Immigrant Students in the Balkans: Paradox, Morbidity, or Something in Between?

As I mentioned earlier, I received a small research grant to investigate the achievement and well-being gap between native and immigrant students in Balkan countries. This study is exploratory in nature, without predefined hypotheses, which allowed me to use open-ended methods to uncover meaningful patterns in the data.

One concept that particularly caught my attention is the so-called immigrant paradox—a phenomenon where immigrant students demonstrate unexpectedly positive educational or psychosocial outcomes despite facing socio-economic disadvantages. A related idea is the attitude-achievement paradox, which emerges from comparisons between native and immigrant (or ethnic minority) students. Despite often lagging in academic performance, immigrant students frequently report higher educational aspirations, positive academic self-concept, greater motivation, and a more favorable attitude toward school.

In contrast, many European studies support the morbidity hypothesis, which suggests that immigrant students experience greater psychological problems, behavioral issues, depression, or reduced well-being (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2007; Leavey et al., 2004).

Research Objective

My aim was to examine how these three patterns—immigrant paradox, attitude-achievement paradox, and morbidity hypothesis—manifest among immigrant students. I proposed the following working definitions based on existing literature:

1.     Immigrant paradox: Immigrant students, despite lower SES, achieve similar or higher academic results and report positive school attitudes compared to native students.

2.     Attitude-achievement paradox: Immigrant students may have lower SES and academic performance but display higher aspirations, self-concept, and school engagement.

3.     Morbidity hypothesis: Immigrant students, relative to their native peers, show lower SES, achievement, and school engagement/motivation.

To explore these dynamics, I considered three core dimensions: socio-economic status (SES), academic achievement, and school engagement. Combining these allows us to conceptually outline eight possible student profiles:

1.     Low SES, Low Achievement, Low Engagement – Full morbidity hypothesis

2.     Low SES, Low Achievement, High Engagement – Attitude-achievement paradox

3.     Low SES, High Achievement, Low Engagement – Ambiguous: could indicate burnout or hidden distress

4.     Low SES, High Achievement, High Engagement – Immigrant paradox

5.     High SES, Low Achievement, Low Engagement – Disengaged or underachieving despite advantage

6.     High SES, Low Achievement, High Engagement – Possible attitude-achievement paradox but with high SES

7.     High SES, High Achievement, Low Engagement – Detached achievers, risk of burnout

8.     High SES, High Achievement, High Engagement – Successful students

This framework led me to ask: How are these groups distributed among immigrant students? It is expected that groups 1–4 (with low SES) would be more prevalent. But what about the others?

Methodology

To explore this, I analyzed data from the PISA in Serbia (2022) using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). LPA is a person-centered approach that allows researchers to identify subgroups within a population based on shared characteristics. Unlike variable-centered methods, which assume population homogeneity, LPA acknowledges that different subgroups might experience the same context in very different ways.

Variables used:

·       Academic achievement: Math and reading scores

·       Engagement and attitudes: Sense of school belonging, perseverance

·       Bullying: Index of being bullied (although I now question its utility and plan to test other engagement indicators)

·       Socio-economic status (SES)

Results from PISA 2022 (N = 605 immigrant students)

LPA identified 7 distinct profiles:

LP1: Academically Unsuccessful but Socially Integrated (21%)

·       Low achievement

·       Moderate belonging, low perseverance

·       Low bullying,

·       Low SES

Interpretation: Fits morbidity hypothesis—except for lower bullying.

LP2: Math-Competent but Victimized (12%)

·       Good math, low reading

·       Average belonging, low perseverance

·       High bullying,

·       Low SES

Interpretation: Mixed profile—academic potential with emotional vulnerability.

LP3: Verbally Skilled, Economically Advantaged, but Socially Disconnected (12%)

·       High reading, low math

·       Low belonging, average perseverance

·       High bullying

·       High SES

Interpretation: Detached achievers—possibly burnout or masked distress.

LP4: Well-Rounded and Resilient (12%)

·       Average achievement

·       High belonging and perseverance

·       Low bullying,

·       High SES

Interpretation: Successful and engaged—positive case.

LP5: High-Achieving but Disengaged (18%)

·       High achievement

·       Low belonging, low perseverance

·       Low bullying,

·       Average SES

Interpretation: Strong academics but emotionally distant—possibly hidden vulnerability.

LP6: Persistent and Advantaged High Achievers (8%)

·       Very high achievement

·       Low belonging, high perseverance

·       Low bullying,

·       Very high SES

Interpretation: Detached achievers—performance-focused but emotionally disconnected.

LP7: Academically Strong but Socially Vulnerable (17%)

·       Above-average achievement

·       Low belonging, average perseverance

·       High bullying,

·       high SES

Interpretation: High-performing but socially at risk.

Key Findings

1.     Successful Profiles: Only two groups—LP4 (12%) and LP6 (8%)—fit the definition of "successful" students. Yet even these show different paths: LP4 balances achievement and emotional well-being, while LP6 is high-achieving but emotionally detached.

2.     Bullying Among the Advantaged: Two of the four high-SES profiles (LP3, LP7) reported high levels of bullying, suggesting SES is not a universal protective factor.

3.     Achievement Asymmetry: Many students had strong performance in either math or reading, but not both. "Academic achievement" in immigrant research must clarify which domain is measured.

4.     Engagement Complexity: Sense of belonging and perseverance don’t always align. Some students show high belonging but low perseverance or vice versa. This raises questions about the best indicators for defining the attitude-achievement paradox.

5.     Sensitivity of LPA: Profile outcomes vary significantly based on which indicators are included. Careful variable selection is essential depending on the research aim.

Conclusion

We can map obtained profiles into theoretically derived groups. Below I suggested this:

Conceptual Group	Description	Latent Profile(s)	Approx. %
1. Low SES – Low Achievement – Low Engagement	Full morbidity hypothesis	LP1	21%
2. Low SES – Low Achievement – High Engagement	Attitude-achievement paradox	LP2 (partially)	12%
3. Low SES – High Achievement – Low Engagement	Ambiguous: burnout, academic stress	LP5	18%
4. Low SES – High Achievement – High Engagement	Immigrant paradox (ideal case)	Not clearly present	–
5. High SES – Low Achievement – Low Engagement	Disengaged privileged	Possibly LP3	12%
6. High SES – Low Achievement – High Engagement	Rare, not clearly observed	–	–
7. High SES – High Achievement – Low Engagement	Detached achievers, burnout	LP6, LP7	25%
8. High SES – High Achievement – High Engagement	Successful pupils	LP4	12%

What Can We Learn From This Distribution?

1.     Some groups are more common than others:

o   Low SES, Low Achievement, Low Engagement (LP1) is the largest group (~21%), which aligns with the morbidity hypothesis and suggests that a significant portion of immigrant students are at cumulative risk.

o   Conversely, fully resilient immigrant students (group 4)—those who succeed both academically and emotionally despite low SES—are not clearly represented in this sample. This absence challenges the idealized version of the immigrant paradox and suggests its rarity or fragility under current structural conditions.

2.     High-achieving but emotionally disengaged students are frequent:

o   LP5, LP6, and LP7, which together account for over 40%, suggest many students are academically strong but experience low belonging or high bullying, consistent with burnout, pressure, or social exclusion.

o   These students may be overlooked in school support programs because of their academic success, yet their emotional detachment makes them vulnerable in the long term.

3.     High SES is not always protective:

o   Several high-SES groups still show low belonging or high bullying, indicating that material advantage does not guarantee emotional well-being. This underscores the need for non-academic support structures even in advantaged subgroups.

4.     Very few profiles represent the "ideal" case:

o   Only one group (LP4 – "Well-Rounded and Resilient") closely resembles high achievement + high engagement, and it comprises just 12%.

o   This rarity indicates that achieving success across all domains (achievement, engagement, SES) is exceptional, not typical.

Implications for Theory and Policy

·       The immigrant paradox may need to be reframed. Rather than a dominant pattern, it might be better understood as a resilience cluster that exists under specific, often rare, conditions—perhaps when schools provide inclusive environments, and families offer compensatory support despite economic hardship.

·       Many immigrant students are "performing under pressure": succeeding academically, but without emotional integration or belonging. This suggests a hidden cost of resilience, pointing to the need for interventions beyond academic support—e.g., social-emotional learning, anti-bullying programs, and school climate improvement.

·       Person-centered approaches like LPA reveal the heterogeneity of immigrant students’ experiences. They help avoid overly broad labels (e.g., "vulnerable" or "resilient") and instead focus on tailored support strategies for specific subgroups.

Final Thoughts

While preparing this post, I searched for studies addressing the paradoxical situation where high-SES students demonstrate low academic achievement and/or low school engagement—but found surprisingly few. Most research continues to focus on low-SES students, likely because of the policy-driven emphasis on reducing disadvantage and promoting equity.

However, to fully understand the mechanisms linking SES, achievement, and engagement, it is equally important to examine underperformance among high-SES students. Why do some students with abundant resources still struggle or disengage? Are they simply “spoiled”? Lacking intrinsic motivation or this is their way to oppose to parents’ pressure? Could psychological mechanisms like self-handicapping or the overjustification effect explain these patterns?

These questions remain underexplored but are crucial for building a more complete picture of educational inequality. Understanding why some advantaged students underachieve could inform both universal and targeted interventions aimed at promoting engagement and well-being across the entire SES spectrum.

Final "Final Thoughts"

Of course, to really understand the gap between native and immigrant students, it's important to look at the profiles of native students too and compare how they’re distributed. I’ve already done that analysis and I’m currently writing a research paper based on data from five Balkan countries—Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, and Greece. I hope to finish the paper by the end of June, and I’ll share more about those findings in a future post.