Do they progress or do they lag behind? Educational attainment of immigrants’ children in Italy: The role played by generational status, country of origin and social class

Abstract

In this paper we investigate immigrant-native differentials in Italian upper secondary education. We use Italian Labour Force Survey data to provide evidence from a new context of immigration which has been not adequately covered by research so far. We focus on the population of 15–19-year-olds and investigate their educational participation in upper secondary education both in its horizontal dimension, by examining the choice among three school branches (i.e., vocational, technical and general schools), and in its vertical dimension, by assessing dropout risks. We find compelling evidence of a pronounced educational gap between natives and children of immigrants, which reaches its maximum when considering first-generation youths, sensibly decreases when considering the second generation and totally disappears when looking at children of mixed-parentage. However, these overall generational patterns disguise a highly heterogeneous situation. Some national-origin groups severely disadvantaged in the first generation (e.g., Eastern Asians) completely catch up with natives when considering the second generation, while some others (e.g., Northern Africans) still lag behind. Hence, immigrants’ scholastic adaptation in Italy follows heterogeneous paths rather than being a straight way to full integration into the host society. Finally, in line with previous research, social class accounts for nearly half of the gap for the first generation and over 70 per cent for the second generation, clearly indicating that the educational success of immigrants’ children results not only from a positive acculturation process of the children but also from a positive socioeconomic integration of their parents. However, the contribution of social class varies substantially across national-origin groups: the relative contribution of social origins is stronger for the least disadvantaged groups, suggesting that the particularly high drawbacks of the most severely disadvantaged groups may be rooted in linguistic and cultural factors.