Symbolic Representation,Cooperation,and Undocumented Immigrants: The Role of Representation in Improving Assessments of Cooperative Behaviors in Education

Abstract

This article explores how symbolic representation can increase behaviors associated with cooperation among immigrants in an educational setting. It posits that, due to a lack of trust and efficacy in public institutions, undocumented immigrants are less likely to engage in activities that are conducive to cooperation and compliance. However, this relationship is conditional on the presence of passive representation. In settings where immigrant interests are represented, even passively, immigrants are more likely to engage in cooperative behaviors. Using data from Texas school districts, the analysis finds some support that passive representation can enhance symbolic representation among this population. It finds that assessments of immigrants’ cooperative behaviors are likely to decrease as the size of the undocumented student population increases. However, this is only the case in schools with low levels of representation. This supports the expectation that symbolic representation can enhance assessments of cooperative behaviors among undocumented immigrants.

Keywords

representative bureaucracy symbolic representation immigration education cooperation coproduction undocumented students

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkins

Wilkins

(2013). Going beyond reading, writing and arithmetic: The effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 771–790.

Balfanz

Byrnes

(2006). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high poverty middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11, 143–159.

Bean

F. D.

Leach

M. A.

Brown

S. K.

Bachmeier

J. D.

Hipp

J. R.

(2011). The educational legacy of undocumented migration: Comparisons across U.S.-immigrant groups in how parents’ status affects their offspring. International Migration Review, 45(2), 348–385.

Bovaird

Loeffler

(2013). We’re all in this together: Harnessing user and community co-production of public outcomes. Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham.

Brandsen

Pestoff

(2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493–501.

Brown

(1999). Ethnic politics and public sector management in Trinidad and Guyana. Public Administration and Development, 19, 367–379.

Brown

Harris

(1993). The implications of work force diversification in the U.S. Forest Service. Administration and Society, 25, 85–113.

Brudney

J. L.

England

R. E.

(1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.

Brudney

J. L.

Hebert

T. F.

Wright

D. S.

(2000). From organizational values to organizational roles. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 491–512.

10.

Corville-Smith

(1995). Truancy, family processes, and interventions. In Ryan

Adams

Gullotta

Weissberg

Hampton

(Eds.), The family-school connection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 270–287). SAGE.

11.

Crosnoe

Lopez Turley

R. N.

(2011). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. Future Child, 21(1), 129–152.

12.

Dolan

(2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes and representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513–529.

13.

Epstein

J. L.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308–318.

14.

Esman

M. J.

(1999). Public administration and conflict management in plural societies: The case for representative bureaucracy. Administration and Development, 19, 353–366.

15.

Gade

D. M.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 267–288.

16.

Garcia

E. E.

(2001). Latino education in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.

17.

Garcia

J. A.

(2016). Latino politics in America: Community, culture, and interests. Rowman & Littlefield.

18.

Gibson

M. A.

Carrasco

(2009). The education of immigrant youth: Some lessons from the U.S. and Spain. Theory into Practice, 48(4), 249–257.

19.

Guinier

(1994). The tyranny of the majority: Fundamental fairness in representative democracy. Free Press.

20.

Hill

G. C.

Hawes

D. P.

(2011). Managing undocumented students: Do undocumented students hinder student performance? State and Local Government Review, 43, 183–195.

21.

Hindera

J. J.

(1993a). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 415–430.

22.

Hindera

J. J.

(1993b). Representative bureaucracy: Imprimis evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 95–108.

23.

Hong

(2016). Representative bureaucracy, organizational integrity, and citizen coproduction: Does an increase in police ethnic representativeness reduce crime? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 11–33.

24.

Jakobsen

Andersen

S.C.

(2013), Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713.

25.

Keiser

Wilkins

Meier

K. J.

Holland

(2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, identity, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553–565.

26.

Kelly

R. M.

Newman

(2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracy. Women & Politics, 22, 1–34.

27.

Lamdin

D. J.

(1996). Evidence of student attendance as an independent variable in education production functions. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 155–162.

28.

Leal

D. L.

Meier

K. J.

Martinez-Ebers

(2004). The politics of Latino education: The biases of at-large elections. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1224–1244.

29.

Lim

H.-H.

(2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204.

30.

Meier

K. J.

(1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review, 69(2), 526–542.

31.

Meier

K. J.

(1993). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. Research in Public Administration, 2, 1–35.

32.

Meier

K. J.

Hawes

D. P.

(2009). Ethnic conflict in France: A case for representative bureaucracy? American Review of Public Administration, 39(3), 269–285.

33.

Meier

K. J.

Nicholson-Crotty

J. N.

(2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66, 850–860.

34.

Meier

K. J.

Nigro

L. G.

(1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36(4), 458–469.

35.

Meier

K. J.

Polinard

J. L.

Wrinkle

(1999). Politics, bureaucracy, and farm credit. Public Administration Review, 59, 293–302.

36.

Meier

K. J.

Stewart

Jr. (1991). The politics of Latino education. State University of New York Press.

37.

Meier

K. J.

Stewart

Jr. (1992). Active representation in educational bureaucracies: Policy impacts. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 157–171.

38.

Meier

K. J.

Stewart

Jr. England

(1989). Race, class and education. University of Wisconsin.

39.

Menchaca

V. D.

(2003). Ensuring success for Latino migrant students. In Kloosterman

(Ed.), Latino students in American schools: Historical and contemporary views (pp. 129–139). Praeger Publishers.

40.

Mosher

(1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press.

41.

Nichols

J. D.

(2003). Prediction indicators for students failing the state of Indiana high school graduation exam. Preventing School Failure, 47, 112–120.

42.

Nicholson-Crotty

Grissom

N.-C.

Redding

(2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 745–757.

43.

Ochoa

(2003). The struggle of access: The achievement trends of Latino youth in middle and high school. In Kloosterman

V. I.

(Ed.), Latino students in American schools. Praeger.

44.

Osborne

McLaughlin

(2004). The cross-cutting review of the voluntary sector: Where next for local government-voluntary sector relationships? Regional Studies, 38(5), 573–582.

45.

Riccucci

Saidel

J. R.

(2001). The demographics of gubernatorial appointees. Policy Studies Journal, 29, 11–22.

46.

Riccucci

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30.

47.

Riccucci

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Lavena

(2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551.

48.

Riccucci

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130.

49.

Saltzstein

G. H.

(1979). Representative bureaucracy and bureaucratic responsibility: Problems and prospects. Administration and Society, 10, 465–475.

50.

Selden

S. C.

(1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy. M. E. Sharpe.

51.

Theobald

N. A.

Haider-Markel

D. P.

(2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 409–426.

52.

Thomas

Walker

Meier

K. J.

(2011). Texas Middle Management Survey – 2011. Project for Equity, Representation, and Governance.

53.

Wilkins

V. M.

Keiser

L. R.

(2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16, 87–102.