Marie Mc AndrewCanada Research Chair on Education and Ethnic

RelationsFaculty of Education, University of Montreal

THE RUPPIN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMMIGRATION

«Young Immigrants: The education perspective »

May 31st 2010

FACTORS INFLUENCING SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AMONG IMMIGRANT/MINORITY YOUTH

Socio-economic theories

Pre-migratory and linguistic factors

Socio-cultural theories

Systemic factors

THE CANADIAN CONTEXT

An active and selective immigration policy

A class-balanced immigration, but significant polarization

A federal system where education is a prerogative of provinces

ORIGIN AND RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY

The importance of schooling experiences and outcomes

The lack of quantitative comparable pan-canadian studies, both with regard to school performance and the factors that influence it

The interest of using provincial or local administrative data banks, often not sufficiently exploited

METHODOLOGYA cohort study of educational pathways and

academic performance of secondary school students expected to graduate in 2004 in the three major “immigrant receiving” cities of Canada (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)

The target group: Students who do not use at home the majority language of

schooling (i.e. non-French speakers in Montreal/non-English speakers in Toronto and Vancouver)

The comparison group: Students who use French (in Montreal) or English (in

Toronto and Vancouver) at homeLinguistic sub-groups:

The 5 most numerous in each site (regression analysis)+ A choice among the other sites “top five” Taking into account low, middle, or high achievers groups

(descriptive data)

DEPENDANT VARIABLES

• Cumulative graduation rate two years after expected (today’s presentation)

• Participation in university-bound/selective courses

INDEPENDANT VARIABLES

Socio-economic and demographic variables

1) Gender (binary): Male /female

2) SES (continuous): Median family income, in census enumeration area

inhabited by students

3) Immigrant status (binary): Born in Canada/Outside Canada (only Montreal and

Toronto)

Schooling process variables

4) Age when entering high school (binary): Students on time / 1 year late or more

5) Level of entry in the school system (binary): Students in data banks in primary or junior high/Students

not in data banks before high school

6)Frequency of school changes (binary): No school change,/One school change or more

7) Taking ESL/ESD courses (Toronto, Vancouver) or receiving soutien linguistique (Montreal) during secondary schooling (binary):

(Yes/No)

School context variables

8) Concentration in schools attended by non-English (or non-French in Montreal) speakers (continuous)

9) Attendance of a school defined by provincial or local authorities as socio-economically “challenged” (binary): Yes/No

10) Attendance of a private school/ a public school (binary) (only Montreal and Vancouver)

STRENGTHES AND WEAKENESSESOF OUR ENDEAVOUR

Factors selected for their availability in data banks

Our main strength: Pre-migratory, schooling process and school characteristics

An SES indicator linked to census dissemination area, not to individual students

Socio-cultural and systemic factors: A grasp at the macro-level

DESCRIPTIVE DATAA diversified target group within and across sites

in term of socio-economic, schooling process and school characteristics

In general, comparative characteristics that should lead to expect potential problems in term of schooling experiences and outcomes

Data on schooling outcomes that reflect this diversity, but clearly show an unexpected positive differential, both for the target group as a whole and many sub-groups

Cumulative graduation rates within jurisdiction of the target and comparison groups (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)

On time(%)

1 year after expected (%)

2 years after expected* **

(%)

Montreal

French speakers 52.2 58.8 61.6

Non-French speakers 45.5 55.3 59.5

Toronto

English speakers 48.7 62.0 64.8

Non-English speakers 49.9 62.0 64.5

Vancouver

English speakers 71.0 75.0 75.0

Non-English speakers 75.0 80.0 80.0

Cumulative graduation rates within jurisdiction among selected sub-groups (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)

Language used at home

Montreal(%)

Toronto(%)

Vancouver(%)

Chinese 77.6 78.1 87.0

Vietnamese 82.4 62.3 68.0

Persian 64.9 51.5 73.0

Arabic 66.5 51.6 67.0

Spanish 51.5 46.9 61.0

Creole 39.9 - -

Portuguese - 47.3 -

MULTIVARIATE REGRESSIONANALYSIS

Graduation: Differences between the target group and the comparison group, with or without control variables (n = all students)

Only language target group

With control variables

Odd-ratio Sig Odd ratio Sig

Montreal(n =

13,960)1.08 1.39 ***

Toronto(n =

14,728)1.26 *** 1.35 ***

Vancouver(n =

22,248)2.14 *** 2.12 ****** = Significant at < 0.001

QUESTION 1When their various characteristics are taken into account, do the target group and various sub-groups succeed better, worse or the same than the comparison group?

Graduation: Differences between selected sub-groups and the comparison group, with or without control variables (n = all students)

Only language target group

With control variables

Odd-ratio Sig Odd ratio Sig

Three cities

Chinese

Montreal 2.70 *** 4.08 ***

Toronto 2.08 *** 2.04 ***

Vancouver 2.90 *** 2.80 ***

Two cities

VietnameseMontreal 2.78 *** 2.99 ***

Vancouver 0.68 ** 1.07

SpanishMontreal 0.87 1.0

Vancouver 0.46 *** 0.68 **

One city

Creole Montreal 0.52 *** 0.78 *

Persian Toronto 0.73 * 0.87 **

*** = Significant at < 0.001 ** = Significant at < 0.05 * = Significant at < 0.10

Ranking-order of linguistic sub-groups in each city(with control variables)

Montreal Toronto Vancouver

Chinese Chinese Chinese

Vietnamese Tamil Punjabi

Arabic Urdu Philippino

Russian Other non-English speakers

Other non-French speakers

Other non-English speakers

Vietnamese

Spanish English English speakers

French speakers

Creole Persian Spanish

Graduation: A synthesis of the impact of factors for the target group(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)

Variables Montreal Toronto Vancouver

Socio-demographic Gender (female) ++ ++ ++ Immigrant status (yes) n.s. + n/a Median family income n.s. + n.s.School process Age at arrival (being late) -- -- -- School change (yes) -- -- -- Level of entry (primary or by Grade 8/secondaire1) n.s. n.s. ++ Still need linguistic support in high school -- - n.sSchool characteristics Attendance of a private school ++ n/a ++ Attendance of a school with more than 75% of the

target group - + n.s.

Attendance of a school identified as challenged n.s. n.s. -

QUESTION 2What are the main factors that influence graduation rates among the target group?

Largely similar factors

But stronger impact of

Median family income

Attendance of a school identified as educationally challenged

All schooling process variables

QUESTION 3

Do these factors affect the comparison group in the same manner?

1) Contexts such as Canada permit to better distinguish the schooling experience of immigrant/minority youth from that of socio-economically challenged students Even with globally slightly more negative

characteristics, significant higher graduation and participation in selective courses odd ratios (without and with control variables) in the 3 cities

Less impact of median family income in the target group than in the comparison group (metho limit?)

Limited or non significative impact of attending an educationally challenged school

A significant positive “immigrant status effect”

2) Our research reveals striking differences among linguistic sub-groups, even when other control variables are taken into account

On a continuum the “achieving” Chinese students vs. the “highly at-risk” Spanish or Creole students

Such contrast can be interpreted as either confirming the impact of:• Family and community values and strategies• Positive/negative relationship with the host society• Capacity to develop an instrumental relationship with

schooling• Systemic factors: teacher’s attitudes, valorization of

language and culture in curriculum, etc.

Policy implication: no “one size fits all” programs or supplementary support

3) Interesting (and largely unexplained) differences also emerge

Between the same group with control variables in different cities. Ex.: Vietnamese in Montreal and Vancouver

Between the 3 cities, both for the target and comparison groups. Ex.: Vancouver vs. Montreal (both including private and public sectors)

Between schools with similar composition of “minority” population in Montreal and Vancouver (school level variance 20%) but less in Toronto

4) The effect of gender and of various schooling process variables is as expected (but not as strong as the fact of belonging to various linguistic sub-groups)

Policy implications:

Target population = Boys attending a public school, entering the school system one year or more late, and still needing linguistic support

5) Target group concentration seems to play a slightly negative or positive role in some contexts but only in “75% plus” type of schools

6) Future research needed:

Understanding the factors hidden under linguistic sub-group differences

Ascertain to which extent the majority/minority context of Montreal has a negative impact on the schooling experience of minority youth

Revisiting SES impact with alternative indicators and questions

Comparing the Canada case study with other international endeavours