adapting to family setbacks: malleability of students’ and...

Adapting to Family Setbacks: Malleability ofStudents’ and Parents’ Educational

ExpectationsLinda Renzulli1 and Ashley B. Barr2

1Purdue University, 2University at Buffalo, SUNY

A B S T R A C T

Ambitions that students and their parents set during their adolescence have significanceacross the life course. It is yet unclear, however, how these expectations respond to chang-ing family circumstances. In this work, we examine how negative family economic shocksaffect educational expectations for students and their parents by using two theoretical per-spectives – status attainment and adopt-adapt models. Further, we move beyond these de-bates about the malleability of expectations by considering how this malleability might differby your place in the social structure. We thus make hypotheses about how social class maybuffer or amplify the effect of negative family economic shocks on educational expectations.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we expand our conceptualization of educationalexpectations beyond degree expectations to include educational institutional route expecta-tions—the educational pathway that students plan to take to achieve their degree expecta-tions. We find that degree expectations are only somewhat malleable, but that route expec-tations are malleable. Family economic shocks served to reduce students’ and parents’expectations for beginning their post-secondary education at a B.A.-granting institution.Further, we find support for the amplification hypothesis rather than the buffering hypothe-sis; the expectations of middle-class students and parents prove more negatively responsiveto family economic shocks than do those of their lower SES counterparts. This work hasimplications for examining the dynamic nature of the status attainment process and sug-gests that expanding educational expectations to include institutional route may be vital forunderstanding social mobility in the current educational climate.

K E Y W O R D S : education, degree expectations, college route, socioeconomic status, familyeconomics.

Access to higher education is the most important route to economic mobility. The initiation andcompletion of higher education is now a central task of the transition to adulthood, one withtrajectory-modifying potential (Settersten and Ray 2010a, Furstenberg 2010). The transmission of in-equality through access to higher education starts much earlier than this, however (Bozick et al.2010). It is in adolescence when students start to establish expectations for their future (Steinberget al. 2009) and to prepare for the transition to adulthood (Settersten and Ray 2010a, 2010b).

Authors would like to thank Elizabeth Stearns, Jeremy Reynolds, Maria Paino, and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtfulcomments and insights. Direct all correspondence to: Linda Renzulli, Department of Sociology, Purdue University, West Lafayette,IN 47907. Email: [email protected].

VC The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

� 351

Social Problems, 2017, 64, 351–372doi: 10.1093/socpro/spw052Advance Access Publication Date: 28 February 2017Article D

ownloaded from

https://academic.oup.com

/socpro/article-abstract/64/3/351/3058568 by Vanderbilt University Eskind Biom

edical Library user on 05 January 2020

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.oxfordjournals.org/

Uncertainties or glitches in students’ expectations during adolescence, then, may yield substantialimplications for ambitions, paths, and opportunities for higher education. Further, when coupledwith the changing structure of higher education regarding access to loans, costs, and returns (Brandand Xie 2010), even temporary setbacks in adolescence may have lasting effects on paths of socialmobility.

The current literature on adolescent educational expectations focuses primarily on students’ expec-tations for degree attainment—that is, what is the highest degree students expect to achieve. With re-gard to these expectations, the literature offers two seemingly contradictory findings. First, degreeexpectations are indeed predictive of educational attainment and social mobility (Domina et al. 2011,Schneider and Stevenson 1999, Wilkins 2014). Second, degree expectations in the US have risen dra-matically over the past two decades. In fact, as many as 90 percent of students expect to go to collegeand earn a Bachelor’s Degree (BA)(Reynolds et al. 2006, Vuolo et al. 2014). This paradox—that ado-lescent degree expectations are predictive of how the life course unfolds but that the overwhelmingmajority of adolescents now expect a BA—has led to debate concerning the meaning and malleabilityof degree expectations. Are these expectations simply a mechanism in the transmission of inequality,a representation of broader cultural schemas, or might they respond to changing circumstances?

In pursuing this line of inquiry, we build upon the existing literature in several ways. First, we donot assume relative stability in either the conditions that foster degree expectations or in these expec-tations themselves. Instead, we explore how degree expectations are marred by family economicshocks over which adolescents have little or no control. Second, we examine how negative family eco-nomic shocks affect not only youths’ degree expectations but also parents’ degree expectations fortheir adolescents. Third, we consider how students and parents might respond differently to familyeconomic shocks by social class.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, although key questions remain about the meaning and mal-leability of degree expectations, the general inflation of these expectations over time suggests that wemust begin to expand our conceptualization of educational expectations beyond degree expectations.In fact, Rosenbaum (2001) argued that the college-for-all model has essentially made degree expecta-tions today meaningless and distinguished these expectations from those of institutional route expecta-tions—the educational pathway that students plan to take to achieve their degree expectations. Theseinstitutional route expectations might include, for example, if a student plans to enroll in a BA-granting institution first or if they plan to attend a two-year school and then transfer to a four-yearschool. Conceptualizing educational expectations as not only what students expect to achieve but alsohow they expect to achieve it is a new frontier for this literature and may provide insights to the waymobility is facilitated or foiled in the contemporary educational landscape.1

Thus, the story we tell about education and family setbacks is one of the interweaving relation-ships between the role of social class, options within the higher education landscape, and changing ex-pectations—both degree and route—for educational attainment.

T H E M A L L E A B I L I T Y O F S T U D E N T S ’ D E G R E E E X P E C T A T I O N SThree theoretical perspectives help us to understand the potential malleability of students’ degree expec-tations (i.e. the credential students expect to earn) in response to family economic shocks. Two of theseperspectives —status attainment and college-for-all—suggest relative stability in degree expectations,while the third perspective —adopt-adapt—suggests malleability given changing social contexts.

1 We conceptualize and operationalize routes in this work as educational routes. Because some students, for example, may take apath through employment to higher education and their BA, our route conceptualization does not tap the multitude of pathwaysstudents may pursue. In our work, however, we define route as the educational institutional route (i.e. BA institution or not) ratherthan life paths toward the BA.

352 � Renzulli and Barr

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/64/3/351/3058568 by Vanderbilt U

niversity Eskind Biomedical Library user on 05 January 2020

Status Attainment and College-For-AllThe process of socioeconomic attainment is typically construed as one that flows from schooling ori-entations and achievements to degree attainment to occupational status (Blau and Duncan 1967,Warren et al. 2002). This process, however, starts before adolescence (Bozick 2009). The Wisconsinmodel of educational attainment showed us that social origin matters for college going, in part be-cause it shapes degree expectations (Haller and Portes 1973). These early degree expectations, then,have a strong influence on future success in school (Spenner and Featherman 1978) and on attain-ment (Schneider and Stevenson 1999, Shanahan 2000).

The Wisconsin model linking social origin to adolescent degree expectations and these expecta-tions to attainment has been challenged recently by rapidly rising degree expectations despite increas-ing income inequality and wide disparities in educational attainment. As Rosenbaum (2011) argues,this seeming contradiction may be attributed to the college-for-all ethos. The college-for-all model ofdegree expectations suggests that, rather than being rooted in social origins and a realistic assessmentof opportunities, the calculations students are making about their prospects may now be the result oferroneous information and social pressure (Alexander and Cook 1979, Alexander et al. 1994,Kerckhoff 1977, Reynolds et al. 2006, Rosenbaum 2011). In fact, as Settersten and Ray (2010) poeti-cally describe: “. . .youths’ expectations. . .have risen like a helium balloon in thin air” (p. 5).Reynolds et al. (2006) add that “adolescents’ expectations have risen so rapidly that they have be-come increasingly unrealistic, compounding the need for further research on both the meaning ofand the trends in teenagers’ future plans” (p. 188).

Although offering different predictions regarding the role of degree expectations in actually pre-dicting degree attainment (Domina et al. 2011), both the college-for-all argument and the Wisconsinmodel of degree expectations are embedded in the same assumption about the rigidity of adolescents’expectations. They both assume that degree expectations are a relatively static mental state, formedeither by social origin or by widespread cultural ideals (Haller and Portes 1973, Sewell et al. 1969).Based on these models, one would expect family negative economic shocks, independent of familySES, to have little or no impact on degree expectations.2

Adopt-AdaptThe assumption that degree expectations are relatively static is challenged theoretically and empiri-cally by the adopt-adapt framework (Andrew and Hauser 2011, Karlson 2015, Morgan 2005). Thisframework suggests that students, in fact, modify their beliefs to changing circumstances (Bozicket al. 2010, Breen 1999, Morgan 1998). That is, consonant with a social learning perspective, thesebeliefs are “adopted from significant social others” (Andrew and Hauser 2011:498) early in educa-tional careers but may be adapted as students move through their education and encounter some-times changing social contexts. The adopt-adapt framework, then, gives us a motivation forreexamining degree expectation formation and educational choices. The adaptation model suggeststhat signaling devices such as high school achievement, counseling advice, and finances should beused to temper students’ expectations for degree attainment. Like the Wisconsin model, the adapta-tion model views degree expectations as rooted in reality (Schneider and Stevenson 1999) but doesnot assume stability of that reality or the expectations formed from it. Rather, it suggests that as sig-nals change over an adolescent’s school career, his or her degree expectations change accordingly.

Our first theorizing about the adopt-adapt model may very well have been Burton’s (1960) thesison cooling out– the idea that students adjust their expectations for a BA once in a two-year institu-tion. Empirical tests of the adaptation model, however, are quite new and mixed in their findings. Forinstance, recent studies of community college women (Nielsen 2015) and of Katrina survivors(Deterding 2015) show that students “hold steady” in their ambition even when the odds turn againstthem. Researchers have also found, however, that some high schoolers responded to social influences

2 We note that our focus is on negative economic shocks- those that produce a loss rather than a windfall.

Adapting to Family Setbacks � 353

Dow




from home and school (e.g. school tracking) and adjusted their expectations downward (Bozick et al.2010, Karlson 2015). Typically these downward shifts are among low-resource students, whose expecta-tions may rebound during the transition to adulthood (Alexander et al. 2008, Deterding 2015).

This mixed evidence for the adopt-adapt model suggests that adolescents subject to the college-for-all ethos do not easily change their degree expectations based on germane evidence such as aca-demic achievement (Andrew and Hauser 2011, Moller et al. 2011). Degree expectations may still beadaptable with the occurrence of a dire exogenous change, however. We propose that family negativeeconomic shocks might qualify as a dire exogenous change capable of altering students’ degreeexpectations.

The financial burdens of higher education are increasingly falling on the shoulders of parents, asaid programs are being shifted from federal grants to low-cost loans to private loans or to families’ di-rect contributions to education (Hamilton 2013, Lucas 1996, Paulsen and St John 2002). To sendtheir children to college, parents often make difficult financial decisions, and it comes at a substantialprice tag, as they use savings or retirement accounts. This heavy reliance on parents to fund and sup-port students throughout higher education means that sudden changes in a family’s economic statusmight qualify as the “sharp and drastic exogenous changes, or shocks” that Andrew and Hauser(2011: 514) suggest might be necessary to cause substantial change in students’ degree expectations.Hence, while the null hypothesis guided by the Wisconsin and college-for-all models suggests thatstudent degree expectations are not malleable, the adopt-adapt hypothesis predicts that when familiesincur significant and negative economic shocks, students’ expectations for earning a BA will falter.

Hypothesis 1: Negative family economic shocks will decrease students’ expectations for a BA.

Given the growing role of parents in supporting their children in their educational pursuits, par-ents’ degree expectations continue to play an increasingly important role in their children’s educa-tional trajectories (Briley et al. 2014). We know that higher socioeconomic status parents are morelikely to assume an attitude that their children will attend college, come to expect it, and save the re-sources to pay for it (Flint 1992, 1997, Hamilton 2013, Olson and Rosenfeld 1984). Understandinghow not only students’ but also parents’ degree expectations change in response to family economicshocks is a step toward understanding the relational underpinnings of status attainment in the contextof an extended transition to adulthood (Settersten and Ray 2010). Although parents’ degree expecta-tions have largely been left out of debates on the meaning and malleability of educational expecta-tions to date, one might presume that, if the adopt-adapt model is correct, parents’ degreeexpectations for their adolescents might also be responsive to family setbacks.

Hypothesis 2: Negative family economic shocks will decrease parents’ expectations for theirhigh schooler to earn a BA.

I M P O R T A N C E A N D M A L L E A B I L I T Y O F I N S T I T U T I O N A L R O U T EE X P E C T A T I O N S

Because the college-for-all ethos is so strong and growing among all social classes, and college degreeexpectations have not yet proven highly adaptable among recent cohorts of students (Andrew andHauser 2011, Nielsen 2015), it may very well be that family economic shocks do not make studentsor parents waver in their expectations for earning the BA credential. This would not necessarily meanthat family economic shocks are harmless, however. Although the Wisconsin model centers aroundthe role of degree expectations in predicting attainment, how families expect to meet their goals isalso important (Karlson 2015, Kerckhoff 1976). Here we expand our understanding of educationalexpectations to include institutional route expectations. Though students are increasingly expecting aBA, they are also increasingly expecting to start their path to earning that BA at a two-year institution


Dow




(Johnson and Reynolds 2013). In the 1970s and 1980s, less than 50 percent of students who went totwo-year institutions expected to earn a BA; they expected a two-year degree and an occupation com-mensurate with that degree. As the costs associated with attending a four-year institution keep rising,and families face new financial burdens in the aftermath of the Great Recession, community collegesprovide an increasingly attractive and affordable entry for many students who aspire and expect toearn a BA (Wang 2013). A two-year path may help satisfy college-for-all demands for students. Infact, states today are pushing the two-year route with elaborate articulation policies and transfer creditguarantees, with some success.

Nonetheless, this path is much riskier for students: four-year institutions tend to maintain higherdegree attainments than two-year institutions despite students’ expectation to receive a BA. Morethan two-thirds of students who start their postsecondary career in a community college identifiedthe BA as their aim (Hoachlander et al. 2003, Kojaku and Nunez 1998, Schneider and Stevenson1999). The actual rate of transfer is much lower, with only 36% of all BA-seeking students at two-year colleges transferring to four-year colleges (Bradburn et al. 2001, Dougherty and Kienzl 2006).

Even in good economic times, students use financial concerns to make the cost-benefit analysis ofgoing to a two-year or a four-year institution (Deil-Amen and Lopez Turley 2007). As two-yearschools have expanded in their organizational form and market-share (Goldrick-Rab 2010), alongwith the increasing financial burdens on families, it is easy to predict that changing family circum-stances would have consequences for the institutional routes that students plan to take to degree at-tainment. That is, even if students’ and parents’ degree expectations are not substantially altered byfamily economic shocks, they may now expect to take the less expensive route there – the communitycollege (Dougherty and Kienzl 2006). Hence, we extend the predictions of the adopt-adapt model toeducational route expectations.

Hypothesis 3: Negative family economic shocks will reduce the likelihood that students will ex-pect to begin postsecondary education at a four-year institution.

Hypothesis 4: Negative family economic shocks will reduce the likelihood that parents will ex-pect their high schoolers to begin postsecondary education at a four-year institution.

F A M I L Y S E S A N D T H E E F F E C T O F F A M I L Y E C O N O M I C S H O C K S F O R S T U D E N TA N D P A R E N T S

The debates in the literature thus far concerning the malleability of educational expectations havelargely been concerned with the presence or absence of direct effects. For instance, the status attain-ment and college-for-all models suggest no effect of economic shocks on expectations, while theadopt-adapt model suggests a negative effect of shocks on expectations. This debate is somewhat lim-ited, however, because there is strong reason to believe that any malleability of expectations, if found,may be different for some families than for others. That is, the degree to which students and parentsrespond to changing circumstances may be contingent upon their relative position in the social struc-ture. For some, this position may limit opportunity in the face of financial struggle and for others thisposition may open opportunity in the face of struggle (Johnson and Reynolds 2013, Turley et al.2007). Hence, we explore the role of social class on conditioning the effect of family economic shockson degree and route expectations.

Family SES as a Potential BufferThe cumulative advantage students and parents gain by their middle-class status may buffer themfrom financial setbacks (Furstenberg Jr 2010, Merton 1988). Students from middle- and higher-SESfamilies have traditionally been more likely than their lower-SES peers to hold onto their expectationsto earn a BA (Bozick et al. 2010, Johnson and Reynolds 2013, Wang 2012). This has been argued to


Dow




be the case because of the ingrained habitus among the middle class for college-going (Grodsky andRiegle-Crumb 2010). Further, the schools of middle-class students may be equipped to offer assis-tance in the event of family crises. Middle-class parents are prepared with the cultural and social capi-tal necessary to find alternative means to pay for higher education should family resources suddenlydiminish (Charles et al. 2007, Lareau 1987, Paulsen and St John 2002) and likely have financial capi-tal already saved (Hamilton 2013). This advantage in the transmission of status attainment predictsthat middle-class status buffers students and parents from the negative effects of family economicshocks on expectations.

Intuitively one would surmise then that middle-class families might also be less likely to alter theirexpected educational path from a four-year to a two-year college in the face of family economicshocks. The benefits of middle-class neighborhoods, schools, parenting and lifestyles increase entitle-ment to four-year schooling (Calarco 2014, Lareau 2002, Lareau and Goyette 2014), and years ofpreparation before the setback might make path switching more unlikely and unnecessary (Grodskyand Riegle-Crumb 2010).

Hypothesis 5a: The negative effect of family economic shocks on degree expectations will beweaker among more middle-class students and parents than among lower SES counterparts.

Hypothesis 5b: The negative effect of family economic shocks on expected route to BA will beweaker for more middle-class students and parents than for their lower SES peers.

Family SES as a Potential AmplifierThough intuitively it may seem that those closer to the top of the socioeconomic ladder may bemore likely to maintain high educational expectations in the face of economic shocks, as predicted inhypotheses 5a and 5b, there is new evidence that suggests the opposite: that being in the middle classmay in fact amplify the negative effects of a shock (Deterding 2015, Nielsen 2015). Those in the mid-dle class have relied most heavily on savings, income, and access to private loans for college(Hamilton 2013). Family economic shocks for these individuals might mean that they are suddenlyunable to save for college or are forced to use college savings for everyday living. On the other hand,lower-SES students and parents may be more accustomed to economic shocks than their middle-class peers (Lucas 2001). Lower-SES families often have little savings and instead rely on access topublic loans and low estimated family contributions to obtain college degrees; i.e. if you have nothing,you have nothing to lose. Hence, it is possible that lower-SES families may not see what is likely tobe just another negative financial event as detrimental to their plans to obtain a four-year degree,while more middle-class families may be so thrown off track that they reevaluate their degree expecta-tions altogether (Karlson 2015).

Even if middle-class students hold steady in their expectation to earn a BA, however, they mayreevaluate their institutional route to achieve the BA. When middle-class families encounter eco-nomic shocks they may see this as a blip in their financial stability and may feel able to wait it out ina two-year college before transitioning to a four-year institution and earning the desired BA. And,compared to their lower SES counterparts, the odds are in their favor that they will be able to obtainthat degree (Dougherty and Kienzl 2006, Wang 2013). On the other hand, lower SES students andparents may be skeptical that a two-year school will lead them to a BA (Ovink 2014). Thus, duringtimes of even greater financial instability than is their norm, their expectations for a four-year institu-tion may not falter (Deterding 2015). This counter-intuitive notion of institutional route expecta-tions is, however, consistent with research showing that sanguine educational aspirations existdespite unlikely probability for accomplishment (Frye 2012). Hence, here we offer competing pre-dictions from hypotheses 5a-b.


Dow




Hypothesis 6a: The negative effect of family economic shocks on degree expectations will be stron-ger among more middle-class students and parents than among lower-SES students and parents.

Hypothesis 6b: The negative effect of family economic shocks on expected route to BA will bestronger for more middle-class students and parents than for their lower-SES peers.

M E T H O D S

Data and SampleTo test our hypotheses, we use data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09).The HSLS:09 is a nationally representative cohort study of 9th graders across the United States. TheHSLS:09 is designed to capture students’ and families’ preparations for and transitions to postsecon-dary education, as well as paths into and out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM) fields. The first wave of data collection took place during the fall of the 2009-2010 schoolyear. A follow-up was completed in 2012 when most students were in the spring term of 11th grade.

The sample design was a stratified, two-stage random sample with schools selected at the firststage and students within those schools selected at the second stage. Hence, the sample is nationallyrepresentative of 9th graders in 2009-2010 and of schools with 9th and 11th graders in 2009. Samplingweights are used to account for the complex sampling design.

In the absence of data that examine our key concepts immediately before and after the Great Recession,the HSLS:09 is ideal for studying the impact of family economic shocks on educational expectations. First,these data ask not only about educational attainment (i.e. degree) expectations but also about the type of in-stitution that students expect to attend immediately following high school (i.e. institutional route expecta-tions). Second, the HSLS:09 data contain information on degree and institutional route expectations fromboth students and parents. Third, degree and route expectations were assessed across two waves of data, en-abling an assessment of change in expectations for both parents and students. Lastly, the timing of theHSLS:09 is important. The first wave of data collection took place in 2009, just after the Great Recessionhad officially ended. Although unable to assess the impact of the recession on families, the aftermath of thisrecession provides a unique opportunity to offer insight into the malleability (or lack thereof) of educationalexpectations today. The negative effects of the recession lingered long after the recession’s official end andwere not isolated to the poor (Grusky et al. 2011). Because many lower- and middle-SES families experi-enced substantial setbacks in the aftermath of the recession, this period enables us to examine the degree towhich educational expectations might be responsive to changing family circumstances, such as a foreclosureon a home or a job loss, with more limited selection bias than would be expected in other historical contexts.

To test our hypotheses regarding the effect of family economic shocks on educational expecta-tions, we limit our analytic sample in several ways. Although over 23,000 students completed thebase year HSLS:09, only a random subsample of parents was targeted at each wave. Because all eco-nomic shock data was gathered from the parent questionnaires, the analytic sample was first reducedto those respondents with two waves of student and parent data (N¼ 8,650).3 We further limitedour analytic sample to students enrolled in public schools (N¼ 6,640). By focusing on public schoolstudents, we maintain class variation but limit the range largely to middle- and working-class respon-dents rather than include upper-class families with theoretically and empirically different experiences.

S T U D Y M E A S U R E S

Dependent VariablesStudent degree expectations. In grades 9 and 11, students were asked “As things stand now, how far inschool do you think you will get?” Responses ranged from “less than high school” to “complete a

3 Unweighted sample sizes have been rounded to the nearest ten as per NCES restrictions.


Dow




Ph.D., M.D., law degree, or other high level professional degree.” Because response options variedsomewhat between waves, we used a simple yet comparable indicator of degree expectations at eachwave by dichotomizing the measure into 1 ¼ expects BA or higher and 0 ¼ does not expect BA.

Student institutional route expectations. In grades 9 and 11, students were asked about their educa-tional plans immediately following high school. In grade 9, students were asked “What do you planto do during your first year after high school?” Students were coded 1 for expecting to enroll in a BA-granting program if they answered affirmatively to the “enroll in a Bachelor’s degree program in a col-lege or university” and 0 otherwise. In grade 11, students were asked: “In the fall of 2013, are youmost likely to attend a school that provides occupational training, a two-year college, a four-year col-lege, or have you not thought about this yet?” Again, students were coded 1 for expecting to enroll ina BA-granting program if they chose “four-year college” and 0 otherwise. Although our measure ofroute expectations is limited to a simple dichotomy between BA institution and something else, thismeasure is directly comparable to the measure of degree expectations. Without comparable measures,it would be misguided to compare the effects of economic shocks on degree and route expectations.

Parent degree expectations. Parents’ degree expectations were assessed with questions similar to stu-dents’ degree expectations. At each wave, the parent or guardian was asked “As things stand now, howfar in school do you think [student] will actually get?” As with students’ response options, parent re-sponse options varied somewhat across waves but ranged from “less than high school” to “complete aPh.D., M.D., law degree, or other high level professional degree.” Responses were dichotomized into 1¼ expects BA degree or higher for student and 0 ¼ does not expect BA degree for student.

Parent institutional route expectations. At each wave, parents were asked where they expected theirhigh schooler to enroll after high school. More specifically, when students were in the 9th grade, par-ents were asked “Do you think [your 9th grader] will start [his/her] college education at a technicalinstitute, a community college or other Associate’s granting school besides a technical institute, or aBachelor’s granting 4-year college?” Parents who responded affirmatively to the latter option werecoded 1 for expecting the student to enroll in a BA-granting program and 0 otherwise. Parents whoindicated that they “haven’t thought about this yet” were coded 0 for having no affirmative expecta-tions for a BA-granting institution. Similarly, when students were in the 11th grade, parents wereasked “If [teenager] attends school in the fall of 2013, will [he/she] be most likely to attend a schoolthat provides occupational training, a two-year college, a four-year college, high school, or have younot thought about this yet?” Again, parents who chose “four-year college” were coded 1 for expectingthe student to enroll in a BA-granting program and 0 otherwise. As with the student expectation mea-sures, our measures of parental degree and route expectations are simple yet directly comparable.

In all models, the 11th-grade expectations serve as the dependent variables, while the 9th-grade ex-pectations serve as control variables.

Independent & Moderating VariablesEconomic shocks. Family economic shocks were assessed in multiple ways. First, when students were in11th grade, parents were asked explicitly if, since the fall of 2009 (the time of the 9th grade survey), theteenager’s parent or guardian has “lost a job” (lost job, 1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) or the “family’s home wasforeclosed” (foreclosed, 1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no). Second, family income categories (ranging from “$15,000 orbelow” to “more than $235,000” in $20,000 increments) were compared across waves. If the familydropped in income categories from wave 1 to wave 2, they were coded 1 for having experienced a lossof income (lost income, 1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no), hence providing a conservative estimate of income loss.4

4 Although this assessment does not capture the relative magnitude of income loss, it is largely unaffected by threshold effects and,hence, not collinear with SES. A measure of the number of income categories a family dropped across waves or a measure of rawincome difference in dollars, which would assess magnitude of the income loss, would be constrained by SES given that only fam-ilies with higher initial incomes can fall far. This problem is illustrated by the significant, positive correlation between SES and in-come loss when measured as a continuous variable (p < .001) but the nonsignificant correlation between SES and income losswhen measured categorically (p ¼ .180).


Dow




Finally, insecurity in the family’s housing situation across waves was assessed by comparing their hous-ing status at wave 1 with their housing status at wave 2. At each wave, the parent respondent wasasked: “Do you (1) pay mortgage towards or own your home, (2) rent your home, or (3) have someother arrangement?” Decreased housing security was indicated by a shift from category 1 to either cat-egory 2 or 3, or a shift from category 2 to category 3. Respondents were coded 1 if the family experi-enced a decrease in housing security and 0 otherwise (housing insecurity, 1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no). A countmeasure of economic shocks was constructed by summing these four indicators. The most commoneconomic shock was having a parent lose a job (24.8%), followed by a loss of income (24.6%), hous-ing insecurity (7.9%), and home foreclosure (5.2%). Overall, 44% of public high schoolers experiencedat least 1 family economic shock between the fall of 2009 (9th grade) and the spring of 2011 (11th

grade), supporting claims of the lingering effects of the recession long after its official end. Becauseless than 1% of students experienced all 4 economic shocks, the final count variable was restricted tofour levels (0, 1, 2, 3 or more), although models using the full continuous measure were consistentwith those presented below.5

Socioeconomic status. An index of socioeconomic status (SES) was computed by NCES. Includedin this index were five indicators of students’ home background (parent report used, if available), in-cluding (1) the highest education among parents/guardians in the two-parent family of a respondingstudent, or the education of the sole parent/guardian, (2) the education level of the other parent/guardian in the two-parent family, (3) the highest occupation prestige score among parents/guard-ians in the two-parent family of a responding student, or the prestige score of the sole parent/guard-ian, (4) the occupation prestige score of the other parent/guardian in the two-parent, (5) familyincome. These items were standardized and averaged to form the SES index at wave 1 (9th grade).This index is identical to SES measures in previous NCES cohort studies, like NELS:88 andELS:2002. For the sake of simplicity, we refer to lower-SES and more middle-SES students through-out the results, but it is important to keep in mind the continuous nature of the SES index.

Control variables. We employ a series of individual, family, and school control variables to properlyspecify the primary association of interest, that between economic shocks and educational expecta-tions. All controls were assessed in 9th grade unless otherwise noted, and they include student gender(female ¼ 1), family structure (not living in married biological family ¼ 1), race (non-white ¼ 1), house-hold size (number of people living in household), whether or not the student repeated a grade bygrade 9 (1 ¼ yes), whether or not the student transferred schools between grade 9 and 11 (transfer¼ 1), and whether or not the parents or someone in the family has started an educational savings ac-count (1 ¼ yes). Educational savings have been associated with higher college expectations, atten-dance, and completion (Elliott and Beverly 2011, Zhan and Sherraden 2011) and may also serve tocushion students and parents from economic shocks.

We also controlled for several factors indicating students’ preparation for and ability to complete aBA. These include students’ academic track in 9th grade, as indicated by their enrolled math class.Consonant with past work (Adelman 1999, Attewell and Domina 2008, Karlson 2015), studentswere coded as being on a remedial track if they were enrolled in basic math, pre-algebra, or no mathcourse. Nonselective college track was indicated by enrollment in algebra 1, and selective college trackwas indicated by enrollment in an advanced math class, like geometry, algebra 2, or pre-calculus. Wealso control for students’ math ability, as indicated by the students’ theta scores on the 9th grademathematics assessment. These ability scores provide a summary measure of achievement and arerecommended by NCES to assess algebraic reasoning ability (NCES, 2013).6

5 We also explored models with a dichotomous shock indicator (0 ¼ no shocks, 1 ¼ 1 or more shocks). These models were largelyconsistent with those presented, but the effects were generally weaker, indicating that the number of shocks, a measure that bettertaps severity or intensity, and not simply the presence of 1 or more shocks, matters.

6 In the fall of 2009 (9th grade), students completed a mathematics assessment of algebraic reasoning designed to assess under-standings of the major domains and key processes of algebra. Scores used to describe students’ performance on the mathematicsassessment are based on the Item Response Theory model (Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985), which uses patterns of correct,


Dow




In addition to these individual- and family-level controls, we constructed an index of the highschool’s college preparatory resources by summing the number of programs (10 total) the school coun-selor indicated were available to students. These programs included a counselor designated for col-lege readiness/applications, college fairs, consultation with postsecondary representatives, organizedvisits to colleges, college preparatory programs (e.g. Upward Bound), information sessions on thetransition to college, assistance with finding financial aid, counseling curriculum for positive academicbehaviors, and other steps to assist with the transition to college. The availability of these programsare associated with students’ expectations and preparation for college and may also be associatedwith students’ or parents’ experience of or response to economic shocks.

Lastly, as mentioned above, we control for 9th grade degree and route expectations in all modelspredicting 11th grade expectations so that we account for a baseline assessment of expectations priorto family economic shocks. It is important to note, however, that we have no assessment of economicshocks prior to the 9th grade. Hence, it is possible that families could have experienced other negativeshocks of a similar or different nature prior to 9th grade and then additional shocks during the timeperiod captured by HSLS:09. This possibility, however, makes our estimates of the effect of economicshocks on educational expectations rather conservative.

A N A L Y T I C S T R A T E G YGiven our dichotomous dependent variables, we utilized logistic regression models with robuststandard errors in MPlus Version 7. Logistic regression in MPlus has several advantages. First,MPlus allows one to model the covariance between independent variables and to predict two out-comes (e.g. degree expectations and route expectations) simultaneously. Doing so enables moreconservative estimates of the associations of interest. Second, because the HSLS:09 is not a simplerandom sample of students, analysis of the data requires the use of sampling weights to account forthe complex sampling design and ensure representativeness. MPlus allows for the relatively straight-forward use of sampling weights using Taylor Series Linearization. This approach takes into ac-count the primary sampling unit (schools) and strata identifiers provided by NCES to calculateappropriate standard errors. Third, MPlus allows one to retain cases with missing data via a full in-formation maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator. FIML uses all available data yet is more efficientand relies on far fewer decisions than multiple imputation (Allison 2012). Hence, we utilized theimputed data for family SES provided by NCES (see HSLS:09 Data File Documentation at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014361.pdf) and relied on FIML when estimating models with additional miss-ing data.

For each outcome of interest, we ran two models: (1) a direct effects model in which the effectsof SES and family economic shocks, independent of controls, were estimated, and (2) an interactivemodel examining the interaction between SES and family economic shocks. All continuous variableswere centered at their mean. In presenting each of the models below, we report the exponentiated co-efficients, or odds ratios. Coefficients represent the factor change in the odds of expecting a BA de-gree/institution given a 1-unit change in the independent variables. For instance, an odds ratio of 1.4indicates that a one-unit increase in the independent variable increases the odds of affirmative expec-tations by 1.4 times, or 40%.

R E S U L T S

Univariate and Bivariate StatisticsBefore discussing the results of the logit models, several univariate and bivariate statistics are worthnoting. First, as shown in Table 1, BA degree expectations for both parents and students were

incorrect, and omitted responses to obtain ability estimates. Although NCES offers several types of scores based on the mathe-matics assessment, ability (or theta) scores are used as a control here given that NCES notes they are best for assessing students’absolute ability.


Dow




http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014361.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014361.pdf

relatively high in both 9th (81% of students and 83% of parents) and 11th grade (70% of students and73% of parents). Degree expectations were substantially lower for 11th graders than for 9th graders,however. As for route expectations, about half of parents (46%) and students (53%) in the 9th gradeexpected to be enrolled in a four-year institution following high school. By 11th grade, both parents’and students’ route expectations increased slightly, with 51% of parents and 59% of students expect-ing a BA institution. Second, there is only a moderate correlation between degree and route expecta-tions for both students (r9th ¼ .328, r11th ¼ .586) and parents at each wave (r9th ¼ .398, r11th ¼.576; correlation matrix available upon request). Further, there is only a moderate correlation be-tween expectations across waves for both students (rdegree¼ .349, rroute¼ .354) and parents (rdegree¼.505, rroute¼ .502). Lastly and most importantly, there is only a small negative correlation betweenSES and economic shocks (r ¼ �.070), supporting the contention that the residual effects of the

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Weighted Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

9th gradeStudent expects BA degree 0.811 0.000 1.000Student expects BA institution 0.530 0.000 1.000Parent expects BA degree 0.825 0.000 1.000Parent expects BA institution 0.461 0.000 1.000Female student 0.489 0.000 1.000Not living in married, biological family 0.416 0.000 1.000Educational savings account 0.197 0.000 1.000Student repeated a grade 0.113 0.000 1.000Transferred schools between grade 9 and 11 0.113 0.000 1.000Student is non-white 0.485 0.000 1.000Household size 4.376 1.344 2.000 13.000School resources 6.802 2.629 0.000 10.000Remedial track 0.141 0.000 1.000Nonselective track 0.512 0.000 1.000Selective track 0.346 0.000 1.000Math ability 0.048 0.930 �2.570 3.028Family SES 0.087 0.689 �0.999 2.567Between 9th and 11th gradesNumber of economic shocks 0.589 0.736 0.000 3.000Any economic shock 0.440 0.000 1.000Housing insecurity 0.079 0.000 1.000Foreclosure 0.052 0.000 1.000Change in income category 0.246 0.000 1.000Parent lost job 0.248 0.000 1.000

11th gradeStudent expects BA degree 0.696 0.000 1.000Student expects BA institution 0.587 0.000 1.000Parent expects BA degree 0.730 0.000 1.000Parent expects BA institution 0.514 0.000 1.000

Note: Sample is restricted to public school students. N¼ 6640; Unweighted sample sizes have been rounded to the nearest ten as per NCESrestrictions.


Dow




Great Recession were not limited to the poor and working class but also affected more middle-classfamilies.

Degree ExpectationsTable 2 presents results predicting 11th graders’ and their parents’ degree expectations—that is,whether or not a BA is expected— from SES, economic shocks, and their interaction, independent ofall controls. As can be seen in this table, family SES was associated with higher degree expectationsamong students. Further, as shown in model 1, economic shocks were only marginally associatedwith students’ lower degree expectations. Independent of 9th grade expectations and all controls, eachfamily economic shock was associated with a 14% decrease in the odds of expecting a BA degree in11th grade. As indicated in model 2 of this table, the negative association between economic shocksand degree expectations was not moderated by SES. Such findings offer only moderate support forthe direct effect of economic shocks on students’ degree expectations articulated in hypothesis 1 andno support for the conditional effects outlined in hypotheses 5a and 6a. These findings are shown inPanel A of Figure 1.

As with students’ degree expectations, family SES was associated with reduced degree expectationsfor parents. Contrary to the findings for students, however, SES moderated the effect of family eco-nomic shocks on parents’ degree expectations. As shown in model 3 of Table 2, family economicshocks were not directly predictive of degree expectations for parents (contrary to hypothesis 2), buttheir effect was dependent upon SES (model 4). This interaction effect is illustrated in Panel B ofFigure 1. Here, we utilized coefficients from model 4 to plot the predicted probability of parents whoexpected a BA degree in 9th grade still expecting a BA degree for their 11th grader by number of eco-nomic shocks and SES.7 As Panel B of Figure 1 illustrates, there is a substantial decline in the proba-bility of more middle-class parents still expecting a BA for their 11th grader with increasing economicshocks (simple slope test: t ¼ �13.377, p < .001). This was not the case for lower-SES parents.Instead, the effect of economic shocks on lower-SES parents was significantly positive (simple slopetest: t¼ 5.689, p < .001). These findings offer support for the amplification hypothesis 6b.Economic shocks were associated with a reduced probability of expecting a BA degree among moremiddle-class parents but not lower SES parents, whose expectations actually rose with more eco-nomic shocks.

Institutional Route ExpectationsOur first set of models suggests that there is weak evidence that family economic shocks reduce stu-dents’ degree expectations and stronger evidence suggesting that they reduce the degree expectationsof parents, but primarily middle-class parents. Despite these effects, degree expectations remained rel-atively high. For instance, as can be seen in Figure 1, the majority of students and parents who ex-pected to earn a BA degree in 9th grade and experienced 3 or more economic shocks still expectedthat degree in 11th grade. Hence, we now turn to the models predicting institutional route expecta-tions—that is, how students plan to achieve their degrees.

As shown in model 1 of Table 3, economic shocks were only marginally significant in predictingstudents’ institutional route expectations. As shown in model 2 of this table, however, the effect ofeconomic shocks on students’ route expectations was dependent upon family SES. In particular, thenegative effect of economic shocks on expecting to attend a BA-granting institution after high schoolwas significantly stronger for more middle-SES students. This interaction is graphed in Panel A ofFigure 2. As with the figure for parents’ degree expectations, the predicted probabilities representthose for 9th graders who expected a BA. For instance, middle-class students, plotted at 1 standard

7 For illustration purposes only, we refer to 1 standard deviation about the SES mean as “middle SES” and 1 standard deviation be-low the mean as “lower SES” (which we do in subsequent figures, as well). Coefficients from the continuous SES models wereused to calculate probabilities for these groups, however.


Dow




Tab

le2.

Log

isti

cR

egre

ssio

nof

Stud

ents

’and

Par

ents

’Deg

ree

Exp

ecta

tion

sin

11th

Gra

de(O

dds

rati

ospr

esen

ted)

Stud

entE

xpec

tsB

AD

egre

ePa

rent

Exp

ects

BA

Deg

ree

9th

grad

eco

ntro

lsM

odel

195

%C

IM

odel

295

%C

IM

odel

395

%C

IM

odel

495

%C

I

Stud

ent

expe

cts

BA

degr

ee2.

582*

**2.

054–

3.24

72.

585*

**2.

058–

3.24

6—

—St

uden

tex

pect

sB

Ain

stitu

tion

2.36

7***

1.91

9–2.

919

2.36

7***

1.91

9–2.

920

——

Par

ent

expe

cts

BA

degr

ee—

—5.

640*

**4.

389–

7.24

65.

708*

**4.

439–

7.33

8P

aren

tex

pect

sB

Ain

stitu

tion

——

2.70

4***

2.07

2–3.

528

2.71

4***

2.08

4–3.

535

Fem

ale

stud

ent

1.44

2**

1.19

0–1.

747

1.44

1**

1.18

9–1.

746

1.69

2***

1.36

4–2.

099

1.68

8***

1.36

4–2.

088

Not

livin

gin

mar

ried

,bio

logi

calf

amily

0.92

10.

759–

1.11

60.

924

0.76

2–1.

119

0.79

2†0.

646–

0.97

10.

803†

0.65

6–0.

981

Edu

catio

nals

avin

gsac

coun

t1.

290

0.99

0–1.

681

1.29

10.

990–

1.68

21.

275

0.96

4–1.

687

1.28

00.

969–

1.69

1St

uden

tre

peat

eda

grad

e0.

729†

0.53

6–0.

992

0.72

6†0.

534–

0.98

81.

040

0.75

3–1.

437

1.03

80.

751–

1.43

6T

rans

ferr

edsc

hool

sbe

twee

ngr

ades

9an

d11

1.12

40.

662–

1.91

01.

125

0.66

0–1.

919

0.58

5†0.

364–

0.94

10.

589†

0.37

1–0.

936

Stud

ent

isno

n-w

hite

1.07

80.

888–

1.30

91.

082

0.89

1–1.

313

1.83

8***

1.47

5–2.

291

1.85

9***

1.49

1–2.

318

Hou

seho

ldsi

ze1.

027

0.95

1–1.

108

1.02

60.

951–

1.10

71.

037

0.95

5–1.

125

1.03

20.

952–

1.11

8Sc

hool

reso

urce

s1.

008

0.96

1–1.

057

1.00

80.

961–

1.05

70.

998

0.95

3–1.

046

0.99

70.

952–

1.04

5R

emed

ialt

rack

0.70

0†0.

514–

0.95

20.

701†

0.51

6–0.

952

0.46

2***

0.33

2–0.

644

0.45

2***

0.32

5–0.

631

Non

sele

ctiv

etr

ack

0.63

1**

0.47

0–0.

847

0.63

1**

0.47

0–0.

848

0.60

0***

0.46

2–0.

779

0.60

6**

0.46

6–0.

789

Sele

ctiv

etr

ack

ref

ref

ref

ref

Mat

hab

ility

1.57

0***

1.39

1–1.

772

1.56

7***

1.38

8–1.

769

1.74

0***

1.53

2–1.

977

1.73

2***

1.52

4–1.

969

Fam

ilySE

S2.

220*

**1.

821–

2.70

62.

315*

**1.

804–

2.96

91.

782*

**1.

509–

2.10

52.

233*

**1.

812–

2.75

1N

umbe

rof

econ

omic

shoc

ks0.

858†

0.74

6–0.

986

0.84

8*0.

740–

0.97

20.

927

0.81

7–1.

053

0.87

1†0.

774–

0.98

0x

Fam

ilySE

S0.

940

0.75

5–1.

169

0.68

9**

0.55

5–0.

856

N¼

6640

publ

icsc

hool

ers.

† p<

.10,

*p<

.05,

**p<

.01,

***p<

.001

;CI¼

confi

denc

ein

terv

al.


Dow




deviation above the mean, who expected to attend a BA-granting institution in 9th grade and experi-enced no economic shocks had a 70% probability of expecting that type of institution in 11th grade.If they experienced 3 or more shocks, however, the predicted probability drops to less than 50%.Slope tests revealed that the slope for more middle-class students was significant and negative (t ¼�2.986, p < .01), whereas the slope for lower-SES students was not significantly different from zero(t ¼ .817, p ¼ .414). Consonant with amplification hypothesis 6b, family SES amplified the negativeeffect of economic shocks on students’ expectations to attend a four-year college.

As for parents’ institutional route expectations, family economic shocks directly reduced the oddsof parents’ expecting their high schooler to attend a four-year institution. More specifically, each fam-ily economic shock was associated with a 16% decrease in the odds of parents expecting their highschooler to start postsecondary education at a four-year institution (model 3). As indicated by a non-significant interaction term in model 4 of Table 3, the negative effect of economic shocks on parents’institutional route expectations did not significantly differ by social class. This finding offers support

Figure 1. Degree Expectations for Students and Parents by Negative Economic Shocks

*Notes: Predicted probabilities assume that the student/parent had affirmative expectations in 9th grade and socan be interpreted as the probability that the student/parent still expects student to earn a BA. As shown inTable 2, Model 2, the effect of economic shocks on students’ degree expectations did not vary by SES andhence is not modeled as such in Panel A. Slopes for middle SES and low SES parents did differ, however, as in-dicated in Table 2, Model 4. Hence, they are shown in Panel B, and both slopes are significant at p < .05.


Dow




Tab

le3.

Log

isti

cR

egre

ssio

nof

Stud

ents

’and

Par

ents

’Ins

titu

tion

alR

oute

Exp

ecta

tion

sin

11th

Gra

de(O

dds

rati

ospr

esen

ted)

Stud

entE

xpec

tsB

AIn

stitu

tion

Pare

ntE

xpec

tsB

AIn

stitu

tion

9th

grad

eco

ntro

lsM

odel

195

%C

IM

odel

295

%C

IM

odel

395

%C

IM

odel

495

%C

I

Stud

ent

expe

cts

BA

degr

ee1.

896*

**1.

569–

2.29

21.

912*

**1.

581–

2.31

2—

—St

uden

tex

pect

sB

Ain

stitu

tion

2.38

3***

1.98

4–2.

864

2.39

1***

1.99

0–2.

872

——

Par

ent

expe

cts

BA

degr

ee—

—2.

913*

**2.

161–

3.92

72.

912*

**2.

159–

3.92

7P

aren

tex

pect

sB

Ain

stitu

tion

——

4.55

8***

3.54

6–5.

859

4.56

1***

3.54

7–5.

866

Fem

ale

stud

ent

1.76

6***

1.47

6–2.

114

1.76

3***

1.47

5–2.

108

1.58

0***

1.26

5–1.

973

1.57

9***

1.26

5–1.

970

Not

livin

gin

mar

ried

,bio

logi

calf

amily

0.92

90.

753–

1.14

60.

938

0.75

8–1.

160

0.89

90.

714–

1.13

10.

900

0.71

4–1.

133

Edu

catio

nals

avin

gsac

coun

t1.

444*

*1.

162–

1.79

41.

448*

*1.

166–

1.79

71.

044

0.83

3–1.

308

1.04

70.

836–

1.31

0St

uden

tre

peat

eda

grad

e0.

691*

0.53

5–0.

893

0.68

9*0.

533–

0.89

00.

667*

0.48

4–0.

920

0.66

8*0.

484–

0.92

1T

rans

ferr

edsc

hool

sbe

twee

ngr

ade

9an

d11

0.50

1***

0.40

3–0.

622

0.50

2***

0.40

4–0.

625

0.69

0*0.

506–

0.94

10.

692*

0.50

8–0.

943

Stud

ent

isno

n-w

hite

1.25

5*1.

072–

1.46

91.

263*

1.07

9–1.

478

1.20

50.

991–

1.46

71.

206

0.99

1–1.

468

Hou

seho

ldsi

ze1.

044

0.97

3–1.

120

1.04

20.

971–

1.11

81.

053

0.99

3–1.

117

1.05

30.

992–

1.11

6Sc

hool

reso

urce

s1.

009

0.97

0–1.

049

1.00

80.

969–

1.04

81.

028

0.98

9–1.

069

1.02

80.

989–

1.06

8R

emed

ialt

rack

0.77

9†0.

578–

1.05

10.

774

0.57

4–1.

043

0.48

5***

0.36

8–0.

638

0.48

4***

0.36

7–0.

637

Non

sele

ctiv

etr

ack

0.64

7**

0.50

1–0.

837

0.65

0**

0.50

2–0.

842

0.63

8***

0.51

4–0.

791

0.64

0***

0.51

6–0.

795

Sele

ctiv

etr

ack

ref

ref

ref

ref

Mat

hab

ility

1.57

6***

1.41

2–1.

759

1.56

9***

1.40

5–1.

752

1.76

3***

1.58

8–1.

958

1.76

3***

1.58

8–1.

957

Fam

ilySE

S1.

613*

**1.

406–

1.85

11.

860*

**1.

529–

2.26

31.

558*

**1.

286–

1.88

71.

599*

**1.

256–

2.03

6N

umbe

rof

econ

omic

shoc

ks0.

901†

0.82

2–0.

988

0.88

0*0.

802–

0.96

50.

836*

*0.

754–

0.92

50.

833*

*0.

753–

0.92

2x

Fam

ilySE

S0.

786*

0.65

1–0.

950

0.95

30.

796–

1.14

2

N¼

6640

publ

icsc

hool

ers.

† p<

.10,

*p<

.05,

**p<

.01,

***p<

.001

.


Dow




for hypothesis 4 but not for the conditioning hypotheses specified in 5b and 6b. The direct effect ofshocks on parents’ route expectations is graphed in Panel B of Figure 2.

Post-hoc Analyses: Does the Type of Economic Shock Matter?Thus far, we have found that economic shocks are associated with parents’ and students’ educationalexpectations, especially those of middle-class students and parents. Although not part of our hypothe-ses, we went on to examine if the type of shock matters for these effects. That is, are the expectationsof middle-class students and parents more likely than those of low-SES students and parents to be af-fected by all shocks or particular types of shocks? In supplemental models, we examined the poten-tially unique effect of each type of shock, controlling for the presence of other shocks as well as theextensive set of control variables used thus far. It is important to note that relatively small cell sizeslimit these models by class, particularly when the tendency to experience multiple types of shocks is

Figure 2. Institutional Route Expectations for Students and Parents by Negative Economic Shocks

*Notes: Predicted probabilities assume that the student/parent had affirmative expectations in 9th grade and socan be interpreted as the probability that the student/parent still expects student to attend a BA institution. Asshown in Table 3, Model 2, the effect of economic shocks on students’ degree expectations varied by SES, asindicated in Panel A. In Panel A, the slope for middle SES is significant at p< .05, while the slope for low SESis not statistically significant. As indicated in Panel B (and shown in Table 3, Model 4), the effect of negativeeconomic shocks on parents’ route expectations did not vary by SES and hence is not modeled as such.


Dow




considered. Hence, these models serve simply to offer nuance to our findings. With this goal in mind,we found that a loss of income and a foreclosure were more detrimental to the degree expectationsof middle-class parents than to those of lower SES parents. These differential effects by SES areshown in Figure 3. For more middle-class parents who had expected their child to earn a BA,experiencing a home foreclosure or a loss of income is associated with a lower probability of still ex-pecting a BA degree. This was not the case for lower-SES parents. For students, a negative change inthe family’s housing situation had the most disparate effects by SES. As shown in Figure 4, moremiddle-class students who experienced a housing decline (i.e. moved from owning to renting, or rent-ing to living with relatives) were at an increased risk of dropping their once-high expectations. Thiswas not the case for lower-SES students.

C O N C L U S I O NThe Great Recession and its lingering effects have not only caused concern for unemployment (Reidet al. 2013), welfare (Salgado et al. 2014), and retirement crises (Szinovacz et al. 2014), but have alsoprovided a challenge to the notion that educational expectations are not very malleable. Given aheavy reliance on parents and families to orient young people toward education and careers acrossthe transition to adulthood (Furstenberg Jr 2010), sudden changes in family circumstances are centralto understanding the potential plasticity of adolescents’ educational expectations.

In our work we examined how negative economic shocks in a family can, in fact, alter expectations,particularly expected routes to degree attainment for both students and parents. This work allowedus to examine preparation for one of the most important transitions for high-schoolers right after atime of national financial crisis. We should note, however, that we were capturing the effect of nega-tive events that altered expectations and routes. We recognize that positive events (e.g. a sudden

Figure 3. Parents’ Degree Expectations for 11th Graders by SES and Type of Economic Shock

Notes: Estimates based on model with full controls, including each type of family economic shock. Predictedprobabilities assume that the parent has affirmative expectations in 9th grade and so can be interpreted as theprobability that the parent still expects student to earn a BA.

* Effects significantly different by SES, p < .05.


Dow




increase in income) in a family could also positively alter expectations and routes. An important ave-nue for future work on upward mobility (through positive economic shocks) would be a useful ave-nue to see how expectations change. These data, however, may not be ideal for examining thesepositive “shocks.” Nonetheless, positive shocks are important for future research, and especially so inthe context of economic recovery.

Family economic shocks were inconsistently predictive of decreased degree expectations. Therewas only weak evidence that high schoolers lowered their degree expectations in the face of familyeconomic crises, while there was strong evidence that middle-class parents lowered their degree ex-pectations upon experiencing economic shocks. It is important to note, however, that the majority ofstudents and parents who had high degree expectations in 9th grade, even those who experiencedmultiple economic shocks, held on to these high expectations. Hence, although degree expectationswere indeed somewhat malleable, particularly those of more middle-class parents, the strength of thecollege-for-all ethos appears to be significant here as well. This was not the case for route expecta-tions. Family economic shocks served to reduce students’ and parents’ expectations for beginningtheir post-secondary education at a BA-granting institution. This effect was amplified for moremiddle-class students.

These findings highlight the utility of examining the dynamic nature of the status attainment pro-cess in the context of a changing economic and higher education landscape and in the context of achanging transition to adulthood. Social learning theories and Bayesian models will be useful to un-derstand more fully how students alter their expectations (Breen 1999, Breen and Jonsson 2005,Morgan 1998). In addition, our findings also suggest that the extensive focus on degree expectationsin the literature thus far may be limited in its conceptualization of educational expectations. Althougha greater understanding of the meaning and malleability of degree expectations is an important under-taking in the contemporary era of college-for-all, we must also begin to explore the meaning,

Figure 4. 11th Graders’ Institutional Route Expectations by SES and Type of Economic Shock

Notes: Estimates based on model with full controls, including each type of family economic shock. Predictedprobabilities assume that the student has affirmative expectations in 9th grade and so can be interpreted as theprobability that the student still expects to attend a BA institution.

* Effects significantly different by SES, p < .05.


Dow




malleability, and implications of route expectations. Accumulating evidence suggests that how stu-dents expect to meet their degree expectations may be becoming an increasingly important fault lineof inequality.

The implications of these inequalities are beyond the scope of this work, yet we know that to-day’s much-extended transition to adulthood serves as a “critical juncture” (Schulenberg et al. 2004)in the life course, with the potential to “cast a long shadow over adult lives” (Shanahan 2000: 686).Hence, we must attend to inequalities that emerge or deepen during the preparation for the transi-tion to adulthood. Further, the relative lack of public support for students during this transition maymean that family context, with respect to both changing family economic conditions and parents’ ex-pectations for their children, may be increasingly important for understanding students’ educationalpursuits during the transition to adulthood and, hence, the unfolding of the remainder of the lifecourse.

Going to college and earning a BA is also important for society writ large. Students acquire valuesconsistent with their imminent standing in the social structure. The effect of economic shocks likelymeans that students who traditionally did not start at two-year colleges might now begin their highereducation there. There is the possibility, then, that we will see higher transfer rates from these stu-dents because they would have been more likely to start at four-year schools prior to their economicshocks. Though beyond the scope of this paper, perhaps having greater rates of students starting attwo-year colleges will help bolster the completion and transfer rates for them and other students aswell.

This work’s advantage in better understanding expectations as a result of economic shocks is alsoits limitation. In the future, we must better understand how family economic contexts and expecta-tions together encourage or discourage behaviors – behaviors that actually help students reach collegeclassrooms and earn degrees. As we watch these young people think about and form expectations, wemust also watch their behaviors to understand the effects of economic shocks in the long-term. Dothey apply to higher education institutions, get financial aid, attend schools, move between them, andearn degrees?

The route to a BA through a two-year college has been tenuous at best (Dougherty 1991, 1992,2002), despite state articulation of policies to encourage this transition (Dougherty 1994).Nevertheless, this new generation of middle-class students who expect a more piecemeal path to ob-taining a BA highlights the importance of learning more about the activities at two-year schools, theircourse offerings, and the counseling opportunities. The structure of higher education is in flux andthe routes by which students earn their degrees may be changing. Given the move to community col-leges as the path toward a BA, more research is warranted on this new population of recent highschoolers (Wang 2013) and the challenge they may present for community colleges (Goldrick-Rab2010).

R E F E R E N C E SAdelman, Clifford. 1999. “Answers in the tool box. Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and Bachelor’s degree at-

tainment.” U.S. Department of Education.Alexander, Karl L and Martha A Cook. 1979. “The motivational relevance of educational plans: Questioning the con-

ventional wisdom.” Social Psychology Quarterly:202-13.Alexander, Karl L, Doris R Entwisle and Samuel D Bedinger. 1994. “When expectations work: Race and socioeconomic

differences in school performance.” Social Psychology Quarterly:283-99.Alexander, Karl L, Robert Bozick and Doris Entwisle. 2008. “Warming up, cooling out, or holding steady? Persistence

and change in educational expectations after high school.” Sociology of Education 81(4):371-96.Allison, Paul D. 2012. “Handling missing data by maximum likelihood.” Pp. 1-21 in SAS global forum.Andrew, Megan and Robert M Hauser. 2011. “Adoption? Adaptation? Evaluating the formation of educational expecta-

tions.” Social Forces 90(2):497-520.Attewell, Paul and Thurston Domina. 2008. “Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance.”

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30(1):51-71.


Dow




Blau, Peter and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American occupational structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Bozick, Robert. 2009. “Job opportunities, economic resources, and the postsecondary destinations of American youth.”

Demography 46(3):493-512.Bozick, Robert, Karl Alexander, Doris Entwisle, Susan Dauber and Kerri Kerr. 2010. “Framing the future: Revisiting the

place of educational expectations in status attainment.” Social Forces 88(5):2027-52.Bradburn, Ellen M., David G. Hurst and Samuel Peng. 2001. “Community college transfer rates to 4-year institutions

using alternative definitions of transfer.” Vol. Research and Development Report. National Center for EducationStatistics.

Brand, Jennie E and Yu Xie. 2010. “Who benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneouseconomic returns to higher education.” American Sociological Review 75(2):273-302.

Breen, Richard. 1999. “Beliefs, rational choice and bayesian learning.” Rationality and Society 11(4):463-79.Breen, Richard and Jan O Jonsson. 2005. “Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on ed-

ucational attainment and social mobility.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:223-43.Briley, Daniel A, K. Paige Harden and Elliot M Tucker-Drob. 2014. “Child characteristics and parental educational ex-

pectations: Evidence for transmission with transaction.” Developmental Psychology 50(12):2614-32.Calarco, Jessica McCrory. 2014. “Coached for the classroom parents’ cultural transmission and children’s reproduction

of educational inequalities.” American Sociological Review 79(5):1015-37.Charles, Camille Z, Vincent J. Roscigno and Kimberley C. Torres. 2007. “Racial inequality and college attendance: The

mediating role of parental investment.” Social Science Research 36:329-52.Clark, Burton R. 1960. “The “cooling-out” function in higher education.” American Journal of Sociology 65(6):569-76.Deil-Amen, Regina and Ruth Lopez Turley. 2007. “A review of the transition to college literature in sociology.” The

Teachers College Record 109(10):2324-66.Deterding, Nicole M. 2015. “Instrumental and expressive education college planning in the face of poverty.” Sociology of

Education 88(4):284-301.Domina, Thurston, AnneMarie Conley and George Farkas. 2011. “The link between educational expectations and ef-

fort in the college-for-all era.” Sociology of Education 84(2):93-112.Dougherty, Kevin J. 1991. “The community college at the crossroads: The need for structural reform.” Harvard

Educational Review 61(3):311-37.——. 1992. “Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment.” The Journal of Higher Education:188-214.——. 1994. The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college: SUNY Press.——. 2002. “The evolving role of the community college: Policy issues and research questions.” Pp. 295-348 in Higher

education: Handbook of theory and research: Springer.Dougherty, Kevin J and Gregory Kienzl. 2006. “It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social

background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges.” Teachers College Record 108(3):452-87.Elliott, William and Sondra Beverly. 2011. “Staying on course: The effects of savings and assets on the college progress

of young adults.” American Journal of Education 117(3):343-74.Flint, Thomas. 1992. “Parental and planning influences on the formation of student college choice sets.” Research in

Higher Education 33(6):689-708.——. 1997. “Intergenerational effects of paying for college.” Research in Higher Education 38(3):313-44.Frye, Margaret. 2012. “Bright futures in malawi’s new dawn: Educational aspirations as assertions of identity.” American

Journal of Sociology 117(6):1565.Furstenberg, Jr, Frank F. 2010. “On a new schedule: Transitions to adulthood and family change.” The Future of

Children 20(1):67-87.Goldrick-Rab, Sara. 2010. “Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success.” Review of

Educational Research 80(3):437-69.Grodsky, Eric and Catherine Riegle-Crumb. 2010. “Those who choose and those who don’t: Social background and

college orientation.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 627(1):14-35.Grusky, David B, Bruce Western and Christopher Christopher Wimer. 2011. The great recession: Russell Sage

Foundation.Haller, A. O. and A. Portes. 1973. “Status attainment processes.” Sociology of Education 46(1):51-91.Hamilton, Laura T. 2013. “More is more or more is less? Parental financial investments during college.” American

Sociological Review 78(1):70-95.Hoachlander, Gary, Anna C Sikora, Laura Horn and CD Carroll. 2003. “Community college students.” Education

Statistics Quarterly 5(2):121-28.Johnson, M. K. and J. R. Reynolds. 2013. “Educational expectation trajectories and attainment in the transition to adult-

hood.” Social Science Research 42(3):818-35.


Dow




Karlson, Kristian Bernt. 2015. “Expectations on track? High school tracking and adolescent educational expectations.”Social Forces.

Kerckhoff, Alan C. 1976. “The status attainment process: Socialization or allocation?”. Social Forces 55(2):368-81.——. 1977. “The realism of educational ambitions in england and the United States.” American Sociological

Review:563-71.Kojaku, Lawrence K and Anne-Marie Nunez. 1998. Descriptive summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary students,

with profiles of students entering 2-and 4-year institutions. National postsecondary student aid study: 1995-96. Statisticalanalysis report: ERIC.

Lareau, Annette. 1987. “Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital.”Sociology of Education 60(2):73-85.

——. 2002. “Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families.” AmericanSociological Review 67(5):747-76.

Lareau, Annette and Kimberly Goyette. 2014. Choosing homes, choosing schools: Russell Sage Foundation.Lucas, Samuel R. 2001. “Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background

effects.” American Journal of Sociology 106(6):1642-90.——. 1996. “Selective attrition in a newly hostile regime: The case of 1980 sophomores.” Social Forces 75:511-33.Merton, Robert K. 1988. “The matthew effect in science: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual prop-

erty”. Isis 79(299):606-23.Moller, Stephanie, Elizabeth Stearns, Stephanie R Potochnick and Stephanie Southworth. 2011. “Student achievement

and college selectivity: How changes in achievement during high school affect the selectivity of college attended.”Youth & Society 43(2):656-80.

Morgan, Stephen L. 1998. “Adolescent educational expectations rationalized, fantasized, or both?”. Rationality andSociety 10(2):131-62.

——. 2005. On the edge of commitment: Educational attainment and race in the United States: Stanford University Press.National Center for Education Statistics. 2013. “High school longitudinal study of 2009 (hsls:09) base year to first

follow-up data file documentation.” Vol. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Nielsen, Kelly. 2015. “‘Fake it’til you make it’’why community college students’ aspirations ‘‘hold steady’.” Sociology of

Education 88(4):265-83.Olson, Lorayn and Rachel A Rosenfeld. 1984. “Parents and the process of gaining access to student finacial-aid.”

Journal of Higher Education 55(4):455-80.Osgood, D Wayne, Amy L Anderson and Jennifer N Shaffer. 2005. “Unstructured leisure in the after-school hours.”

Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs:45-64.Ovink, Sarah M. 2014. ““They always call me an investment” gendered familism and Latino/a college pathways.”

Gender & Society 28(2):265-88.Paulsen, Michael B and Edward P St John. 2002. “Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between

college choice and persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education 73(2):189-236.Reid, Neil, Michael C. Carroll and Xinyue Ye. 2013. “The great recession of 2007-2009.” Economic Development

Quarterly 27(2):87-89.Reynolds, John R, Michael Stewart, Ryan Macdonald and Lacey Sischo. 2006. “Have adolescents become too ambi-

tious? High school seniors’ educational and occupational plans, 1976 to 2000.” Social Problems 53(2):186-206.Rosenbaum, James E. 2011. “The complexities of college for all: Beyond fairy-tale dreams.” Sociology of Education

84(2):113-17.Salgado, Mario F., Francesco Figari, Holly Sutherland and Alberto Tumino. 2014. “Welfare compensation for unem-

ployment in the great recession.” Review of Income and Wealth 60:S177-S204.Schneider, Barbara L. and David Stevenson. 1999. The ambitious generation : America’s teenagers, motivated but direction-

less, Edited by D. Stevenson. Yale University Press: New Haven.Schulenberg, John E, Arnold J Sameroff and Dante Cicchetti. 2004. “The transition to adulthood as a critical juncture

in the course of psychopathology and mental health.” Development and psychopathology 16(04):799-806.Settersten, Jr, Richard A and Barbara Ray. 2010. “What’s going on with young people today? The long and twisting

path to adulthood.” The Future of Children 20(1):19-41.Sewell, Willam H, Acrchibald O Haller and Alejandro Portes. 1969. “Education and early occupational attainment pro-

cess.” American Sociological Review 34(1):82-92.Shanahan, Michael J. 2000. “Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course per-

spective.” Annual Review of Sociology:667-92.Spenner, Kenneth I and David L Featherman. 1978. “Achievement ambitions.” Annual Review of Sociology:373-420.


Dow




Steinberg, Laurence, Sandra Graham, Lia O’Brien, Jennifer Woolard, Elizabeth Cauffman and Marie Banich. 2009.“Age differences in future orientation and delay discounting.” Child Development 80(1):28-44.

Szinovacz, Maximiliane E., Lauren Martin and Adam Davey. 2014. “Recession and expected retirement age: Anotherlook at the evidence.” Gerontologist 54(2):245-57.

Turley, Ruth N Lopez, Martin Santos and Cecilia Ceja. 2007. “Social origin and college opportunity expectations acrosscohorts.” Social Science Research 36(3):1200-18.

Vuolo, Mike, Jeylan T. Mortimer and Jeremy Staff. 2014. “Adolescent precursors of pathways from school to work.”Journal of Research on Adolescence 24(1):145-62.

Wang, Xueli. 2012. “Stability of educational ex

adapting to family setbacks: malleability of students’ and...

Documents