Sense of School Belonging Among Asian American and Pacific Islander Students in U.S. High Schools: A Critical Quantitative Intersectionality Analysis

Abstract

Background/Context:

The sense of belonging to a school is important for students, in terms of various short- and long-term developmental and academic outcomes. The inequities in the sense of school belonging among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) students may reveal a severe lack of opportunities or serious process gaps for these students.

Purpose/Objective:

This study investigated the nuances and complexities involved in the sense of school belonging among AAPI students in U.S. high schools, and particularly how such perceptions relate to various demographic characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and immigration status) and their intersectionalities. The study disaggregated this group into subgroups based on their ethnicities, with the aim of challenging the model minority stereotype that generalizes the experiences of AAPI students.

Research Design:

This study used base-year data of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to analyze a nationally representative sample. Multiple statistical interaction terms were used to identify the specific contributions (intersectionality) of AAPI students’ converging demographic characteristics.

Findings/Results:

This study found that the sense of school belonging was stronger for South Asian students and weaker for East Asian students when compared to the overall level, with other demographic characteristics held constant. The intersectionality model using disaggregated data revealed that the convergence of AAPI students’ ethnicity and gender creates additional nuances in their sense of school belonging, particularly for Southeast Asian and East Asian students.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

The findings support the call for more accurate narratives and a deeper understanding of intersectionality among AAPI students. The study suggests to policymakers and school leaders that a universal strategy for encouraging students’ sense of school belonging may not effectively address the nuanced intersectional disparities that AAPI students experience. Instead, the intersection of students’ ethnicity and gender indicates that responsive strategies that address their unique needs can better promote their perceptions of belonging to their schools.

Keywords

Asian American and Pacific Islanders school belonging intersectionality critical quantitative intersectionality analysis model minority stereotype

Introduction

Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) represent the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States, with numbers increasing by 80% between 2000 and 2019 (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021). Unsurprisingly, more AAPI students are thus attending American high schools, with an increase of approximately 20% from 2012 to 2022. AAPI students are expected to make up 7% of the total high school population by 2029 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022). Disaggregated data from the Pew Research Center (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021) showed that between 2000 and 2019, the fastest growing ethnic groups in the AAPI population were South Asians, including Bhutanese and Nepalese, and Southeast Asians, including Burmese and Thai.

Unlike the U.S. Hispanic population, which is growing primarily through a relatively high birth rate, the main source of growth in the AAPI population has been immigration (Brown, 2014). The historical context of AAPI immigration to the United States has created and reproduced a pervasive and totalizing narrative—the model minority stereotype. Here, the success stories of particular ethnic groups (i.e., Japanese, Chinese, and Korean) have created a stereotype that all AAPIs are hardworking, docile, and “more acceptable to white people” than other people of color (e.g., Goodwin, 2010; Jang, 2018; Lee, 2001; Wu, 2013). This backhanded compliment (Shah, 2019) is not only an incomplete description of this group, but also a trap that easily leads to systemic marginalization in educational leadership and policy (Jang, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019). It has also contributed to upholding notions of white supremacy (Gee, 2009; Poon et al., 2016) and racial subordination (Wu, 2013). For example, the model minority stereotype has contributed to the scapegoating of AAPI communities as the source of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (Lee, 2021), leading to an increase in serious hate crimes and physical attacks against them (Pew Research Center, 2021). In education, the stereotype has been used to justify reducing educational benefits and opportunities for AAPI students and has contributed to their structural exclusion from discourses on educational equity (Goodwin, 2010; Ngo & Lee, 2007).

Thus, drawing on the model minority stereotype when examining the schooling experiences of AAPIs ignores the nuances and complexities of their ethnicities (Jang, 2018; Yi et al., 2020). This totalizing approach to their diverse schooling experiences obscures the differences within and between the various ethnic groups involved (Poon et al., 2016). Some research into students’ sense of school belonging has regarded AAPI students as an undifferentiated group that is typically contrasted with privileged white students (e.g., Walton & Cohen, 2007). This approach reflects the universalist assumption that all subgroups within a larger pan-ethnic category such as AAPI students have the same sense of belonging. This failure to consider specific ethnicities has led to a lack of recognition of variations in the sense of school belonging among AAPI students, which systematically limits the provision of equitable support to address their need to belong.

This study addresses this important issue by investigating the nuances and complexities in the sense of school belonging among AAPI students. Such perceptions can affect their short- and long-term developmental and academic outcomes. A positive sense of belonging is essential for these students’ well-being, learning outcomes, and success in school (Appleton et al., 2008; Halse, 2018). Lacking this sense of belonging to a school is detrimental to their physical, psychological, social, and academic outcomes in general (Catalano et al., 2004; Juvonen, 2006). Thus, the differing perceptions of AAPI students regarding this sense of belonging may translate into a severe lack of opportunities or serious process gaps (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Levinson et al., 2022).

The important aim of this study is to disrupt the totalizing assumptions concerning AAPI students. I examine the sense of school belonging of these students in terms of the various ethnicities within the group: Southeast Asians (e.g., Filipino, Thai, Vietnamese, and Hmong), South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan), East Asians (e.g., Korean, Chinese, and Japanese), and Pacific Islanders (e.g., Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Chamorro). This approach follows previous empirical studies that have revealed the hidden inequities in the schooling experiences and educational outcomes of AAPI students by considering their ethnicities (Jang, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2011). This study attempts to further unpack the complexities of AAPI students’ sense of school belonging by examining the interactive associations (intersectionality) among the various demographic characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status [SES], and immigration status) commonly identified in the literature (DeNicolo et al., 2017; Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Kim & Sax, 2009).

This intersectionality approach and the disaggregation of the ethnic categories within and across the AAPI group can provide a better understanding of its heterogeneity (Museus & Maramba, 2011; Teranishi, 2007). However, there has been no detailed investigation of the intersectional inequities experienced by AAPI students in their schooling experiences (e.g., sense of school belonging), although some have examined the link between students’ sense of school belonging and a particular social category, such as race, SES, or gender (e.g., Gin, 2019; Montoro et al., 2021; Museus & Maramba, 2011). Intersectionality scholars (e.g., Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991; Jang, 2023) have criticized the traditional view of inequity as overly simplistic, because it fails to account for the subtle differences arising from students’ specific characteristics. Thus, this study contributes to anti-essentialist intersectionality research that focuses on AAPI students (e.g., Abbas, 2002; Jang, 2018; Museus & Maramba, 2011; Ngo & Lee, 2007) by providing an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the sense of school belonging among this diverse group of students. Intersectionality has been considered in terms of the development of classroom, school, and policy practices that can address the specific educational inequities experienced by different groups of students in diverse contexts (Fischer et al., 2015; Hankivsky & Cormier, 2011). Thus, identifying the different perceptions of school belonging of AAPI students can help teachers and school leaders understand their unique needs and the challenges they face, which can then help identify problems and facilitate the development of targeted practices and policies to address them. Challenging the dominant stereotypes concerning this group of students is also essential, and policies and practices that do not fully consider the nuanced inequities experienced by AAPI students will not be adequate (Hankivsky & Cormier, 2011; Jang, 2018).

The specifics of the school represent a key influence on students’ sense of school belonging (Osterman, 2000; Riley, 2017). Thus, I also explore the possible variations in the intersectional inequities of AAPI students’ sense of school belonging across schools. This is essential for capturing any potential school-level moderators of the differences identified, which can also inform school leaders and policymakers. This study addresses the following research questions (RQs): (1) To what extent is the intersectionality of demographic characteristics (ethnicity, gender, SES, and immigration status) associated with AAPI students’ sense of school belonging? (2) Do these patterns differ across schools?

Literature Review

The literature review considers three streams of research. The first section discusses the concept of school belonging and the second reviews empirical studies of disparities among students with diverse demographic characteristics, such as AAPI students. The final section presents the critical quantitative intersectionality (CQI) framework used in this study.

Sense of School Belonging

The concepts of belongingness and sense of belonging have been extensively explored in disciplines such as education (e.g., Korpershoek et al., 2020; Miles, 2020; Murphy & Zirkel, 2015; Riley, 2017), psychology (e.g., Walton & Cohen, 2007), and sociology (e.g., Savage et al., 2005). Belongingness refers to the feeling that “one belongs to and is a member of a particular social group, solidarity, collectivity or organization” (Halse, 2018, p. 3), which is a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The sense of school belonging represents an individual’s emotional, psychological, and physical attachments to people and places associated with a school and involves feeling accepted and fitting in (Goodenow, 1993; Gray et al., 2018; Nasir et al., 2011; Riley, 2017).

Many studies have noted that a positive sense of school belonging can have a significant influence on a student’s experiences at school and learning outcomes (Appleton et al., 2008; Halse, 2018; Nasir et al., 2011). A strong sense of school belonging has been found to positively affect students’ physical and emotional health and well-being (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007), academic self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation (Freeman et al., 2007), engagement and learning outcomes (Anderman, 2002; Appleton et al., 2008), and success (Osterman, 2000). A strong sense of school belonging has been shown to have a particularly important effect on racial and ethnic minority students’ beliefs, behaviors, identity, and attitudes (Brooms, 2019; Halse, 2018). It can reduce the incidence of risky health behaviors among students and can influence their learning (Bernat & Resnick, 2009; Fisher et al., 2020. The detrimental effects of a weak sense of school belonging on students have also been identified, which can lead to negative health and developmental outcomes (Catalano et al., 2004), poor social and emotional well-being, and depression and anxiety (Paradies, 2006), which are all negatively associated with students’ learning and academic outcomes (Bücker et al., 2018).

The psychological and social determinants of the sense of school belonging have been investigated. The basic psychological need for relatedness must be met if students are to have a greater sense of belonging in their classrooms or schools (Korpershoek et al., 2020; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Those who have good interpersonal relations with their teachers and peers are likely to form a positive sense of school belonging (Allen et al., 2019; Roorda et al., 2017). Thus, any significant disparities in these determinants can contribute to perceptions of a lack of belonging in marginalized populations, such as differences in ethnicity among AAPI students.

Disparities in the Sense of School Belonging

Studies have identified significant disparities in students’ sense of school belonging, which can be related to their demographic characteristics (e.g., Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Kim & Sax, 2009). Race and ethnicity have been widely acknowledged as sources of inequity in students’ sense of school belonging. Students from ethnic minorities have been found to feel less connected to their schools than white students (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015; Gray et al., 2018; Walton & Cohen, 2007), which may be due to a lack of representation and role models (Covarrubias & Fryberg, 2015), belonging uncertainty (Walton & Cohen, 2007), experiences of structural exclusion and racism at school (Gray et al., 2018), and the difference between their indigenous home culture and that of colonized education (Khalifa et al., 2019).

The literature on AAPI students has noted the various deterrents against building a sense of school belonging and the structural disadvantages they face (Gin, 2019; Montoro et al., 2021; Museus & Maramba, 2011). Some quantitative studies have regarded Asian American students or AAPI students as a single undifferentiated group, and have not identified any significant differences from white students (Gillen-O’Neel & Fuligni, 2013; Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Smerdon, 2002). For example, Walton and Cohen (2007) used the term “non-stigmatized group” (p. 83) to refer to both white and Asian students when exploring students’ sense of belonging. However, the patterns concerning this sense of school belonging within and across diverse ethnic groups of AAPI students (including Pacific Islander students) have not been fully identified (Benham, 2006).

Researchers have also examined how students’ sense of school belonging is related to other demographic characteristics, including gender, SES, and immigration status. Many studies have acknowledged that girls have a stronger sense of school belonging than boys (Anderman, 2002; Gillen-O’Neel & Fuligni, 2013; Smerdon, 2002), because girls may regard connectedness as more important in the process of socialization (Gilligan, 1993; Goodenow, 1993). Sociologists have shown that limited access to social and cultural capital among students with low SES (Lareau & Horvat, 1999) leads to a weak sense of school belonging (Kim & Sax, 2009; Ostrove & Long, 2007). Finally, scholars have found that students’ immigration status (DeNicolo et al., 2017) can affect their sense of school belonging. This sense is generally relatively low for these students (DeNicolo et al., 2017) due to the challenges they face at school, including barriers to learning a new language and culture, building relationships (Pagan-Rivera, 2014), structural disadvantages that promote the superiority of English (Bartolomé, 2008), and Eurocentric worldviews (Khalifa et al., 2019).

Scholars have suggested that students’ sense of school belonging is dynamic, fluid, and multifaceted, as their various demographic characteristics converge to create numerous complexities (Gray et al., 2018). For example, Yuval-Davis (2006) took an intersectional approach when examining belonging, suggesting that demographic characteristics can be regarded as illustrating interconnected power relations. However, this approach has rarely been considered in terms of students’ sense of school belonging, and particularly for AAPI students.

Critical Quantitative Intersectionality Framework

This study used a critical quantitative intersectionality (CQI) framework (e.g., Jang, 2018, 2023; López et al., 2018) that combines the five principles of QuantCrit proposed by Gillborn et al. (2018) with the main aspects of Asian critical theory (AsianCrit), Tribal critical theory (TribalCrit), and intersectionality. Gillborn and colleagues (2018) proposed the following principles for QuantCrit: (1) the centrality of racism; (2) numbers are not neutral; (3) categories are neither “natural” nor given; (4) voice and insight are essential, because data cannot “speak for itself”; and (5) numbers can be used for social justice. This study follows these principles, although the CQI framework in this study specifically focuses on the intersecting systems of power related to different social categories including ethnicity, gender, social class, sexuality, and immigration status (e.g., Iftikar & Museus, 2018; Jang & Alexander, 2022). Intersectionality scholars (Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1991) have suggested that educational and social inequities are not simply additive problems in which the identities or demographic characteristics of individuals can be combined to estimate a holistic impact; this convergence of characteristics instead produces unique experiences of disadvantage and privilege. These scholars have illustrated multiple forms of domination and oppression, which involve multiple marginalized demographic characteristics to create complex and nuanced inequities. Similarly, scholars taking the perspectives of AsianCrit (Iftikar & Museus, 2018) and TribalCrit (Quijada Cerecer, 2013) have emphasized the role of intersecting systems of power in shaping the everyday lives and experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students, respectively.

The theory of intersectionality has been applied in mainly qualitative studies of the unique experiences and barriers faced by diverse groups of students. The qualitative approach “appear[s] to be more compatible with the theoretical language and intent of intersectionality” (Shields, 2008, p. 306), but quantitative approaches incorporating intersectionality (e.g., Jang & Alexander, 2022; López et al., 2018) can provide broadly applicable information to reveal variations in educational inequities within and across groups of students. I apply the CQI framework to disrupt the model minority stereotype by providing more nuanced descriptions of the sense of school belonging among AAPI students.

Data and Method

Data Source

This study used the base-year data collected in the fall term of the 2009–2010 school year by the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This dataset consists of a nationally representative sample of high school students whose data were collected from 21,444 ninth graders (weighted n = 4,197,724) in 944 schools (weighted n = 22,897). A stratified two-stage random sample design was used to obtain the sample (Lumley, 2011). The HSLS:09 dataset includes specific information on AAPI students’ ethnicity, gender, SES, and immigration status. This has considerable advantages over other, more recent large-scale datasets, such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (NCES, 2019) and the Program for International Student Assessment (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019), in terms of insights into students’ sense of school belonging. Neither TIMSS nor PISA includes data on the specific ethnic backgrounds of AAPI students, which is the focus of this study. Thus, the use of HSLS:09 data in this study was essential for examining the sense of school belonging among AAPI students.

Measures

Students’ demographic characteristics

This study used the demographic characteristics previously associated with students’ sense of school belonging (DeNicolo et al., 2017; Gopalan & Brady, 2020; Gray et al., 2018; Kim & Sax, 2009; Walton & Cohen, 2007). These are ethnicity, gender, SES, and immigration status, which I coded using effect coding (see Mayhew & Simonoff, 2015, for specific details) to avoid normalizing and privileging certain groups (such as white students in terms of race or ethnicity in traditional dummy or indicator variable coding). I created four variables (i.e., Southeast Asian, South Asian, East Asian, and Pacific Islander) to indicate specific AAPI ethnic groups, which I could then compare to non-AAPI students (coded –1). The groups were Southeast Asians (e.g., Filipino, Hmong, Thai, Vietnamese), South Asians (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan), East Asians (e.g., Korean, Chinese, Japanese), and Pacific Islanders (e.g., Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro). The subgroups of Southeast Asians, South Asians, and East Asians were created from the variable “Asian subgroup-composite” (X1ASIANTYPE). This was also used to create the ethnic group of East Asian students, by merging the categories of “Chinese” and “Other Asians,” which included Koreans and Japanese. In addition, the ethnic group of Pacific Islander students was created by using the variable “Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander composite” (X1PACISCLE). The specific coding procedure for AAPI students’ ethnicities is provided in Appendix 1. Similarly, the female variable was created for girls, with boys as the contrasting group, who were coded as –1 (X1SEX). A variable for immigrant status was also created to differentiate students who were not born in the United States from those who were (or who were born in a U.S. territory, including Puerto Rico). The U.S.-born group was coded –1. Effect coding of these variables enables a comparison between the respective student groups and the general sense of school belonging perceived by all students, rather than a reference group (e.g., whites). This study also considered the SES independent variable based on the SES index score, which was created by the NCES to measure the relative socioeconomic position of a student’s family in a vertical social hierarchy (X1SES). This was calculated from data obtained from a parent/guardian survey, which included their level of education, occupation, and income. More details on the characteristics of the student sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Sample Students.

Variable		Weighted n	Unweighted n
Ethnicity	Southeast Asian	93,683 (2.2%)	905 (3.6%)
	South Asian	38,951 (0.9%)	501 (2.0%)
	East Asian	92,657 (2.2%)	933 (3.7%)
	Pacific Islander	128,358 (3.1%)	634 (2.5%)
	Non-Asian American/Pacific Islander	3,761,844 (89.6%)	21,041 (83.5%)
Gender	Male	2,119,192 (50.5%)	12,858 (51.0%)
	Female	2,078,532 (49.5%)	12,296 (48.8%)
Immigration status	U.S.-born	3,050,300 (72.7%)	16,602 (65.9%)
	Foreign-born	230,908 (5.5%)	1,412 (5.6%)

Note: Weighted n = 4,197,724 (unweighted n = 25,206).

Dependent variable

The dependent variable used in this study was students’ sense of school belonging, as directly obtained from the HSLS:09 dataset (X1SCHOOLBEL). The composite of students’ sense of school belonging was created by the NCES through principal component factor analysis using five items. This composite was derived from responses to five items regarding the extent to which a student felt “proud [to] be a part of this school” and “safe at this school” and agreed that “there are always teachers or other adults in school that he or she can talk to if there is a problem,” “school is often a waste of time (reversed),” and “getting good grades in school is important to me.” This dependent variable was standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation (SD) of 1. This made it possible to interpret the coefficients as SD differences in students’ sense of belonging. A higher value of this composite indicated a greater sense of school belonging.

The Items used to measure students’ sense of school belonging in the HSLS:09 dataset are similar to those used in other nationally representative secondary datasets, including PISA (6 items) and TIMSS (7 items), although the specific number of questions and the wordings are different. For example, TIMSS includes items assessing the extent to which a student agrees that “I am proud to go to the school,” “I feel safe when I am at school,” “I feel like I belong at this school,” “Teachers at my school are fair to me,” and “I learn a lot in school.” Several items used in this study corresponded to those used in other similar studies (e.g., Anderman, 2002; Gillen-O’Neel & Fuligni, 2013; Karcher & Lee, 2002). Faircloth and Hamm (2005), however, included items assessing extracurricular involvement and perceived discrimination, which indicate the nuanced and multidimensional nature of sense of school belonging. The reliabilities of these measures ranged from 0.70 to 0.89. The reliability of the measure used in this study was adequate (Cronbach’s α = 0.72) according to the criteria proposed by Robinson et al. (1991) for self-reported psychological questionnaires. The descriptive statistics of the continuous variables and the correlations between the dependent variable (students’ sense of school belonging) and the independent variables (students’ demographic characteristics) are provided in Appendices 2 and 3, respectively, as weighted values to address the complex sampling design of HSLS:09 in Mplus (TYPE = COMPLEX BASIC).

Research Models

Linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM) was used to answer the research questions due to the nested data structure. The calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the students’ sense of school belonging was 0.11, indicating that 11% of the variance in their sense of school belonging occurred at the school level. Organizational research has typically suggested that an ICC greater than 0.10 (10%) indicates organizational-level (in this case, school-level) differences (Vogt, 2011). Given the focus of this study, the baseline model applied to investigate the intersectionality of the demographic characteristics associated with AAPI students’ sense of school belonging (RQ1) included only the AAPI students’ ethnicities as key predictors (Model 1). Building on this, Model 2 included the other demographic characteristics of gender, SES, and immigration status. To identify the specific contributions (i.e., intersectionality) of students’ converging demographic characteristics, I used multiple statistical interaction terms among AAPI sub-ethnicities, gender, SES, and immigration status in the analytical models (Model 3). This allowed me to identify multiple associations among diverse demographic characteristics and the associated converging systems of power, rather than taking an additive approach, in which only the main effects of such systems of power are considered (e.g., Rouhani, 2014; Schudde, 2018).

In the intersectionality modeling procedure, the two-way interaction terms representing the multiplicative associations between two demographic characteristics were prebuilt as new variables by multiplying the appropriate terms together. First, a single set of two-way interactions (e.g., ethnicity × gender: Southeast Asian × Female for Southeast Asian girls) was included. Additional sets of interaction terms (e.g., ethnicity × immigration status: East Asian × Foreign-born for foreign-born East Asian students) were then added to the previously used models that included only statistically significant interaction terms. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to check if the specific order of including different sets of interaction terms could affect the results. The following model including the statistical interaction terms was used:

\begin{array}{l} \begin{array}{l} Students' sense of school belonging = β_{0} + β_{1} (Southeast Asian) + \\ β_{2} (South Asian) + β_{3} (East Asian) + β_{4} (Pacific Islander) + \\ β_{5} (Female) + β_{6} (SES) + β_{7} (Immigration status) + \end{array} \\ β_{8 ~ n} (\begin{array}{l} Intersectionality among AAPI students' \\ different demographic characteristics \end{array}) + ε \end{array}

(1)

where β₁ ~ β₄ are the differences in sense of school belonging of specific ethnic groups among AAPI students relative to the overall level (averaged across all groups); β₅ is the difference in girls’ sense of school belonging relative to the overall level; β₆ is the average association between students’ SES and their sense of school belonging; β₇ is the difference in foreign-born students’ sense of school belonging relative to the overall level; and β_8~n are additional deviations resulting from students’ intersecting demographic characteristics in their sense of school belonging. Appendix 4 gives a full list of all interaction terms used in this model.

A model comparison was also conducted to assess the multiplicity of students’ demographic characteristics, based on the two contrasting models: (1) the baseline model that did not include the statistical interaction terms (Model 2), and (2) the full model that included the statistical interaction terms (Model 3). The performance of these nested models was compared based on three goodness-of-fit criteria: (1) a deviance test, (2) the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and (3) the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The deviance test statistically evaluated whether the additional interaction terms improved the fit of the model based on the number of parameters used in the two nested models, obtained from the maximum likelihood estimator.

To explore the possible variations in the patterns of intersectionality in AAPI students’ sense of school belonging across schools (RQ2), the student-level slopes related to the AAPI students’ demographic characteristics and the interaction terms were allowed to vary for parsimony. This procedure established whether there were significant variations in the inequalities experienced by AAPI students in different schools in terms of their sense of school belonging (Model 4).

This study used Mplus to address the complex sampling design of HSLS:09. I could then consider both stratification and sampling weights using maximum likelihood estimation for LMM (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2006; Muthén & Muthén, 2017). The lme4 package for R software (Bates et al., 2015) also provides functions to analyze LMM, but it may not fully address issues resulting from complex sampling (e.g., non-independence among units, disproportionate sampling; see Asparouhov, 2006). For RQ1, ANALYSIS: TYPE = COMPLEX TWOLEVEL in Mplus was used and ANALYSIS: TYPE = COMPLEX TWOLEVEL RANDOM was used to obtain the random slopes for RQ2. The specific Mplus commands used to estimate LMM are provided in Appendix 5. Regarding missing values, Ingels et al. (2011) emphasized that “HSLS:09 variables in general did not suffer from high levels of item nonresponse” (p. viii). The missing data in this study were treated using the model-based full information maximum likelihood procedure in Mplus. Schafer and Graham (2002) demonstrated that maximum likelihood estimation is typically unbiased. Therefore, the missing values should not significantly affect the results of further analyses.

Findings

The Link Between AAPI Students’ Demographic Characteristics and Their Sense of School Belonging

Table 2 reports the results of LMM for a composite variable of the sense of school belonging, focusing on AAPI students and predicted by their demographic characteristics (ethnicity, gender, SES, and immigration status) and their intersectionalities. As noted, the analyses reported in Table 2 were based on effect coding, which established the overall level of students’ sense of school belonging as a baseline for comparison. A baseline model that only considered AAPI students’ ethnicities (Model 1) indicated significant ethnic disparities in their sense of school belonging. The sense of school belonging among South Asian students (β = 0.34, p < 0.001) was significantly higher (0.34 SD higher) than the overall level, whereas for East Asian (β = −0.10, p < 0.01) and Pacific Islander (β = −0.19, p < 0.001) students, the reported levels were 0.10 SD and 0.19 SD lower than the overall level, respectively. However, the results of Model 1 showed that Southeast Asian students’ sense of school belonging was not significantly different from the overall level (β = 0.01, n.s.).

Table 2.

Results of Fitting Models for Asian American/Pacific Islander Students’ Sense of School Belonging Based on Their Demographic Characteristics and Intersectionalities.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Fixed Effects	β	SE β	β	SE β	β	SE β
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Southeast Asian	0.01	0.04	0.02	0.04	0.02	0.04
South Asian	0.34^***	0.05	0.22^***	0.05	0.23^***	0.05
East Asian	−0.10^**	0.04	−0.17^***	0.04	−0.18^***	0.04
Pacific Islander	−0.19^***	0.05	−0.05	0.05	−0.04	0.05
Female			0.06^***	0.01	0.05^***	0.02
Socioeconomic status (SES)			0.21^***	0.01	0.21^***	0.01
Immigrant status (foreign-born)			0.05^**	0.02	0.05^**	0.02
Intersectionality
Female × Southeast Asian					−0.11^***	0.03
Female × East Asian					0.10^**	0.03
(Intercept)	0.13^***	0.02	0.14^***	0.03	0.14^***	0.03
Deviance (parameters)	58,101.68		45,183.78		45,176.04
AIC	58,113.68		45,201.78		45,198.04
BIC	58,142.17		45,242.46		45,247.76

Note: Weighted n = 4,197,724 (unweighted n = 25,206). (1) The coefficients presented in this table are based on effect coding. (2) For all models, the contrasting groups for ethnicity, female, and immigration status are non-AAPI students, male, and U.S.-born students, respectively. (3) The results of these models are based on linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM) to control the nested data structure (ANALYSIS: TYPE = COMPLEX TWOLEVEL in Mplus). (4) Model 3 included all of the interaction terms (see Appendix 4), and the results of Model 3 reported only significant interaction terms for simplicity.

SE = Standard errors.

p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

I compared the model fit indices of Model 1, which only considered students’ ethnicities, and Model 2, which addressed the other demographic characteristics (gender, SES, and immigration status), and found that Model 2 better explained the patterns related to AAPI students’ sense of school belonging [deviance test, χ²(3) = 12,917.90, p < 0.001; lower AIC and BIC values]. The results of Model 2 showed a similar pattern, except for Pacific Islander students. Their sense of school belonging was no longer significantly different from the overall level when accounting for their gender, SES, and immigration status (β = −0.05, n.s.). Like the results from Model 1, South Asian students’ sense of school belonging (β = 0.22, p < 0.001) was found to be significantly higher (0.22 SD), whereas for East Asian students, the value was 0.17 SD lower than the overall level, when holding other demographic characteristics constant (β = −0.17, p < 0.001). In addition, students’ gender, SES, and immigration status were significantly associated with their sense of school belonging. The sense of school belonging among girls (β = 0.06, p < 0.001) and foreign-born students (β = 0.05, p < 0.01) were 0.06 SD and 0.05 SD higher than the overall level, respectively, holding other characteristics constant. Similarly, a one-unit change in students’ SES was positively associated with a 0.21 SD change in their sense of school belonging (β = 0.21, p < 0.001). Controlling for these demographic characteristics resulted in no significant difference in the sense of school belonging between Southeast Asian students and the overall level (β = 0.02, n.s.).

The Link Between the Intersectionality of AAPI Students’ Demographic Characteristics and Their Sense of School Belonging

Finally, this study attempted to identify nuanced differences in AAPI students’ sense of school belonging through the intersectionality model (Model 3), based on the convergence of the various demographic characteristics. Model 3 (intersectionality model) was found to better explain the relationship between AAPI students’ sense of school belonging and their demographic characteristics than Model 2 (main effects model) [deviance test, χ²(2) = 7.74, p < 0.05; a lower AIC value]. The study found largely the same patterns regarding the main effects of AAPI students’ demographic characteristics in Model 3 as in Model 2; for example, I found no statistically significant difference in the sense of school belonging between Pacific Islander and the overall level in Model 3 (β = −0.04, n.s.), which corresponded to the pattern observed in Model 2.

The results for Model 3 indicated two statistically significant interactions between gender and ethnicity among AAPI students (i.e., Southeast Asian girls and East Asian girls). The significant interaction term between Female and Southeast Asian (β = −0.11, p < 0.001) in Model 3 represented an additional deviation from the overall level for the sense of school belonging (0.11 SD lower), if a student was both a girl and Southeast Asian, when controlling for other variables. Similarly, an intersectional pattern associated with East Asian girls was observed in their sense of school belonging (β = 0.10, p < 0.01). The results showed that the sense of school belonging among East Asian students and girls was 0.18 SD lower (β = −0.18, p < 0.001) and 0.05 SD higher (β = 0.05, p < 0.001) than the overall level, respectively. However, the sense of school belonging among East Asian girls, in terms of being both East Asian and girls, was found to have an additional deviation (0.10 SD higher; β = 0.10, p < 0.01) from the overall average, and was thus 0.03 SD lower (−0.18 SD + 0.05 SD + 0.10 SD = −0.03 SD) than the overall level. The interaction terms related to students’ SES and immigration status were not statistically significant, indicating that the disparities in the sense of school belonging they caused were not dependent on the other demographic characteristics used in this study. The sensitivity analyses also confirmed that the patterns of intersectionalities remained the same, regardless of the order in which the set of interaction terms were entered into the simpler models in the model building procedure.

Figure 1 illustrates the divergent patterns of the sense of school belonging among AAPI students when only the statistically significant coefficients in Model 3 are considered, based on their demographic characteristics and intersectionalities. Because the values on the x-axis represent students’ socioeconomic status index scores and there was no significant interaction between these scores and any of the other variables, the lines appear to be parallel; that is, AAPI students from higher rather than lower SES backgrounds were consistently found to exhibit a higher sense of school belonging across different groups of students. The distinct relationship between gender and East Asian origin generated a nuanced pattern, indicating that, on average, the sense of school belonging among East Asian boys was the lowest across all SES index scores. A lower level than the overall level was found for the majority of this group, except for those from very high SES backgrounds. The sense of school belonging among Southeast Asian girls was found to be the second lowest among the groups across all SES index scores. The sense of school belonging among South Asian students was higher than the overall level and that of other AAPI ethnic groups, whereas on average South Asian girls showed a stronger sense of school belonging than South Asian boys.

Intersectionality of AAPI Students’ Sense of School Belonging Across Schools

RQ2 questions whether there are significant variations in the identified links found in the intersectionality model in different schools. Table 3 presents the results of a random slopes model in which the slope coefficients related to students’ demographic characteristics and the interaction terms were allowed to vary randomly between schools. The results of the variance components in Model 4 indicated that none of these values were statistically significant, except the SES slope, suggesting that the identified links in AAPI students’ sense of school belonging do not depend on the school. Thus, school-level predictors (e.g., the percentages of AAPI students in schools) that might be related to AAPI students’ sense of school belonging were not entered into subsequent models.

Table 3.

Results of Fitting a Random Slopes Model for Asian American/Pacific Islander Students’ Sense of School Belonging Across Schools.

Fixed Effects	Model 4
Fixed Effects	β	SE β
Student-Level Characteristics
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Southeast Asian	0.01	0.04
South Asian	0.20^***	0.04
East Asian	−0.13^**	0.04
Pacific Islander	−0.04	0.05
Female	0.05^*	0.02
Socioeconomic status (SES)	0.14^***	0.01
Immigrant status (foreign-born)	0.05^**	0.02
Intersectionality
Female × Southeast Asian	−0.10^**	0.03
Female × East Asian	0.09^**	0.03
(Intercept)	0.14^***	0.03
Random effects (variance components)
Within-student	0.83^***
Student intercept	0.07^***
SES slope	0.02^**
Deviance (parameters)	44,444.14
AIC	44,486.14
BIC	44,581.06

Note: Weighted n = 4,197,724 (unweighted n = 25,206). (1) The coefficients for student-level characteristics are based on effect coding. (2) For all models, the contrasting groups for ethnicity, female, immigration status, and school community type are non-AAPI students, male, U.S.-born students, and urban schools, respectively. (3) The results of Model 4 were based on LMM (random-slopes model) (ANALYSIS: TYPE = COMPLEX TWOLEVEL RANDOM in Mplus). (4) Model 4 included the random slopes of all of the main effects and the interactions, and the results of Model 4 reported only the statistically significant random slope (SES slope) for simplicity. A model that included the random slopes for the main effects and statistically significant interactions only was also applied, but the results were the same as those of Model 4.

SE = Standard errors.

p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

Discussion

Sense of School Belonging Among Diverse AAPI Students in the United States

Using the CQI framework, this study found that the demographic characteristics of AAPI students (ethnicity, gender, SES, and immigration status) and their intersectionalities were critical factors leading to inequity in their sense of school belonging. It contributes to previous findings regarding significant differences across the ethnic subgroups of AAPI students in terms of academic performance (Pang et al., 2011) by identifying the additional factor of sense of school belonging, which is a basic determinant of psychosocial well-being and health. South Asian students were found to have a stronger sense of school belonging than the overall level and compared with other AAPI ethnic groups across different SES backgrounds. East Asian boys felt the least connected to their schools. The patterns remained regardless of schools. This finding of distinct heterogeneity in the sense of school belonging across AAPI ethnic groups contrasts with those of studies that took a monolithic view of AAPI students and found no statistically significant difference from white students (e.g., Gillen-O’Neel & Fuligni, 2013). However, the ethnic disparities revealed in this study are consistent with the findings of studies deconstructing the distinct experiences and needs of different groups of AAPI students and challenging assumptions of their homogeneity (e.g., Museus & Maramba, 2011; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2011).

Variations in the quality of AAPI students’ relationships and bonds with their peers and teachers may explain the significant variations according to their ethnicities, because these relationships are essential for creating a positive sense of school belonging (Abbas, 2002; Faircloth & Hamm, 2005; Johnson et al., 2001). Tummala-Narra, Alegria, and Chen (2011) found that South Asian students had higher levels of peer and family support than other Asian students (e.g., Korean, Japanese), and this factor moderated other detrimental effects on their sense of belonging. They also identified lower levels of perceived discrimination and acculturative stress among South Asian students than among other Asian students. Yeh and Inose (2002) found that East Asian students (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) commonly experienced cultural adjustment difficulties related to their unique cultural characteristics (e.g., an emphasis on collectivism and interdependence, Confucianism), including problems with communication and interpersonal relationships. Cultural characteristics and related difficulties in school relationships, such as language barriers and ethnic prejudice and discrimination (Lew, 2006; Pyke & Dang, 2003; Qin, 2006), may hinder the development of these students’ sense of school belonging, which may partially explain the ethnic differences found in the perceived sense of school belonging among AAPI students.

The gender and SES of AAPI students were also significantly associated with their sense of school belonging. The identified effects of gender and SES are consistent with those found in previous studies, indicating a stronger sense of school belonging for girls (Anderman, 2002; Gillen-O’Neel & Fuligni, 2013; Smerdon, 2002) and for students from higher SES backgrounds (Kim & Sax, 2009; Ostrove & Long, 2007). Although the scope of this study did not extend to identifying the mechanisms underlying these links, this study suggests that the stronger sense of school belonging found for girls may be due to the gendered process of socialization, in which girls consider and value connectedness and attachment to others more than boys (Gilligan, 1993; Goodenow, 1993). For example, Abbas (2002) found that South Asian girls often cluster closely together to build close relational ties in schools, which can help determine their sense of school belonging. This was not observed among South Asian boys. The findings regarding AAPI students’ SES suggest that those with lower SES feel less connected to their teachers and schools because of their limited access to cultural and social capital (Jury et al., 2019; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Ostrove & Long, 2007).

The results also indicated that foreign-born AAPI students had a stronger sense of belonging than the overall level when other demographic characteristics were controlled. This positive sense of school belonging is consistent with evidence of higher levels of school engagement and connectedness among immigrant students (DeNicolo et al., 2017; Kao & Tienda, 2012). Foreign-born students may have more positive attitudes toward academia and toward their relationships with their peers and teachers than U.S.-born AAPI students (Greenman, 2013); however, this finding contrasts with the pattern observed in the internationally comparable PISA survey data, indicating a higher sense of school belonging among non-immigrant students in the United States (OECD, 2019). However, PISA regarded those whose parents were born in a foreign country, including second-generation immigrants, as students with an immigrant background, whereas I defined them as foreign-born first-generation immigrant students. Studies have consistently found that immigrant students’ educational experiences and outcomes differ substantially by generation (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Valenzuela, 2010), which may explain the contrasting findings concerning students’ immigration status.

Intersectionality in AAPI Students’ Sense of School Belonging

This study demonstrated that the convergence of AAPI students’ ethnicity and gender creates additional nuances in their sense of school belonging, particularly for Southeast Asian and East Asian students. The importance of intersecting identities and how they affect the lived experiences and educational outcomes of AAPI students has been noted (e.g., Abbas, 2002; Jang, 2020; Museus & Vue, 2013). The relatively low levels of perceived school belonging among Southeast Asian girls are consistent with findings of inequities in their schooling experiences, which result from compounding challenges related to their gender and ethnicity (Jang, 2018; Museus & Maramba, 2011; Ngo & Lee, 2007; Sangalang & Gee, 2015). Their experiences of multiple forms of oppression and disadvantage (Jang, 2018) are also likely to affect their sense of school belonging. Many Southeast Asian students are refugees and involuntary minorities (Ogbu, 1987), which can lead to conflict between their cultural values and the normalized mainstream perspectives in U.S. schooling (Heine, 2002; Ngo, 2002), which can make them feel less connected to their schools. Systematic disadvantages and gender-related power relations stemming from the cultural traits that uphold patriarchal norms, commitment to family tradition, and limited exposure to role models in schools (Ngo & Lee, 2007) may impede the development of a sense of belonging for Southeast Asian girls. The positive interactive association between gender (girls) and East Asian ethnicity may reflect a gendered process of socialization (Smerdon, 2002). This may represent a form of protection against the specific challenges faced by East Asian girls rather than boys. Future qualitative research focusing on the school experiences of these student groups could provide a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying intersectional inequities in students’ sense of school belonging.

Implications for Developing an Equitable Sense of School Belonging Among AAPI Students

A low sense of school belonging can have long- and short-term detrimental effects on students’ educational outcomes (Delgado et al., 2016) and on their health and psychological well-being (Bernat & Resnick, 2009). Thus, the significant and nuanced inequities in the sense of school belonging among AAPI students from diverse backgrounds should be considered by school leaders and policymakers in the United States. The model minority stereotype has led to a homogenous view of their experiences, resulting in serious misunderstandings and the marginalization of this group (Gee, 2009; Goodwin, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2019; Wu, 2013). The monolithic racial AAPI category has often led researchers to regard AAPI students as a privileged group similar to white students; however, this study’s fine-grained examination demonstrates that AAPI students’ sense of school belonging varies substantially across ethnicities and intersectionalities (with particular differences for Southeast Asian girls and East Asian boys). Such findings support the call for more accurate narratives and a nuanced understanding of intersectionality among AAPI students (Hune, 2011; Jang, 2018; Museus et al., 2012; Pang et al., 2011; Shah, 2019).

Rather than “gap gazing” (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 357), in which the existence of a gap is simply documented without offering any approaches to closing it, this study offers specific practices and policy implications to address this. The findings can thus help to enhance the educational equity of AAPI students. The main recommendation to policymakers and school leaders is that a universalized strategy to promote students’ sense of school belonging may not be effective, due to the nuanced intersectional disparities (Hankivsky & Cormier, 2011) experienced by AAPI students. This study suggests that the identified intersection of students’ ethnicity and gender indicates a responsive strategy that can address their unique needs and encourage them to perceive a sense of belonging to their school. Specifically, I propose an equity audit to collect, analyze, and track longitudinal disaggregated data based on a range of AAPI student-related demographic characteristics. This can reveal the subtleties and details of any inequities to school leaders. The outcomes of this process could then be shared with staff through professional training to initiate discussions on targeted strategies to tackle issues.

Teachers are key influencers who typically have the closest relationships with diverse students, and thus their views on this problem are extremely important for developing AAPI students’ sense of school belonging (Riley et al., 2020). School leaders and teachers may not have sufficient knowledge or pre- and in-service training regarding AAPI students (Kiang, 2004), and may not appreciate their unique historical and ethnic backgrounds and the challenges they face. A more nuanced understanding of these various challenges and their influence on the feeling of connection to their schools is therefore required, so that responsive strategies can be developed to address their unique needs through school-wide programs and events (see the specific example in Allen et al., 2019).

Similarly, principal and teacher preparation programs should address the intersectional influences of AAPI students’ demographic characteristics, because these can create barriers to their sense of school belonging. Such programs can inform them about developing future leadership and teaching practices, respectively. Various studies have found that institutional programs and curricula that consider AAPI students can help connect leadership and teaching practices to AAPI students, leading to a stronger sense of belonging and identity (e.g., Museus et al., 2012).

Limitations and Future Studies

This study has various limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, this study explored AAPI students’ sense of school belonging using the HSLS:09 dataset, which is relatively old compared with other datasets (e.g., TIMSS in 2019, PISA in 2018), but this is the only nationally representative dataset that includes AAPI students’ demographic characteristics, including their ethnicities, and their sense of school belonging. It affects the generalizability of the findings to more recent periods, such as during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Social and geopolitical conditions are the factors that are most important in shaping the experiences of AAPI students (Museus et al., 2012). COVID-19 is an environmental factor that has led to xenophobia, anti-Asian hate crime and harassment, and racism targeted at AAPI students (Gover et al., 2020). It has also exacerbated the educational inequalities experienced by diverse students, including those on the fringes of society who have intersecting disadvantages and discrimination (Muñiz, 2021). The inequities identified in this study can thus be expected to have worsened during COVID-19, with the possibility that all AAPI students may perceive a lower sense of school belonging, and the diverse groups within them may experience significant intersectional disparities. This warrants future data collection and exploration. Collecting more recent nationally representative quantitative data that identify ethnic subgroups of AAPI students will be crucial to holistically understanding the lives of these students.

Second, due to limited data, this study was unable to include other identities that may be important for AAPI students’ sense of school belonging. For example, some scholars have found that AAPI students’ sexuality (Jang, 2020) and religion (Abbas, 2002) are important identity factors in shaping their schooling experiences (e.g., relationships with peers and teachers) when they converge with other demographic characteristics. Data on such characteristics could be used to further explore the complexities and nuances of AAPI students’ sense of school belonging. Third, although this study speculated about why the patterns observed occurred, the data could not reveal the specific causes of the nuanced inequities in AAPI students’ sense of school belonging. A qualitative or mixed-methods inquiry is required to identify the underlying mechanisms of the intersectional disparities among and across AAPI students (e.g., Vaught, 2012) and allow the voices and stories of these students to be heard. The statistically nonsignificant associations found for Pacific Islander students, for example, may have been related to the limitations of the critical quantitative analyses, in which this study considered multiple demographic characteristics among minoritized groups of students, and the size of the sample for particular student groups was small. Such limitations may increase the risk of false negative (Type 2 error) findings for this group. Thus, the findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that Pacific Islander students do not have specific needs and challenges. Eliciting the perceptions of these students could address the challenge of collecting reliable and sufficient quantitative data, and provide a more in-depth view of their unique needs and the barriers they face when developing a sense of school belonging.

Concluding Remarks

Revealing the nuanced disparities in the sense of school belonging among AAPI students is critical for the development of more responsive interventions that can address such disparities. The significant contribution of this study lies in providing a clearer, more detailed, and more comprehensive understanding of the patterns of disparities in AAPI students’ sense of school belonging. Unlike previous incomplete descriptions of such diverse students, the holistic view challenges the totalizing stereotype and assumptions among educators, school leaders, and policymakers, which dehumanize AAPI students (Shah, 2019) and leads to structural barriers to equity for them. In addition, the study can help school leaders and policymakers identify the specific equity-related needs and priorities of AAPI students in attempting to feel connected to their schools. All students, regardless of their differences and their intersectionalities (Halse, 2018; Riley et al., 2020), should be able to come together in school. This detailed and holistic understanding can lead to positive and sustainable change in schools, to ensure that they are places where all AAPI students feel like they belong.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 5.

Mplus Input Used to Estimate Model 4.

TITLE: AAPI Sense of School Belonging
DATA: FILE IS C:/AAPI.dat;
VARIABLE: NAMES ARE
STUID SCHID STRAT PSU W1 BEL SEA SA EA PI SF SES BORN
I2FSEA I2FSA I2FEA I2FPI I2FSES I2FBORN I2SESSEA I2SESSA I2SESEA I2SESPI I2SESBORN
I2BORNSEA I2BORNSA I2BORNEA I2BORNFI;
USEVARIABLES ARE = BEL SEA SA EA PI SF SES BORN
I2FSEA I2FSA I2FEA I2FPI I2FSES I2FBORN
I2SESSEA I2SESSA I2SESEA I2SESPI I2SESBORN
I2BORNSEA I2BORNSA I2BORNEA I2BORNFI;
CLUSTER = SCHID;
STRATIFICATION = STRAT;
MISSING ARE .;
WEIGHT = W1;
WITHIN = SEA SA EA PI SF SES BORN
I2FSEA I2FSA I2FEA I2FPI I2FSES I2FBORN I2SESSEA I2SESSA I2SESEA I2SESPI I2SESBORN
I2BORNSEA I2BORNSA I2BORNEA I2BORNFI;
BETWEEN =;
ANALYSIS:
TYPE = COMPLEX TWOLEVEL RANDOM;
ESTIMATOR IS MLR;
MODEL:
%Within%
S1|BEL ON SEA;
S2|BEL ON SA;
S3|BEL ON EA;
⋮
%Between%
;

Note: Model 4 included the random slopes of all of the main effects and the interactions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Sung Tae Jang is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong. He has published extensively in the areas of intersectionality, critical quantitative analysis, and the impact of educational leadership and policy on equity and social justice. His work appears in American Educational Research Journal, Educational Administration Quarterly, Race Ethnicity and Education, Urban Education, and Teachers College Record.

References

Abbas

(2002). Teacher perceptions of South Asians in Birmingham schools and colleges. Oxford Review of Education, 28(4), 447–471.

Allen

Gray

D. L.

Arslan

Riley

Vella-Brodrick

Waters

(2019). School belonging policy. In Allen

Reupert

Oades

(Eds.), Building better schools with evidence-based policy (pp. 139–146). Routledge.

Anderman

E. M.

(2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 795–809.

Appleton

J. J.

Christenson

S. L.

Furlong

M. J.

(2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.

Asparouhov

(2006). General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460.

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2006). Multilevel modeling of complex survey data. American Statistical Association Section on Survey Research Methods.

Bartolomé

L. I.

(Ed.). (2008). Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality. Peter Lang.

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

10.

Benham

M. K. P.

(2006). A challenge to Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander scholars: What the research literature teaches us about our work. Race Ethnicity and Education, 9(1), 29–50.

11.

Bernat

D. H.

Resnick

M. D.

(2009). Connectedness in the lives of adolescents. In DiClemente

R. J.

Santelli

J. S.

Crosby

R. A.

(Eds.), Adolescent health: Understanding and preventing risk behaviors (pp. 375–389). Jossey-Bass.

12.

Brooms

D. R.

(2019). “I was just trying to make it”: Examining urban Black males’ sense of belonging, schooling experiences, and academic success. Urban Education, 54(6), 804–830.

13.

Brown

(2014, June 26). U.S. Hispanic and Asian populations growing, but for different reasons. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-asian-populations-growing-but-for-different-reasons/

14.

Bücker

Nuraydin

Simonsmeier

B. A.

Schneider

Luhmann

(2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 74(5), 83–94.

15.

Budiman

Ruiz

(2021). Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial or ethnic group in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/09/asian-americans-are-the-fastest-growing-racial-or-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s/

16.

Catalano

R. F.

Haggerty

K. P.

Oesterle

Fleming

C. B.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252–261.

17.

Collins

P. H.

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

18.

Covarrubias

Fryberg

S. A.

(2015). The impact of self-relevant representations on school belonging for Native American students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 10–18.

19.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

20.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.

21.

Delgado

M. Y.

Ettekal

A. V.

Simpkins

S. D.

Schaefer

D. R.

(2016). How do my friends matter? Examining Latino adolescents’ friendships, school belonging, and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1110–1125.

22.

DeNicolo

C. P.

Crowley

C. B.

Gabel

S. L.

(2017). Reimagining critical care and problematizing sense of school belonging as a response to inequality for immigrants and children of immigrants. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 500–530.

23.

Faircloth

B. S.

Hamm

J. V.

(2005). Sense of belonging among high school students representing 4 ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 293–309.

24.

Fischer

Middleton

Ricks

Malone

Briggs

Barnes

(2015). Not just Black and White: Peer victimization and the intersectionality of school diversity and race. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(6), 1241–1250.

25.

Fisher

B. W.

Dawson-Edwards

Higgins

E. M.

Swartz

(2020). Who belongs in school? Examining the link between Black and White racial disparities in sense of school belonging and suspension. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(5), 1481–1499.

26.

Freeman

T. M.

Anderman

L. H.

Jensen

J. M.

(2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 203–220.

27.

Gee

(2009). Asian Americans, critical race theory, and the end of the model minority myth. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, 19(1), 149–186.

28.

Gillborn

Warmington

Demack

(2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy, ‘Big Data’ and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179.

29.

Gillen-O’Neel

C. G. O.

Fuligni

(2013). A longitudinal study of school belonging and academic motivation across high school. Child Development, 84(2), 678–692.

30.

Gilligan

(1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

31.

Gin

K. J.

(2019). Racialized aggressions and sense of belonging among Asian American college students. Institute for Asian American Studies Publications.

32.

Goodenow

(1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43.

33.

Goodwin

A. L.

(2010). Curriculum as colonizer: (Asian) American education in the current US context. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3102–3138.

34.

Gopalan

Brady

S. T.

(2020). College students’ sense of belonging: A national perspective. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 134–137.

35.

Gover

A. R.

Harper

S. B.

Langton

(2020). Anti-Asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the reproduction of inequality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 647–667.

36.

Gray

D. L.

Hope

E. C.

Matthews

J. S.

(2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for interpersonal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 97–113.

37.

Greenman

(2013). Educational attitudes, school peer context, and the “immigrant paradox” in education. Social Science Research, 42(3), 698–714.

38.

Gutiérrez

(2008). Research commentary: A gap-gazing fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 357–364.

39.

Halse

(Ed.). (2018). Interrogating belonging for young people in schools. Palgrave Macmillan.

40.

Hankivsky

Cormier

(2011). Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons from existing models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217–229.

41.

Heine

H. C.

(2002). Culturally responsive schools for Micronesian immigrant students. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.

42.

Hune

(2011). Educational data, research methods, policies, and practices that matter for AAPIs. AAPI Nexus, 9(1–2), 115–118.

43.

Iftikar

J. S.

Museus

S. D.

(2018). On the utility of Asian critical (AsianCrit) theory in the field of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(10), 935–949.

44.

Ingels

S. J.

Pratt

D. J.

Herget

D. R.

Burns

L. J.

Ottem

Rogers

Jin

Leinwand

LoGerfo

(2011). High school longitudinal study of 2009 (HSLS:09): Base-year data file documentation. U.S. Department of Education.

45.

Jang

S. T.

(2018). The implications of intersectionality of race, gender, and socioeconomic status on Southeast Asian female students’ educational outcomes: Critical quantitative intersectionality analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1268–1306.

46.

Jang

S. T.

(2020). The schooling experiences and aspirations of students belonging to intersecting marginalisations based on race or ethnicity, sexuality, and socioeconomic status. Race Ethnicity and Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10/1080/13613324.2020.1842350

47.

Jang

S. T.

(2023). Schooling experiences and educational outcomes of Latinx secondary school students living at the intersections of multiple social constructs. Urban Education, 58(4), 708–739.

48.

Jang

S. T.

Alexander

N. A.

(2022). Black women principals in American secondary schools: Quantitative evidence of the link between their leadership and student achievement in challenging contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 450–486.

49.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 318–340.

50.

Jury

Aelenei

Chen

Darnon

Elliot

A. J.

(2019). Examining the role of perceived prestige in the link between students’ subjective socioeconomic status and sense of belonging. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(3), 356–370.

51.

Juvonen

(2006). Sense of belonging, social bonds, and school functioning. In Alexander

P. A.

Winne

P. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 655–674). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

52.

Kao

Tienda

(2012). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth . In Suarez-Orozco

Suarez-Orozco

Qin-Hilliard

D. B.

(Eds.), The new immigration (pp. 345–358). Routledge.

53.

Karcher

M. J.

Lee

(2002). Connectedness among Taiwanese middle school students: A validation study of the Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(1), 92–114.

54.

Khalifa

M. A.

Khalil

Marsh

T. E.

Halloran

(2019). Toward an indigenous, decolonizing school leadership: A literature review. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(4), 571–614.

55.

Kiang

P. N.

(2004). Linking strategies and interventions in Asian American Studies to K–12 classrooms and teacher preparation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 199–225.

56.

Kim

Y. K.

Sax

L. J.

(2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437–459.

57.

Korpershoek

Canrinus

E. T.

Fokkens-Bruinsma

de Boer

(2020). The relationships between school belonging and students’ motivational, social-emotional, behavioural, and academic outcomes in secondary education: A meta-analytic review. Research Papers in Education, 35(6), 641–680.

58.

Lareau

Horvat

E. M.

(1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.

59.

Lee

B. Y.

(2021, May 31). Coronavirus has ripped covers off the Asian American ‘model minority’ myth. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/05/31/

60.

Lee

S. J.

(2001). More than model minorities or delinquents: Hmong American high school students. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 505–528.

61.

Levinson

Geron

Brighouse

(2022). Conceptions of educational equity. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–12.

62.

Lew

(2006). Asian Americans in class: Charting the achievement gap among Korean American youth. Routledge.

63.

López

Erwin

Binder

Chavez

M. J.

(2018). Making the invisible visible: Advancing quantitative methods in higher education using critical race theory and intersectionality. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 180–207.

64.

Lumley

(2011). Complex surveys: A guide to analysis using R. John Wiley & Sons.

65.

Mayhew

M. J.

Simonoff

J. S.

(2015). Non-White, no more: Effect coding as an alternative to dummy coding with implications for higher education researchers. Journal of College Student Development, 56(2), 170–175.

66.

Miles

(2020). And how schools can support it. National Association of Secondary School Principals.

67.

Montoro

J. P.

Kilday

J. E.

Rivas-Drake

Ryan

A. M.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2021). Coping with discrimination from peers and adults: Implications for adolescents’ school belonging. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(1), 126–143.

68.

Muñiz

(2021). Education law and policy in the time of COVID-19: Using a legal framework to expose educational inequity. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–18.

69.

Murphy

M. C.

Zirkel

(2015). Race and belonging in school: How anticipated and experienced belonging affect choice, persistence, and performance. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1–40.

70.

Museus

S. D.

lising

a. a.

Kiang

P. N.

(2012). The state of scholarship on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in education: Anti-essentialism, inequality, context, and relevance. The Asian American and Pacific Islander Research Coalition.

71.

Museus

S. D.

Maramba

D. C.

(2011). The impact of culture on Filipino American students’ sense of belonging. Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258.

72.

Museus

S. D.

Vue

(2013). Socioeconomic status and Asian American and Pacific Islander students’ transition to college: A structural equation modeling analysis. Review of Higher Education, 37(1), 45–76.

73.

Muthén

B. O.

Satorra

(1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.

74.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

75.

Nasir

N. I. S.

Jones

McLaughlin

(2011). School connectedness for students in low-income urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1755–1793.

76.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Data Files. https://nces.ed.gov/timss/datafiles.asp

77.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge

78.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). High school longitudinal study of 2009 (HSLS:09) [Data set]. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09/

79.

Ngo

(2002). Contesting “culture”: The perspectives of Hmong American female students on early marriage. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(2), 163–188.

80.

Ngo

Lee

S. J.

(2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of Southeast Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 415–453.

81.

Nguyen

B. M. D.

Noguera

Adkins

Teranishi

R. T.

(2019). Ethnic discipline gap: Unseen dimensions of racial disproportionality in school discipline. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1973–2003.

82.

Niemiec

C. P.

Ryan

R. M.

(2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144.

83.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) [Data set]. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/statistics#databases

84.

Ogbu

J. U.

(1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312–334.

85.

Osterman

K. F.

(2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367.

86.

Ostrove

J. M.

Long

S. M.

(2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363–389.

87.

Pagan-Rivera

M. S.

(2014). Using integrative short-term treatment in addressing the social-emotional needs of immigrant students: Implications for school social work practice. School Social Work Journal, 38(2), 61–76.

88.

Pang

V. O.

Han

P. P.

Pang

J. M.

(2011). Asian American and Pacific Islander students: Equity and the achievement gap. Educational Researcher, 40(8), 378–389.

89.

Paradies

(2006). A systematic review of empirical research on self-reported racism and health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(4), 888–901.

90.

Pew Research Center. (2021). One-third of Asian Americans fear threats, physical attacks and most say violence against them is rising. Pew Research Center.

91.

Poon

Squire

Kodama

Byrd

Chan

Manzano

Furr

Bishundat

(2016). A critical review of the model minority myth in selected literature on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 469–502.

92.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

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

93.

Pyke

Dang

(2003). “FOB” and “whitewashed”: Identity and internalized racism among second generation Asian Americans. Qualitative Sociology, 26(2), 147–172.

94.

Qin

B. D.

(2006). “Our child doesn’t talk to us anymore”: Alienation in immigrant Chinese families. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 162–179.

95.

Quijada Cerecer

P. D.

(2013). The policing of Native bodies and minds: Perspectives on schooling from American Indian youth. American Journal of Education, 119(4), 591–616.

96.

Riley

(2017). Place, belonging and school leadership: Researching to make the difference. Bloomsbury.

97.

Riley

Coates

Allen

(2020). Place and belonging in school: Why it matters today. UCL Institute of Education.

98.

Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1, 1–16.

99.

Roorda

D. L.

Jak

Zee

Oort

F. J.

Koomen

H. M.

(2017). Affective teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261.

100.

Rouhani

(2014). Intersectionality-informed quantitative research: A primer. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1082–1089.

101.

Sangalang

C. C.

Gee

G. C.

(2015). Racial discrimination and depressive symptoms among Cambodian American adolescents: The role of gender. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(4), 447–465.

102.

Savage

Bagnall

Longhurst

B. J.

(2005). Globalization and belonging. SAGE.

103.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.

104.

Schudde

(2018). Heterogeneous effects in education: The promise and challenge of incorporating intersectionality into quantitative methodological approaches. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 72–92.

105.

Shah

(2019). “Asians are good at math” is not a compliment: STEM success as a threat to personhood. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 661–686.

106.

Shields

S. A.

(2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59(5), 301–311.

107.

Smerdon

(2002). Students’ perceptions of membership in their high schools. Sociology of Education, 75(4), 287–305.

108.

Teranishi

R. T.

(2007). Race, ethnicity, and higher education policy: The use of critical quantitative research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(133), 37–49.

109.

Tummala-Narra

Alegria

Chen

C. N.

(2012). Perceived discrimination, acculturative stress, and depression among South Asians: Mixed findings. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 3–16.

110.

Valenzuela

(2010). Subtractive schooling: US–Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press.

111.

Vaught

S. E.

(2012). ‘They might as well be Black’: The racialization of Sa’moan high school students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(5), 557–582.

112.

Vogt

W. P.

(2011). SAGE quantitative research methods. SAGE.

113.

Walton

G. M.

Cohen

G. L.

(2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.

114.

E. D.

(2013). The color of success: Asian Americans and the origins of the model minority. Princeton University Press.

115.

Yazzie-Mintz

(2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.

116.

Yeh

Inose

(2002). Difficulties and coping strategies of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrant students. Adolescence, 37(145), 69–82.

117.

Mac

V. S.

Venturanza

R. J.

Museus

S. D.

Buenavista

T. L.

Pendakur

S. L.

(2020). Toward an anti-imperialistic critical race analysis of the model minority myth. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 542–579.

118.

Yuval-Davis

(2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–209.