Peer Victimization Among English Learners: The Protective Impact of Dual Language Programs

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between English Learner (EL) classification, language program type, and peer victimization using U.S. nationally representative data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 2011. Leveraging a sample of 9,562 children, this study investigates whether dual language programs serve as a protective factor against peer victimization compared to English-only programs. Participation in dual language programs reduces peer victimization among ELs relative to those in English-only programs. These results highlight the importance of expanding access to linguistically inclusive programs that affirm students’ home languages and fostering school environments that support holistic development for ELs.

Keywords

bilingual/bicultural early childhood educational reform immigration/immigrants learning environments longitudinal studies peer interaction/friendship quasi-experimental analysis regression analyses secondary data analysis

English Learners (ELs) constitute a substantial and diverse segment of the U.S. public school population, accounting for approximately 10.4% of students—about 5.3 million children—in the 2021–2022 school year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Identified through home language surveys and English proficiency assessments, these students receive targeted support to develop academic English. Despite their size and diversity, less is known about their exposure to peer victimization in school settings.

“Peer victimization” refers to repeated, intentional aggression by peers that occurs in the context of a real or perceived power imbalance, including physical aggression (e.g., hitting), verbal abuse (e.g., name-calling), relational exclusion (e.g., being left out), and reputational harm (e.g., spreading rumors; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1993). These experiences can have lasting consequences for students’ mental health, academic engagement, and overall school adjustment (Martinez, et al., 2024; Ttofi et al., 2011).

Despite these risks, peer victimization remains understudied in EL research—a gap that limits our understanding of how language status and educational placement shape students’ experiences of inclusion and exclusion. This study addresses that gap by examining patterns of peer victimization among EL-classified students in the United States, focusing on how these experiences vary across language program models.

In most U.S. schools, ELs are placed in one of two primary instructional contexts: dual language programs or English-only programs. “Dual Language” refers to instructional models that provide academic content in both English and a partner language (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Although they vary in structure, this study uses a broad classification that includes transitional bilingual, developmental bilingual, and heritage language models. These programs differ in their goals—some aim for biliteracy, others for English transition—but all involve institutional use of students’ home languages, which may offer protective social benefits for ELs. Although many dual language programs serve both ELs and native English speakers, only EL-classified students are included in this analysis. In contrast, English-only programs focus solely on English acquisition and include models such as pull-out English as a second language (ESL), push-in ESL, and structured English immersion. A more detailed description of these program types appears later in the article.

Although EL classification is typically transitional, students who are labeled as “English Learner” often experience heightened visibility within school settings, making them uniquely susceptible to peer bias and social marginalization (Umansky et al., 2017). This study explores how EL classification and placement in a Dual Language or English-only program shape students’ experiences of peer victimization.

To guide this analysis, the following research questions are posed:

Research Question 1: How does being classified as an EL influence experiences of peer victimization, and do these experiences vary over time across EL subgroups?

Research Question 2: Does participation in a Dual Language or English-only program have a differential effect on peer victimization among ELs?

Literature Review

Peer Victimization

Peer victimization, or bullying, is associated with a range of negative psychological, social, and academic outcomes (Lawrence et al., 2023; Moore et al., 2017; Turunen et al., 2021). It has been linked to anxiety, depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem, which can persist into adolescence and adulthood (Callahan et al., 2023; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Martínez et al., 2024; Ttofi et al., 2011).

Bullying often begins early, with up to 80% of students in Grades 3 through 5 engaging in at least one aggressive act (Glew et al., 2005; Orpinas et al., 2003). Peer victimization is a persistent issue, particularly affecting minority and linguistically diverse students (Jansen et al., 2016; Moutappa et al., 2004; Rose et al., 2011).

Peer victimization can also create a cycle of harm, where children who are bullied are at increased risk of future victimization due to emerging psychological vulnerabilities (Christina et al., 2021; Walters & Espelage, 2020). However, not all victims of bullying are equally affected—some demonstrate resilience, which may be linked to their coping mechanisms and social support systems (Compas et al., 2017; Ttofi et al., 2011).

Peer Victimization Among ELs: The Intersection of Language, Immigration, and Social Exclusion

The relationship between immigrant background, EL classification, and peer victimization remains understudied due to its complex intersections with race, language, and cultural differences. ELs—particularly Asian and Latinx students—are disproportionately targeted as a result of language barriers and cultural dissimilarities (Mouttapa et al., 2004; Qin et al., 2008). Immigrant status and linguistic diversity are well-established predictors of bias-based harassment, which is associated with lower academic performance, diminished engagement, and increased absenteeism (Bayram Özdemir et al., 2016; J. G. Green et al., 2024).

Social identity theory suggests that students seek affiliation with dominant groups, leading to the exclusion of peers marked as culturally or linguistically different (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When English is constructed as the norm for academic success, such dynamics are reinforced by institutional practices, such as language tracking, which can limit cross-group interaction and contribute to peer marginalization (Mazzone et al., 2018).

Segmented assimilation theory offers a framework for understanding how institutional environments shape immigrant incorporation (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Portes & Zhou, 1993). Although originally developed to explain immigrant integration, the theory is well suited to this study because ELs—many of whom are children of immigrants—often navigate similar challenges related to cultural retention, language adaptation, and structural reception within schools. Although not all ELs are immigrants, they face similar school dynamics, making the theory useful for understanding their experiences of peer inclusion and exclusion. This theory posits three pathways: consonant assimilation into the middle class, dissonant assimilation into marginalized segments, and selective acculturation, where youth maintain cultural ties while achieving mobility. These outcomes are influenced by family structure, community support, and institutional reception—particularly how schools respond to cultural and linguistic diversity (Zhou & Xiong, 2005).

Portes and Rumbaut (2001) suggested that dissonant assimilation emerges when students face structural barriers, such as racial discrimination or exclusionary school environments, which may weaken academic engagement, erode cultural identity, and increase vulnerability to peer victimization. In contrast, selective acculturation offers a more adaptive path, retaining their home language and cultural identity while acquiring English. However, as Waters et al. (2010) argued, the benefits of selective acculturation may further depend on a broader context of reception that includes access to institutional resources and a community with internal class diversity. Without these conditions, cultural retention alone may not be sufficient to secure upward mobility.

Dual Language programs may offer precisely the kind of positive institutional environment that leads to upward mobility from selective acculturation. By affirming bilingualism, reinforcing cultural identity, and promoting inclusive peer norms, these programs help create a context where bicultural competence is not only possible but also valued (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999). In contrast, English-only models often reflect assimilationist ideologies that devalue home languages, potentially fostering dissonant acculturation, intergenerational conflict, and increased social exclusion (Dabach, 2014; Gándara & Zárate, 2014). These instructional models are embedded within a broader political climate that frames English monolingualism as a marker of national belonging, normalizing linguistic assimilation as both an academic and civic expectation (Rosa & Flores, 2017).

This study examines whether instructional models that support bicultural competence, such as Dual Language programs, are associated with lower rates of peer victimization compared to English-only settings that may reinforce one-sided assimilation. Segmented assimilation theory provides a lens for understanding how school structures influence both social integration and students’ vulnerability to peer-based harm.

Programs for Language Instruction

Building on these theoretical insights, this section provides an overview of the instructional models that structure EL students’ learning environments and social positioning in U.S. schools. Schools in the United States offer a range of instructional models for ELs, broadly categorized into Dual Language programs, which support literacy in both English and students’ home languages, and English-only programs, which focus exclusively on English literacy (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). These instructional models not only influence academic development but may also shape students’ peer experiences and sense of belonging (Valentino & Reardon, 2015).

Dual Language programs include models such as two-way immersion and heritage language instruction, which aim to foster bilingualism and cultural inclusion by supporting the development of both English and students’ home languages (Howard et al., 2018; Umansky & Reardon, 2014). A key feature of these programs is that instruction is delivered by teachers who are fluent in both English and the students’ home language, which allows for more inclusive, culturally sustaining, and linguistically responsive learning environments (de Jong, 2011; Gándara & Escamilla, 2017). English-only programs, by contrast, emphasize English immersion and often restrict the use of students’ home languages. Common models include pull-out ESL, push-in ESL, and sheltered English immersion, all of which aim to accelerate transition into mainstream English instruction—reinforcing English as the dominant and, at times, the only accepted language of instruction (Dabach, 2014; Gándara & Zárate, 2014).

These contrasting orientations have implications for how linguistic and cultural differences are treated in classrooms and among peers. Research suggests that English-only environments may exacerbate social isolation for ELs by limiting opportunities for meaningful integration and affirming interactions (Callahan & Gándara, 2014). In contrast, Dual Language settings are associated with greater peer inclusivity and more equitable school climates (Lindholm-Leary, 2011). Rosa and Flores (2017) offered further insight by identifying raciolinguistic ideologies—systems of belief that conflate language use with racialized judgments. Even when ELs use English “appropriately,” these ideologies may lead to continued marginalization based on how race and language are socially constructed together. In such environments, ELs may face bullying not because of linguistic performance per se but because of enduring perceptions of cultural difference.

Although these orientations provide a useful analytical framework, it is equally important to recognize that instructional models are not monolithic. Substantial variation exists within both Dual Language and English-only approaches. For example, English-only settings may include newcomer programs that embed culturally responsive practices while still emphasizing English immersion (Holzman et al., 2024). In some contexts—particularly low-incidence EL settings or schools with high linguistic diversity—educators may affirm students’ cultural identities even within English-dominant environments. Factors such as leadership, training and school resources shape the inclusivity of these settings (Umansky, 2016).

As noted earlier, this study draws on teacher-reported classifications in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Class of 2011 (ECLS-K:2011) data set to distinguish between Dual Language and English-only instructional models. Although this binary framework guides the analysis, the “Dual Language” category encompasses a range of bilingual approaches—not only those explicitly promoting biliteracy. In this sense, the classification reflects institutional efforts to incorporate students’ home languages in any formal capacity. Importantly, such use—regardless of specific program design—may confer sociolinguistic and protective benefits (Callahan & Gándara, 2014). At the same time, English-only settings are diverse. Some programs may adopt asset-based perspectives on multilingualism despite operating in English-only environments. This variation is revisited in the discussion section, where implications for policy and practice are explored beyond the constraints of the binary used in this study.

The Importance of Examining Peer Victimization in Dual Language Versus English-Only Programs

Given these distinctions, it is important to examine how such instructional settings may influence not only learning outcomes but also ELs’ experiences with peers. Bilingual education programs have been shown to foster inclusive school climates by affirming students’ home languages and cultural identities, unlike English-only environments, which often frame multilingualism as a deficit (Dabach, 2014; Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006; Porter et al., 2023). Schools that promote bilingualism tend to enhance linguistic proficiency and cultural competency (Mavrogordato et al., 2024).

Additionally, bilingualism has been linked to improved cognitive control and conflict resolution skills—factors that may help students navigate peer interactions and reduce bullying (D. W. Green & Abutalebi, 2013). However, despite the theoretical promise of bilingual programs, national empirical evidence on how these programs shape EL peer experiences remains limited. It is unclear whether the protective effects against victimization stem from the instructional models themselves or from broader school climate characteristics, such as peer demographics or emphasis on academic achievement (Stephenson et al., 2024).

Heineke et al. (2023) offered important qualitative insight into this question. Drawing on a comparative case study across several elementary and middle schools, the authors found that ELs in Dual Language programs described more positive peer relationships and stronger belonging and that those in English-dominant or transitional settings reported greater social marginalization. Their findings suggest that instructional model type can meaningfully shape ELs’ peer dynamics. However, the study’s small sample size, regional scope, and reliance on perceived well-being rather than direct measures of peer victimization limit the generalizability of its conclusions. These limitations underscore the need for large-scale, longitudinal research that systematically examines peer victimization outcomes across different instructional models.

Examining Peer Victimization Through an Ecological Systems Perspective

Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory conceptualizes children’s development as shaped by nested environmental contexts, making it well suited for analyzing peer victimization. Rather than treating bullying as solely interpersonal, this framework accounts for how individual, family, school, and societal factors interact to influence students’ social experiences.

Hong and Espelage (2012) applied this model to school-based peer victimization, demonstrating how factors across the microsystem (e.g., peer relationships, teacher interactions), mesosystem (e.g., family-school engagement), exosystem (e.g., neighborhood violence), and macrosystem (e.g., cultural norms around language and identity) contribute to bullying outcomes. Their work highlights how school climate and institutional responses are embedded within broader ecological forces.

This study draws on ecological systems theory both conceptually and analytically. The empirical models incorporate controls across multiple levels—student demographics and health, family structure, school poverty, and EL concentration—to reflect the layered influences shaping EL students’ peer experiences. Instructional model functions as a macrosystem-level factor, reflecting the school’s stance toward linguistic diversity and cultural inclusion. By adopting this multilevel perspective, the analysis seeks to better account for the educational and contextual factors that shape peer victimization among ELs.

Data and Methods

Data Source

This study draws on data from the ECLS-K:2011 data set, a nationally representative longitudinal study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The study began in the 2010–2011 school year with a cohort of children enrolled in kindergarten and followed them through the end of fifth grade. It collected detailed information on children’s academic progress, social and emotional development, and family, school, and classroom contexts, using direct child assessments and surveys from parents, teachers, and school administrators. This study uses the publicly available version of the data set.

Peer victimization—the focal outcome—was measured beginning in third grade (2014) and continued through fifth grade (2016), making these three waves the basis for analysis (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Although the original cohort included over 18,000 students, only 14,610 remained eligible for follow-up by fifth grade due to attrition and mover subsampling. Of those, 11,445 students completed the child assessment, which includes the peer victimization measures. The analytic sample includes students with nonmissing values on the outcome, key covariates, and program participation across the three waves, yielding a final sample of 9,562 students and 20,644 person-year observations.

Epistemological Orientation and Positionality

This study is grounded in a constructivist epistemology, which recognizes knowledge as shaped by social, cultural, and institutional contexts (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). My analytic lens reflects a commitment to educational justice and an interest in how structural factors—such as language policy and school climate—influence students’ lived experiences. As an immigrant whose first language is not English, I bring personal insight into how linguistic identity can shape students’ sense of belonging and exclusion in schools.

Key Independent Variables: EL Status and Language Instruction Program Classification

The primary independent variables in this study are current EL status and language instruction program type. Current EL status captures whether a student was officially classified as an EL during a given survey year. This time-varying designation reflects students’ active receipt of language services and their visibility within school accountability systems—making it relevant for analyzing peer dynamics and school-based stigma.

Language instruction program type is also time-varying and is based on teacher-reported data describing whether the student participates in a Dual Language or English-only program. These categories apply to all students classified as ELs, and program definitions are provided in Appendix A, available on the journal website (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

Dependent Variable

The primary dependent variable is peer victimization, measured using four student-reported items included in the data set. These items were adapted by the data study designers from Espelage and Holt’s (2001) original 21-item bullying and victimization scale. The items ask students how often, during the current school year, other students (a) teased, made fun of, or called them names; (b) told lies or untrue stories about them; (c) pushed, shoved, slapped, hit, or kicked them; and (d) deliberately left them out from playing. Responses range from 1 (never) to 5 (very often), and the measure is calculated as the mean of these four items. The scale demonstrates strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .79) and provides a reliable index of students’ bullying experiences.

Control Variables

This study includes student-, school-, teacher-, and parent-level control variables to account for factors that may influence both peer victimization and language instruction. For more details about these covariates, see Appendix B, available on the journal website. In line with Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory, these controls reflect the multiple environmental layers shaping peer interactions and school experiences.

Descriptive Summary

Table 1 summarizes key sociodemographic and school-level characteristics. About 8.4% of students were classified as current ELs, most of whom were in English-only programs. The sample was socioeconomically and racially diverse, with broad variation across school locales. Covariates, such as reading scores, special education status, and parental involvement, are detailed in Table 1 and included in all models.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Full Sample Including Current English Learners (ELs)

	Proportion or M	SD
EL-classified student groups
Current EL	8.4%
Dual Language program	6.1%
English-only program	2.3%
Reading scores (standardized)	1.3	.34
Student gender
Female	48.9%
Male	51.1%
Student free or reduced-price lunch eligible	56.5%
Student’s special education status	11.8%
Student race
White	47.4%
Black	10.5%
Latinx	28%
Asian	8.7%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	1%
Native American/Alaskan	1%
Multiple races	4.1%
Student health
Excellent	54.4%
Very good	29.5%
Good	13.7%
Fair or poor	2.4%
Number of siblings	1.6	1.13
Parent characteristics
Parental involvement
Not involved	24.6%
Somewhat involved	47.8%
Very involved	27.7%
School measures
School district composite poverty	19.7	10.62
Total English Learners in school	15.5%
Percentage of students free or reduced-price lunch eligible	13%
Locale
City	32.6%
Suburban	40.5%
Town	7.3%
Rural	19.6%
Teacher characteristics
Years as schoolteacher	14.2	9.18
N	54,522

Note. N reflects unique student-year observations. Mean peer victimization is calculated by averaging across available time points for each student. Reading scores are based on the reading theta score, an item-response-theory-derived estimate of students’ reading ability. Theta scores are centered around 0 and typically range from approximately −3 to +3. Higher values indicate greater reading proficiency and allow for standardized comparisons across students.

Table 2 compares current ELs by instructional program. Dual Language participants were more likely to be Latinx, come from low-income backgrounds, and attend higher poverty schools with more ELs. Despite these differences, they reported lower levels of peer victimization compared to ELs in English-only programs. Reading scores and gender composition were similar across groups.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for the English Learner Subsample by Instructional Program Type

	English-Only		Dual Language		Total
	Proportion or M	SD	Proportion or M	SD	Proportion or M	SD
Peer victimization	2.11	.96	1.98	.89	2.08	.94
Student characteristics
Standardized reading test scores	1	.31	1.03	.33	1.01	.31
Male	47.2%		48.9%		47.7%
Female	52.8%		51.1%		52.3%
Free or reduced-price lunch eligible	32%		41%		34%
Student race
White	3%		1%		3%
Black	2%		0%		2%
Latinx	78%		94%		83%
Asian	15%		4%		12%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	1%		0		1%
Student health
Excellent	38.2%		36.8%		37.7%
Very good	29.4%		27.9%		29%
Fair	25.6%		28.2%		26.4%
Poor	6.8%		7.1%		6.9%
Number of siblings	1.9	1.21	2	1.3	1.9	1.24
School characteristics
School district composite poverty	23.47	9.29	31.66	12.22	25.7	10.8
Total English Learners in the school	36.91	21.49	45.65	19.08	39.28	21.22
Locale
City	55%		51%		54%
Suburb	36%		4%		37%
Town	3%		1%		3%
Rural	6%		8%		6%
Teacher characteristics
Years as schoolteacher	13.87	8.42	10.95		13.08	8.30
N	2,244		835		3,079

Figure 1 shows that although victimization declined over time for all students, Dual Language ELs consistently reported less victimization than their English-only peers—a pattern explored in the regression models that follow.

Figure 1.

Graph of peer victimization overtime by English Learner subgroups.

Analytical Strategy

This study includes two comparative analyses. The first examines differences in peer victimization between current ELs and non-ELs using regression models with fixed effects to account for time-invariant student and school characteristics. The second analysis focuses exclusively on current ELs, comparing those enrolled in Dual Language programs to those in English-only programs during Grades 3 through 5.

Baseline model specification

The baseline models are specified as follows:

\begin{array}{l} Y_{i s t} = β_{1} C u r r e n t E L_{i s t} + β_{2} F_{i s t} + β_{3} C_{i s t} \\ + β_{4} T_{i s t} + β_{5} L_{i s t} + β_{6} Y_{i s t - 1} + ε_{i s t} \end{array}

(1)

\begin{array}{l} Y_{i s t} = β_{1} D u a l L a n g_v s_E n g O n l y_{i s t} + β_{2} F_{i s t} \\ + β_{3} C_{i s t} + β_{4} T_{i s t} + β_{5} L_{i s t} + β_{6} Y_{i s t - 1} + ε_{i s t} . \end{array}

(2)

In the first model, CurrentEL_ist is an indicator for students who were classified as EL in a given survey year. In the second model, the primary independent variable is DualLang_vs_EngOnly, which is coded as 1 if the program that the student participated in was Dual Language and 0 if it is English-only.

In both these equations, Y_ist represents the peer victimization score for student i in school s at time t. Y_ist_–1 represents the prior year’s peer victimization measure. C_ist includes child characteristics, such as gender, race/ethnicity, household size, socioeconomic status, health, and reading scores, as proxies for academic achievement. F_ist captures family background factors, including parental involvement. L_ist accounts for school characteristics and T_ist for teacher characteristics, as listed in Table 1. ε_ist represents the error term, which is clustered at the school level to account for the nesting of students within schools.

School fixed effects

The experiences of ELs can vary across schools due to both observable and unobservable factors—such as policies, climates, and inclusion efforts—which the baseline model does not capture. For instance, schools with Dual Language programs may also implement anti-bullying initiatives or foster inclusive climates that reduce victimization, potentially confounding estimates of program effects.

To address this, school fixed effects are included to compare students within the same school—ELs versus non-ELs for the first research question and Dual Language ELs versus English-only ELs for the second. This approach accounts for stable school-level characteristics (e.g., leadership, curriculum, ethos) by absorbing time-invariant differences, allowing for cleaner estimation of within-school variation (Chhikara, 2025; Gottfried, 2019).

The school fixed effects models are specified as:

Y_{i s t} = β_{1} C u r r e n t E L_{i s t} + β_{2} F_{i s t} + β_{3} C_{i s t} + β_{4} T_{i s t} + δ_{s} + ε_{i s t}

(3)

\begin{array}{l} Y_{i s t} = β_{1} D u a l L a n g_v s_E n g O n l y_{i s t} + β_{2} F_{i s t} \\ + β_{3} C_{i s t} + β_{4} T_{i s t} + δ_{s} + ε_{i s t}, \end{array}

(4)

where δ_s represents school fixed effects, controlling for unobservable differences between schools. This model ensures that students are compared only to their peers within the same schools.

Student fixed effects

A concern not addressed in the baseline or school fixed-effects model is the potential for unobserved individual-level heterogeneity or within-school (i.e., between-classroom) sorting. Schools may systematically assign ELs to classrooms based on traits such as resilience or social vulnerability, which could influence exposure to peer victimization independently of classification or program type. For example, administrators might place socially skilled ELs in classrooms with known peer conflict or assign more vulnerable students to teachers who foster inclusive climates. If such sorting occurs, observed associations may reflect selection processes rather than effects of EL classification or instructional model.

To address this concern, the study employs a student fixed-effects model. Here, each student serves as their own control over time. This approach leverages repeated observations of the same student across different years, effectively isolating within-student variation in peer victimization experiences.

In doing so, it eliminates confounding due to stable, individual-level differences and better estimates the causal effect of the independent variables on peer victimization (Gottfried, 2019). The specifications are as follows:

Y_{i s t} = β_{1} C u r r e n t E L_{i s t} + β_{2} X_{i s t} + δ_{i} + ε_{i s t}

(5)

Y_{i s t} = β_{1} D u a l L a n g_v s_E n g O n l y_{i s t} + β_{2} X_{i s t} + δ_{i} + ε_{i s t},

(6)

where δ_i represents student fixed effects, which absorb all time-invariant characteristics, such as gender and race and gender. The term X_ist includes all time-varying covariates from the baseline model, as detailed in Table 4.

This study follows best practices for estimating causal effects in observational research by using fixed effects and incorporating lagged measures of peer victimization. Fixed effects control for any unobserved historical factors that influence both peer victimization and program selection (Chhikara, 2025; Gottfried, 2019), and including lagged outcomes as pretreatment covariates helps reduce bias in nonrandomized studies (Frank et al., 2025). However, because the panel is short (covering only 3 years of outcome data), models do not include both fixed effects and lagged dependent variables simultaneously. As Angrist and Pischke (2009) noted, combining the two in short panels can lead to biased estimates due to correlation between lagged outcomes and unobserved shocks. To avoid this, the analytic strategy prioritizes fixed effects to leverage within-student changes over time.

As a robustness check, this study reestimates the analysis restricting the sample to students whose home language is Spanish given that most Dual Language programs in the United States operate in English and Spanish.

Results

EL Status and Peer Victimization

Table 3 presents estimates from models assessing the impact of current EL status on peer victimization, comparing students actively classified as ELs to their non-EL peers. Although the baseline and school fixed-effects models show no statistically significant effects, the student fixed-effects model reveals a positive and statistically significant impact: Students experience higher levels of peer victimization in years when they are classified as ELs. The standardized effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.016) indicates a modest but meaningful increase in victimization attributable to EL classification.

Table 3

Regression Results of English Learner (EL) Classification on Peer Victimization

	Baseline Model	School-Year Fixed-Effects Model	Student-Year Fixed-Effects Model
Current EL status	–0.04(0.03)	–0.04(0.04)	0.08** (0.04)
Lagged peer victimization	0.51*** (0.01)
Student characteristics
Standardized reading test scores	–0.14*** (0.03)	–0.41*** (0.04)	–0.03(0.05)
Free or reduced-price lunch status	0.06*** (0.02)	0.09*** (0.02)
Number of siblings in household	–0.03*** (0.01)	–0.04*** (0.01)	–0.04(0.03)
Female (reference group: male)	–0.03** (0.01)	–0.01(0.02)
Excellent health	–0.12** (0.05)	–0.11* (0.06)	–0.12* (0.06)
Very good health	–0.10* (0.05)	–0.06(0.06)	0.01(0.02)
Good health	–0.07(0.06)	–0.08(0.06)	0.01(0.03)
Fair or poor health	Omitted	Omitted	Omitted
Special education status	0.04* (0.03)	0.07** (0.03)
Student race (reference group: White)
Black	0.03(0.03)	–0.07(0.06)
Latinx	–0.16*** (0.02)	–0.22*** (0.03)
Asian	–0.09*** (0.03)	–0.14*** (0.04)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0.19(0.12)	–0.01(0.15)
Native American/Alaskan	–0.06(0.08)	–0.08(0.15)
Multiple races	–0.01(0.04)	0.01(0.05)
Teacher characteristics
Years of experience as schoolteacher	0.00(0.00)	0.00(0.00)	0.00(0.00)
Parent characteristics (reference group: low parent involvement)
Medium parent involvement	–0.02(0.02)	–0.06*** (0.02)	–0.03(0.02)
High parent involvement	–0.08*** (0.02)	–0.15*** (0.03)	–0.04* (0.02)
School characteristics
Total number of English Learners	0.00(0.00)	0.00(0.01)	0.00(0.00)
District poverty index	0.00(0.00)
Locale (reference group: city)
Suburban	.01(.02)
Town	–0.01(0.03)
Rural	0.03(0.03)
Constant	1.25*** (0.08)	2.68*** (0.18)	2.25*** (0.10)
Observations	10,908	17,290	17,290

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses (clustered by school).

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Several student-level characteristics are associated with variation in reported peer victimization. Latinx and Asian students report lower victimization than White students. Higher parental involvement is linked to reduced victimization, and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch and special education status are linked to higher levels. Students in excellent or very good health and female students report less victimization than those in poorer health and male students, respectively.

Dual Language Program Exposure and Peer Victimization

Table 4 examines whether participation in Dual Language programs reduces peer victimization among ELs. The student fixed-effects model—comparing students to themselves over time—reveals a statistically significant and negative effect: Students report lower levels of peer victimization during years when they are enrolled in Dual Language programs relative to years in English-only instruction. The standardized effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.49) indicates a moderate and meaningful reduction in victimization experiences associated with Dual Language instruction.

Table 4

Regression Results of English Learner Dual Language Program Exposure on Peer Victimization

	Baseline Model	School-Year Fixed-Effects Model	Student-year Fixed-Effects Model
Dual Language program exposure	–0.15** (0.06)	–0.26** (0.12)	–0.21** (0.10)
Lagged peer victimization	0.39*** (0.03)
Student characteristics
Standardized reading test scores	–0.16* (0.10)	–0.39*** (0.14)	0.24(0.23)
Free or reduced-price lunch status	0.03(0.09)	0.11(0.14)
Number of siblings in household	–0.02(0.02)	–0.01(0.04)	–0.08(0.10)
Female (reference group: male)	–0.06(0.05)	–0.04(0.09)
Excellent health	–0.11(0.12)	–0.06(0.13)	–0.03(0.08)
Very good health	–0.00(0.12)	0.05(0.14)	–0.08(0.08)
Good health	–0.07(0.11)	–0.17(0.13)	0.11(0.14)
Fair or poor health	Omitted	Omitted	Omitted
Special education status	0.00(0.07)	–0.06(0.11)
Student race (reference group: White)
Black	–0.22(0.30)	1.45(1.19)
Latinx	–0.00(0.23)	0.19(0.32)
Asian	–0.01(0.23)	0.17(0.38)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	–0.44(0.30)	–0.60(0.76)
Native American/Alaskan	–0.32(0.25)	–0.69(0.43)
Multiple races	–0.39(0.24)	0.45(0.42)
Teacher characteristics
Years of experience as schoolteacher	0.01** (0.00)	0.01(0.00)	0.01* (0.00)
Parent characteristics (reference group: low parent involvement)
Medium parent involvement	0.09(0.06)	0.00(0.07)	–0.01(0.07)
High parent involvement	0.01(0.08)	–0.05(0.09)	–0.11(0.10)
School characteristics
Total number of English Learners	0.00(0.00)	–0.00(0.01)	0.00(0.00)
District poverty index	0.00(0.00)
Locale (reference group: city)
Suburban	.01(.02)
Town	–0.01(0.03)
Rural	0.03(0.03)
Constant	1.18*** (0.34)	1.32(1.79)	1.69*** (0.43)
Observations	982	1,719	1,719

Note. Robust standard errors are in parentheses (clustered by school).

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Although the school fixed-effects model yields an even larger effect, suggesting school-level factors may contribute, the consistency of the negative association in the student fixed-effects model strengthens the evidence that Dual Language instruction itself plays a protective role independent of student background and school context.

Sensitivity Analysis

To assess potential bias from nonrandom attrition in ECLS-K:2011, characteristics of students retained in the analytic sample were examined. Although covariate balance was similar across most variables, Latinx and Black students were more likely to leave their original schools. As noted in the results section, Latinx students who remained reported lower levels of peer victimization than their White peers. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution. If more socially resilient or better supported Latinx students were more likely to remain—a form of positive selection—then estimates of peer victimization may understate the experiences of more vulnerable Latinx students.

As a robustness check, models were reestimated on a subsample of Spanish-speaking Latinx students—the largest Dual Language subgroup—with consistent results. As shown in Appendix C, available on the journal website, the effect of Dual Language participation on reduced victimization remains statistically significant across all specifications.

Discussion

Interpretation of EL Classification Effects

The results suggest that students face modestly elevated levels of peer victimization during the periods when they are classified as ELs. Rather than treating this as a static group effect, the within-student model highlights how the classification itself—an institutional marker of linguistic difference—can alter students’ social positioning over time. This status may increase students’ visibility or stigma in ways that heighten their risk for exclusion or bias-based harassment during the upper elementary years.

It is important to interpret these patterns in light of the fact that many students that are reclassified prior to Grades 3 through 5 are not included in the current EL group. These early exiting students may differ systematically from those who remain classified, who often demonstrate lower English proficiency and academic achievement (Robinson-Cimpian & Thompson, 2016; Umansky, 2016). As a result, the heightened victimization observed among current ELs likely reflects compounded vulnerabilities—students navigating both academic demands and the social consequences of a label that may signal difference or deficiency to peers and educators.

Peer Victimization and Instruction Programs for ELs

This study finds that instructional models influence patterns of peer victimization among ELs. Although EL classification may heighten students’ risk for exclusion or harassment, this risk is significantly mitigated—and in some cases, reversed—when students are enrolled in Dual Language programs, suggesting a protective effect of instructional context. These findings fill a critical gap in the literature by showing that the way schools structure language instruction directly impacts how EL students are treated by their peers.

Rather than attributing peer victimization solely to individual characteristics, this study highlights the role of school environments in shaping peer dynamics. The contrasting outcomes between instructional models suggest that educational structures may signal differing messages to peers about linguistic and cultural difference. In English-only settings, institutional norms may reinforce deficit-based narratives that contribute to peer marginalization. Dual Language programs, by contrast, may challenge these hierarchies by positioning bilingualism as a resource—an institutional framing that may indirectly influence how students perceive and interact with one another (Dabach et al., 2017; Stephenson et al., 2024). Importantly, these findings suggest that the presence of home language instruction itself—regardless of whether a program explicitly promotes biliteracy—functions as a powerful protective factor by affirming students’ cultural identities and reducing their visibility as targets for exclusion.

These findings also lend empirical support to segmented assimilation theory, which emphasizes the role of institutional contexts in shaping immigrant incorporation (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Dual Language programs may enable “selective acculturation,” fostering bilingual integration and peer acceptance, whereas English-only environments risk promoting “dissonant acculturation,” where students are expected to assimilate linguistically without social or cultural affirmation—conditions that may heighten peer victimization.

This work also contributes to ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) by showing how mesosystem-level structures, such as instructional models, shape peer dynamics. In particular, instructional design influences how linguistic and cultural identities are perceived—and responded to—by peers.

Implications for Policy and Future Research

In the current policy climate, where questions of national identity and linguistic diversity have become increasingly contested, language education often reflects broader societal debates about inclusion and belonging. Recent shifts in discourse and legislation have emphasized English-only norms under the banner of promoting national cohesion. Although such efforts are often positioned as fostering unity, they can also shape how linguistic difference is perceived in schools. These dynamics may influence how ELs are viewed, highlighting the role of instructional models in both academic and social development.

The findings suggest that Dual Language programs may serve as a protective institutional response, countering stigma and promoting peer inclusion by challenging dominant narratives that frame linguistic difference as a deficit. By benefiting both EL and native English-speaking students, these programs offer a promising bipartisan policy solution that can bridge ideological divides and support educational equity. By reframing bilingualism as an asset and integrating ELs into shared spaces, Dual Language models reduce the visibility of EL status and affirm students’ cultural identities. Meanwhile, English-only models, although still prevalent and often supported by policy, may inadvertently amplify EL marginalization unless schools take steps to foster inclusive peer norms and affirm home languages.

Yet the expansion of Dual Language programs remains constrained by long-standing structural barriers, including a severe shortage of certified bilingual teachers. Policy efforts to expand access must therefore address educator pipelines by investing in bilingual teacher preparation, supporting dual licensure, and building school-university partnerships that center linguistic and cultural diversity.

Future research should explore how students experience these institutional messages across different stages of schooling and whether the protective dynamics observed in Dual Language settings persist beyond elementary grades. Mixed-method and longitudinal designs are well suited to capturing how language policy shapes students’ everyday social worlds over time.

In sum, this study underscores how language programs influence peer dynamics, with Dual Language models promoting inclusion and reducing victimization. In a climate where linguistic difference is increasingly politicized, EL policy must be grounded not only in educational equity but also in a commitment to students’ social dignity, belonging, and safety.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-edr-10.3102_0013189X251378466 – Supplemental material for Peer Victimization Among English Learners: The Protective Impact of Dual Language Programs

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-edr-10.3102_0013189X251378466 for Peer Victimization Among English Learners: The Protective Impact of Dual Language Programs by Daman Chhikara in Educational Researcher

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Daman Chhikara

Notes

Author

DAMAN CHHIKARA, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Education, University of California, Irvine, 3200 Education Building, Irvine, CA 92697; dchhikar@uci.edu . His research focuses on education policy and the social, cultural, and instructional factors that shape equity and student outcomes for traditionally marginalized students across K–12 and higher education.

References

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

J.-S.

(2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.

Bayram Özdemir

Özdemir

Stattin

(2016). What makes youth harass their immigrant peers? Understanding the risk factors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(5), 601–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615574887

Bronfenbrenner

(1994). Ecological models of human development. In International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 1643–1647). Elsevier.

Callahan

Gándara

(Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Multilingual Matters.

Callahan

R. M.

Jiang

Núñez

A.-M.

(2023). EL policy and immigrant politics: State and federal policy and ever-EL students’ postsecondary pathways. Educational Policy, 37(5), 1467–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221103802

Chhikara

(2025). The effects of student–teacher ethnoracial matching on chronic absenteeism: Exploring the role of relational dynamics in early education. Early Education and Development, 36(5), 1066–1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2025.2484852

Christina

Magson

N. R.

Kakar

Rapee

R. M.

(2021). The bidirectional relationships between peer victimization and internalizing problems in school-aged children: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101979

Compas

B. E.

Jaser

S. S.

Bettis

A. H.

Watson

K. H.

Gruhn

M. A.

Dunbar

J. P.

Williams

Thigpen

J. C.

(2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939–991. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000110

Dabach

D. B.

(2014). “I am not a shelter!”: Stigma and social boundaries in teachers’ accounts of students’ experience in separate “sheltered” English Learner classrooms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(2), 98–124.

10.

Dabach

D. B.

Suárez-Orozco

Hernandez

Brooks

(2017). Future perfect?: Teachers’ expectations and explanations of their Latino immigrant students’ postsecondary futures. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1281809

11.

de Jong

E. J

. (2011). Foundations for multilingualism in education: From principles to practice. Caslon Inc.

12.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

(2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142.

13.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086206

14.

Frank

K. A.

Lin

Maroulis

S. J.

(2025). Causal inferences from observational studies in education policy: Toward pragmatic social science. In CohenVogel

Scott

Youngs

(Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 511–542). American Educational Research Association.

15.

Gándara

Escamilla

(2017). Bilingual education in the United States. In Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 439–452). Springer, Cham.

16.

Gándara

Zárate

M. E.

(2014). Seizing the opportunity to narrow the achievement gap for English Learners: Research-based recommendations for the use of LCFF funds.

17.

Glew

G. M.

Fan

M. Y.

Katon

Rivara

F. P.

Kernic

M. A.

(2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(11), 1026–1036. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026

18.

Green

D. W.

Abutalebi

(2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377

19.

Green

J. G.

Ramirez

Merrin

G. J.

Holt

M. K.

(2024). Bias-based harassment among US adolescents. School Mental Health, 16(2), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-024-09648-8

20.

Gottfried

M. A.

(2019). Chronic absenteeism in the classroom context: Effects on achievement. Urban Education, 54(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618709

21.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.

22.

Gutiérrez

K. D.

Orellana

M. F.

(2006). At last: The “problem” of English Learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 502–507.

23.

Heineke

A. J.

Vera

E. M.

Guo

Kaye

Elliott

(2023). Considering the social-emotional well-being of multilingual learners: A comparative case study across program models. The Elementary School Journal, 123(4). https://doi.org/10.1086/723028

24.

Holzman

Kennedy

C. C.

Thomas

Chin

Potochnick

Cortes

(2024). Who goes to newcomer schools? Las Americas Middle School. Houston Education Research Consortium, Kinder Institute for Urban Research, Rice University.

25.

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

(2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311–322.

26.

Howard

E. R.

Lindholm-Leary

K. J.

Rogers

Olague

Medina

Kennedy

Sugarman

Christian

(2018). Guiding principles for Dual Language education (3rd ed.). Center for Applied Linguistics.

27.

Jansen

P. W.

Mieloo

C. L.

Dommisse-van Berkel

Verlinden

van der Ende

Stevens

Verhulst

F. C.

Jansen

Tiemeier

(2016). Bullying and victimization among young elementary school children: The role of child ethnicity and ethnic school composition. Race and Social Problems, 8, 271–280.

28.

Lawrence

T. I.

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

Voisin

D. R.

(2023). Antecedents of sibling aggression and bullying victimization: The parallel and serial contributions of depressive symptoms and substance use. Journal of Affective Disorders, 333, 193–201.

29.

Lindholm-Leary

(2011). Student outcomes in Chinese two-way immersion programs: Language proficiency, academic achievement, and student attitudes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(2), 113–136.

30.

Martínez

Damme

K. S.

Vargas

Yang

Rompilla

D. J.

Stephens

Mittal

V. A.

Haase

C. M.

(2024). Longitudinal study of peer victimization, social support, and mental health during early adolescence. Psychological Medicine, 54(9), 1940–1955. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291724000035

31.

Mavrogordato

Bartlett

Callahan

DeMatthews

Izquierdo

(2024). Supports for multilingual students who are classified as English Learners (updated Sept 2024). EdResearch for Action. https://edresearchforaction.org/research-briefs/supports-for-multilingual-students-who-are-classified-as-english-learners/

32.

Mazzone

Thornberg

Stefanelli

Cadei

Caravita

C. S.

(2018). “Judging by the cover”: A grounded theory study of bullying towards same-country and immigrant peers. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 403–412.

33.

Moore

S. E.

Norman

R. E.

Suetani

Thomas

H. J.

Sly

P. D.

Scott

J. G.

(2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60

34.

Mouttapa

Valente

Gallaher

Rohrbach

L. A.

Unger

J. B.

(2004). Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39(154), 315–335.

35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). English Learners in public schools. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf

36.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011). What language instruction educational programs do states use to serve English Learners?

37.

Olweus

(1993). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Long-term consequences and an effective intervention program. In Hodgins

(Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 317–349). Sage Publications.

38.

Orpinas

Horne

A. M.

Staniszewski

(2003). School bullying: Changing the problem by changing the school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086210

39.

Porter

Vazquez Cano

Umansky

(2023). Bilingual education and America’s future: Evidence and pathways. The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, UCLA.

40.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. University of California Press.

41.

Portes

Zhou

(1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1047678

42.

Qin

D. B.

Way

Rana

(2008). The “model minority” and their discontent: Examining peer discrimination and harassment of Chinese American immigrant youth. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2008(121), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.221

43.

Robinson-Cimpian

J. P.

Thompson

K. D.

(2016). The effects of reclassification on English Learners’ educational outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 603–622.

44.

Rosa

Flores

(2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647.

45.

Rose

C. A.

Espelage

D. L.

Aragon

S. R.

Elliott

(2011). Bullying and victimization among students in special education and general education curricula. Exceptionality Education International, 21(2–3), 2–14.

46.

Stephenson

S. A.

Meissel

Peterson

E. R.

(2024). Correlates of responses to peer provocation and bullying in middle childhood: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 77, Article 101939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101939

47.

Tajfel

Turner

H.C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole.

48.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

Lösel

Loeber

(2011). The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health: CBMH, 21(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.808

49.

Turunen

Poskiparta

Salmivalli

Niemi

Lerkkanen

M.-K.

(2021). Longitudinal associations between poor reading skills, bullying and victimization across the transition from elementary to middle school. PLoS ONE, 16(3), Article e0249112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249112

50.

Umansky

I. M.

(2016). To be or not to be EL: An examination of the impact of classifying students as English Learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 714–737. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716664802

51.

Umansky

Reardon

S.F.

(2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English Learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912.

52.

Umansky

I. M.

Thompson

K. D.

Díaz

(2017). Using an ever–English Learner framework to examine disproportionality in special education. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917707470

53.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class of 2011, public-use kindergarten-fifth grade data file (2022–08-01). https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/kindergarten2011.asp

54.

Valenzuela

(1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. - Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.18253362

55.

Valentino

R. A.

Reardon

S. F.

(2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English language learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637.

56.

Walters

G. D.

Espelage

D. L.

(2020). Peer victimization, antisocial cognition, and delinquency in early adolescent schoolchildren: A test of the person–situation interface. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1760107

57.

Waters

M. C.

Tran

V. C.

Kasinitz

Mollenkopf

J. H.

(2010). Segmented assimilation revisited: Types of acculturation and socioeconomic mobility in young adulthood. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1168–1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419871003624076

58.

Zhou

Xiong

Y. S.

(2005). The multifaceted American experiences of the children of Asian immigrants: Lessons for segmented assimilation Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 1119–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870500224455