1. Marie Mc Andrew Canada Research Chair on Education and Ethnic Relations Faculty of Education, University of Montreal THE RUPPIN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMMIGRATION «Young Immigrants: The education perspective » May 31 st 2010

3. FACTORS INFLUENCING SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT AMONG IMMIGRANT/MINORITY YOUTH Socio-economic theories Pre-migratory and linguistic factors Socio-cultural theories Systemic factors

4. 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

5. 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

6. METHODOLOGY A 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 home Linguistic 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)

7. DEPENDANT VARIABLES Cumulative graduation rate two years after expected (today’s presentation) Participation in university-bound/selective courses

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. STRENGTHES AND WEAKENESSES OF 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

13. DESCRIPTIVE DATA A 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

14. 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 speakers52.258.861.6 Non-French speakers45.555.359.5 Toronto English speakers48.762.064.8 Non-English speakers49.962.064.5 Vancouver English speakers71.075.0 Non-English speakers75.080.0

15. Cumulative graduation rates within jurisdiction among selected sub-groups (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) Language used at home Montreal (%) Toronto (%) Vancouver (%)  Chinese77.678.187.0  Vietnamese82.462.368.0  Persian64.951.573.0  Arabic66.551.667.0  Spanish51.546.961.0  Creole39.9--  Portuguese-47.3-

16. MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

17. Graduation: Differences between the target group and the comparison group, with or without control variables (n = all students) Only language target groupWith control variables Odd-ratioSigOdd ratioSig Montreal (n = 13,960) 1.081.39*** Toronto (n = 14,728) 1.26***1.35*** Vancouver (n = 22,248) 2.14***2.12*** *** = Significant at < 0.001 QUESTION 1 When 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?

18. Graduation: Differences between selected sub-groups and the comparison group, with or without control variables (n = all students) Only language target groupWith control variables Odd-ratioSigOdd ratioSig Three cities Chinese Montreal2.70***4.08*** Toronto2.08***2.04*** Vancouver2.90***2.80*** Two cities Vietnamese Montreal2.78***2.99*** Vancouver0.68**1.07 Spanish Montreal0.871.0 Vancouver0.46***0.68** One city CreoleMontreal0.52***0.78* PersianToronto0.73*0.87** *** = Significant at < 0.001 ** = Significant at < 0.05 * = Significant at < 0.10

19. Ranking-order of linguistic sub-groups in each city (with control variables) MontrealTorontoVancouver Chinese VietnameseTamilPunjabi ArabicUrduPhilippino RussianOther non-English speakers Other non-French speakers Other non-English speakers Vietnamese SpanishEnglishEnglish speakers French speakers CreolePersianSpanish

20. Graduation: A synthesis of the impact of factors for the target group (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) VariablesMontrealTorontoVancouver Socio-demographic  Gender (female) ++  Immigrant status (yes) n.s.+n/a  Median family income n.s. + School process  Age at arrival (being late) --  School change (yes) --  Level of entry (primary or by Grade 8/secondaire1) n.s. ++  Still need linguistic support in high school ---n.s School 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. - QUESTION 2 What are the main factors that influence graduation rates among the target group?

21. 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?

23. 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”

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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