant group.24

However, an in-depth examination of the recent literature suggests a more complex and nuanced account. While some ìassimilationî is valuable for schooling (e.g., learning English and behavioral expectations for students in U.S. schools), too much assimilation into American society and some of its anti-schooling elements can be detrimental to educational attainment.

To fit in with their peer group, immigrant children may adopt the values and behaviors of their peers and come to see their parents as authoritarian, old-fashioned, and un-American. Such youngsters may find themselves alienated from their families and communities at a point in their lives when they most need this support in finding their way through a maze of colliding cultures. If immigrant youth move too far from immigrant ethnic communities, they are more apt to become involved in activities such as extensive paid work, early dating and extra-marital pregnancy, and drug or alcohol use, all of which have harmful effects on educational attainment.25

According to Gibson, the traditional assimilation model is a ìsubtractiveî approach that requires newcomers to give up many aspects of their cultural heritage in exchange for full acceptance into U.S. society. It treats immigration backgrounds as a liability and views links to ethnic communities as symbolic of decelerated Americanization.26

In contrast, an additive model of acculturation envisions that immigrant children adopt some norms of U.S. society, but simultaneously maintain elements of their native culture that prevent extensive assimilation into American youth culture. This model emphasizes the importance of parental and community influence over youth as a powerful force leading to strong educational attainment.

The majority of immigrants who must settle first in central cities or other poor communities may be adversely affected by ghettoization. In this case, becoming Americanized means being assimilated into the underprivileged segment of society. As an alternative, immigrant groups may find it more advantageous to inculcate younger members with their own cultural traditions and to emphasize increased solidarity and cooperation within the immigrant community.27

In the case of Haitian children in Miami and Jamaicans in New York City, scholars such as Waters have found that high achievers among immigrant black youth tend to have rejected the ìghetto blackî label and to have avoided absorption into local anti-social cultures by retaining the identity of their immigrant nationalities.28

The persistent lower educational attainment among some immigrant minority groups may suggest that educators need to reexamine their traditional belief that ìcomplete Americanizationî is always beneficial for the schooling advancement of immigrant children. Rather, they may want to consider strategies that help these children draw strength from their home cultures, develop a positive sense of their ethnic/immigrant identity, and maintain their native languages as cultural resources.29

In Conclusion

The United States is in the midst of a new wave of immigration that is the largest in a century and more diverse than any previous wave in the nationís history. Immigration of this sweep and scope puts the nation at the eve of its largest ethnic transformation, which could threaten the bonds of its union if the change is not handled well.

To meet this challenge, teachers may borrow from the experiences of the past, but more importantly, they must also recognize that times have changed. This includes significant changes in political and judicial areas that affect the process by which immigrants adapt to their new country. The request for the preservation of linguistic and cultural resources is stronger, the arguments for this preservation are better established, and the advocacy of civil rights for immigrants and their children is more emphatic. At the same time, there are strong challenges to immigration that may affect what schools can deliver in meeting the needs of immigrant children.

As President Clinton pointed out in a recent address at Portland State University, the nationís ethnic and cultural diversity can be a strength, and America should set an example for the world.30 There is a great deal that social studies educators can do to make this happen. Social studies has traditionally been a primary vehicle for helping immigrant children adjust to life in the United States. It is also a powerful tool for helping all studentsónative-born and immigrant alikeódevelop an appreciation for our immigrant tradition and ethnic diversity in the United States.

Teaching about immigration can help students understand how and why America was, is, and should be a country of pluralism. This is because the history of immigration embodies the larger historical struggle in this country to defend the fundamental democratic principles of liberty, equality, justice, individual rights, and human dignity for all people.

Notes

1. A number or a percentage presented in this study may have involved calculations and estimations based on several census sources and other sources (such as population projection, scholarly works, etc.). Details about each calculation procedure are too trivial to be included here, but can be provided on request for any datum.

2. For estimates of the future population of the United States directly affected by fertility, mortality, migration, and many other demographic and social factors, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population ReportsóPopulation Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050, P25-1130, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).

3. Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey Passel, Immigration and Immigrant Generations in Population Projections (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1992).

4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, P25-1131.

5. Ibid.

6. Lorraine M. McDonnell and Paul T. Hill, Newcomers in American Schools (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1993).

7. Frank Bean, Robert Cushing, Charles Haynes, and Jennifer Van Hook, ìImmigration and the Social Contract,î Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997): 249-58.

118. Jeffrey S. Passel and Barry Edmonston, Immigration and Race in the United States: The 20th and 21st Centuries (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1992).

9. Xue Lan Rong and Judith Preissle, ìThe Continuing Decline in Asian American Teachers,î American Educational Research Journal 34 (1997): 267-93.

10. Douglas S. Massey, ìThe New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States,î Population and Development Review 21 (1995): 631-52

11. See, for example, Scott Cumming and Thomas Lambert, ìAnti-Hispanic and Anti-Asian Sentiments among African Americans,î Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997): 338-53.

12. Regina Freer, ìBlack-Korean Conflict,î in Mark Baldassare, ed., The Los Angeles Riots (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1994), 175-203.

13. Kenneth Meier and Joseph Stewart, The Politics of Hispanic Education (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).

14. Robert Pear, ìChange in Policy for Immigration is Urged by Panel,î The New York Times (June 4): 1.

15. Alejandro Portes and Ruben G. Rumbaut, Immigrant America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).

16. Xue Lan Rong and Judith Preissle, Educating Immigrant Students: What We Need to Know to Meet the Challenges (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage-Corwin Press, 1998).

17. Ruben G. Rumbaut, ìThe Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented Assimilation among Children of Immigrants,î International Migration Review 28 (1994): 748-94.

18. Philip Martin and Elizabeth Midgley, ìImmigration to the United States: Journey to an Uncertain Destination,î Population Bulletin 51 (1994): 2-46.

19. Robert Warren, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States, by Country of Origin and State of Residence: October 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Immigration and Naturalization Service Statistics Division, 1992).

20. Carola Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, Transformations (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995).

21. Rong and Preissle, ìThe Continuing Decline.î

22. Rong and Preissle, ìEducating Immigrant Students.î

23. Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco.

24. Portes and Rumbaut; Rong and Preissle, ìEducating Immigrant Students.î

25. Linda Grant and Xue Lan Rong, Gender, Immigrant Generation, Ethnicity and the Schooling Progress of Youth, unpublished manuscript.

26. Margaret A. Gibson, ìAdditive Acculturation as a Strategy for School,î in Ruben G. Rumbaut and Wayne A. Cornelius, eds., Californiaís Immigrant Children (San Diego, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1995): 77-106.

27. Carl Bankston and Min Zhou, ìThe Social Adjustment of Vietnamese American Adolescents: Evidence for a Segmented-Assimilation Approach,î Social Science Quarterly 78 (1997): 508-23.

28. Mary C. Waters, ìEthnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York City,î International Migration Review 28 (1994): 795-820.

29. Gibson.

30. The complete text of President Clintonís remarks is on the World Wide Web at http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/1980615-12352.html.

Sources for Population Information

http://www.census.gov

For a current listing of whatís new and available for K-12 education, information about other Census Bureau data products, and some real world curriculum ideas, get a copy of Census Bureau Education Program Update #1. Call or write: Census Bureau, Education Program, Data User Services Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233. Telephone: (301) 763-1510.

For specific information call:

Kevin Deardorff at (301) 457-2397 for National Population Projections

Carol Faber at (301) 457-2454 for Foreign-born Population

Xue Lan Rong is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.