Adoption, Foreign‐Born Status, and Children's Progress in School
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12268 |
| Date | 01 February 2016 |
| Author | Kevin J. A. Thomas |
| Published date | 01 February 2016 |
K J. A. T The Pennsylvania State University
Adoption, Foreign-Born Status, and Children’s
Progress in School
Using recent data from the American Com-
munity Survey, the author investigated how
the dynamics of immigration inuence our
understanding of the adoption–schooling rela-
tionship. The results suggest that implications
of immigrant and adoption statuses could be
understood within specic familial contexts.
Thus, no statistical differences were found in
the outcomes of foreign-born adoptees in U.S.
native families and their peers with immigrant
parents. Instead, the most favorable patterns of
schooling progresswere found among U.S.-born
adoptees living in immigrant families. Among
immigrants, the analysis indicated similar
patterns of achievement among Hispanic and
White adoptees that are inconsistent with the
predictions of segmented assimilation theory.
However, there was a Hispanic disadvantage
relative to Whites among immigrant childrenliv-
ing with biological and stepparents. The article
concludes with a discussion of the implications
of these ndings for kinship selection and assim-
ilation processes and the contention that alter-
native theoretical frameworks should be used to
understand the implications of adoption status.
At no time in U.S. history have we witnessed
the types of transformations now occurring in
Department of Sociology, The Pennsylvania State
University,211 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA16801
(kjt11@psu.edu).
This article was edited by Robert Crosnoe.
Key Words: adoption, adoptive families, education, immi-
grants.
adoptive families. The unprecedented growth
in the size of the adoptee population is indis-
putable (Selman, 2009; Stolley, 1993). In the
second half of the 20th century, the number
of adoptees increased from about 50,000 in
the mid-1940s to more than 110,000 in 1990
(Stolley, 1993). Along with other transforma-
tions in children’s living arrangements, these
changes have attracted signicant attention in
the literature. New studies on the health, social,
and psychological outcomes of adopted children
have provided a useful portrait of how well they
adapt to life in their new families (L. Hamilton,
Cheng, & Powell, 2007; Hellerstedt et al., 2008).
However, despite this increasing body of work,
lingering questions remain concerning whether
adopted children have similar levels of socio-
economic attainment as their peers who live with
biological parents (Rueter & Koerner, 2008; Van
Londen, Juffer, & van IJzendoorn, 2007).
In this study I used data from the American
Community Survey (ACS; https://www.census.
gov/programs-surveys/acs/) to provide a
nuanced perspective on the relationship between
adoption and child well-being. I focused on dis-
parities in schooling progress, conditional on
adoption status, and paid attention to three
specic issues. First, I investigated whether
the relationship between adoption status and
schooling progress differs among foreign-born
and U.S.-born children. Second, I examined
whether foreign-born adoptees are more likely
to lag behind in school compared to U.S.-born
adoptees. Third and nally, I examined whether
adoption status results in differentiated patterns
of educational incorporation among immigrant
Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (February 2016): 75–90 75
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12268
76 Journal of Marriage and Family
children. In the process, I examined whether
these variations are associated with differences
in racial and ethnic characteristics.
B
Research on adoption status, which often takes
one of two perspectives, generally yields con-
trasting ndings on its implications for the
well-being of children. The rst perspective
indicates that adopted children experience
signicant social and developmental disadvan-
tages compared to their non-adopted peers.
These disadvantages are typically explained
using insights from kinship selection theory
and its prediction of a positive relationship
between parental investment in children and
degrees of biological relatedness (Gibson,
2009; W. D. Hamilton, 1964). According to this
perspective, disparities in child well-being are
interpreted as resulting from the fact that parents
invest less in the well-being of nonbiological
children, such as adoptees and foster children,
than they do in their biological kin (Gibson,
2009; W. D. Hamilton, 1964). Support for this
hypothesis has been found across several dis-
ciplines. In the health literature, for example,
adoptees have been found to have worse health
outcomes compared to non-adoptees (Miller,
Fan, Christensen, Grotevant, & Van Dulmen,
2000). A similar pattern of adoptee disadvantage
underlies many of the ndings reported in the
educational literature. Accordingly, adopted
children have been found to have lower levels of
achievement, more problems in school, and less
positive feelings about school compared to other
children (Miller, Fan, Grotevant, et al., 2000;
Plug & Vijverberg,2003; Raleigh & Kao, 2013).
A second perspective on the implications
of adoption status suggests that adoptees do
not experience systematic socioeconomic dis-
advantages compared to other children (e.g.,
Borders, Black, & Pasley, 1998; Van Londen
et al., 2007). Proponents of this perspective
argue that parents deliberately act to mitigate
biases in their investment in children by adopt-
ing a range of compensatory behaviors that can
help to eliminate disparities among children (L.
Hamilton et al., 2007). Indeed, several studies
have provided evidence showing that adoption
status does not necessarily result in negative
implications for children. For example, in their
sociological analysis of the implications of
adoption, L. Hamilton and colleagues (2007)
found that adopted children in two-parent fam-
ilies were more likely to have higher levels of
parental investment in their schooling than chil-
dren in other types of families. Psychologists
further reported that there are no differences
in IQ and self-esteem between adoptees and
non-adoptees and that, in some cases, adoptees
have more favorableindicators compared to their
non-adopted siblings (Juffer & van IJzendoorn,
2007). Yet the available psychological evidence
is not conclusive. Other psychologists have pro-
vided mixed evidence indicating that adoptees
have lower levels of functioning in some mea-
sures of adjustment and higher levels in others
(Sharma, McGue, & Benson, 1998).
Recent increases in international adoptions
by U.S. parents have introduced even more
uncertainty into our understanding of the impli-
cations of adoption. In the past four decades,
the United States has emerged as the leading
destination for children adopted from for-
eign countries (Selman, 2012). However, few
studies have assessed the educational incor-
poration of foreign-born adoptees, although
an increasing number of studies have been
examining their health outcomes (e.g., Fischer
et al., 2008; Hostetter et al., 1991). In contrast
to the limited research on the education of
foreign-born adoptees, the general literature
on the educational outcomes of the foreign
born is extensive. This body of work indicates,
among other things, that foreign-born children
face signicant challenges to success in school.
These challenges include low levels of English
prociency (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009),
the disadvantage of racial and ethnic minority
status (Kao & Tienda, 1995), and challenges
associated with variations in their age at arrival
in the United States (Gonzalez, 2003).
The existing research has not systematically
examined whether these factors mediate the edu-
cational incorporation of immigrant adoptees.
However, as foreign-born children, they are
likely to face some of these challenges, and
this could result in achievement gaps between
immigrant and U.S.-born adoptees. Further-
more, the high degree of racial diversity among
foreign-born adoptees (Kreider, 2003; Kreider
& Lofquist, 2010) raises other important ques-
tions. Although an extensive body of research
has examined transracial adoptions (Hansen &
Simon, 2005; Lee, 2003) very little is known
about how racial minority status could constrain
the educational attainment of foreign-born
To continue reading
Request your trial