paper

Running head: ECONOMIC SUCCESS FOR UNDERSERVED STUDENTS

Economic Success for Underserved Students: College Access and Future Implications

Nina Englund

University of St. Thomas

EDLD 707-01

ECONOMIC SUCCESS FOR UNDERSERVED STUDENTS

College Access As Key

A common theme in America is that education is the key to upward mobility.

This belief in education holds that young people can escape poverty if they do well in

school and obtain a college degree (Atwell, et al., 2007). Access to and retention through

postsecondary institutions are major issues facing the American higher education system.

Michaels (2006) writes, “the whole point of going to Harvard, from the standpoint of the

poor, would be to stop being poor” (p. 89). The existences of economic inequalities often

times create barriers for students in achieving success in higher education. This is a

particular area of concern for those students from underserved backgrounds and their

pursuits into higher education. These students identified as underserved more than likely

belong to subgroups of students also identified low-income, first-generation students, and

students of color will be referred to in this paper. The main focus will be on students with

low socioeconomic status determined by income. This population of students, no matter

how they are classified, face barriers before, during, and after college graduation.

The hope is to break the cycle of denied access and opportunity to allow for an

improved chance of economic success by completion of a higher education credential by

underserved students facing financial disparities. This paper will walk the reader through

the history of the issue, various forms of assessments that have been used, governance

implications, best practices, and recommendations on how to serve students from low

socioeconomic backgrounds. The history of servicing low socioeconomic students in

education is one that has seen many repeated cycles of denying access and success to and

through higher education.

History of Underserved Students in College Access

2


Throughout the course of history students from varied backgrounds have sought

out access to higher education. Recently, Jerrim, and Vignoles (2015) compared the

English-speaking countries of Canada, Australia, England, and the United States around

the access to higher education for disadvantaged students, with a focus on those who are

particularly poor. They found that although the socioeconomic differences in college

access are greater in the other countries, the United States still has sizeable gaps that

remain. This indicates there is more work to be done around the topic of access and

affordability. This is bigger than a problem in just the United States, the purpose of this

paper will be to identify implications lack of access to higher education has here.

Although there has been an overall rise in the number of full-time students attending

college, the number of students from low socioeconomic statuses remains inequitable to

this increase of students attending (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003). There are fewer students

from underrepresented backgrounds enrolling and persisting in college. Higher education

can lead to success for lower-income individuals by offering greater economic

opportunity and by reducing the gaps between the “haves” and the “have-nots” (Dickert-

Conlin & Rubenstien, 2007). A way to reduce these gaps for low-income individuals has

been identified by using early interventions. If low-income students are lacking college

preparation information during their time in K-12 education, the results can lead to

denied access or limited success in higher education.

Kearney and Levine (2014) researched and found that individuals from low

socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to drop out of school when living in an

environment where there is a gap between income level distributions. This relates to

access to higher education where a specific population has already been identified as

3


being at risk because of environmental factors. A high school diploma or GED is

essential for any type of college enrollment and the largest predictor for student success

in college is high school academic preparation (Means & Pyne, 2016). There are access

initiatives identified for helping underrepresented, low-income students with knowledge

and materials to enhance their educational experience prior to and while attending

postsecondary institutions.

Access initiatives and programs have been funded by federal and state

governments, higher education institutions, and organizations to improve academic

preparation, explain college admission pathways and increase availability of financial aid

(Means & Pyne, 2016). Many students in this situation are first-generation and have no

family or peers to answer questions or concerns about college pathways, routines,

opportunities, or expectations. Often there is a lack of support from guidance counselors

who have high caseloads of students and not enough time meet individual student need

(Means & Pyne, 2016). When students are not able to find the resources, like counselors

or college access programs, it creates a lack of education of the availability to pay for

college.

Affordability of higher education for low-income families has become one of the

largest barriers as students examine the financial costs of attending postsecondary

institutions. The primary tool for making college affordable had been state government

with subsidies and low tuition for state residents and it was not until the mid-1960s that

undergraduate need-based financial aid came onto the scene. Students of low

socioeconomic status receive more money in aid from Pell Grants, which helps create the

appeal of “going to college” for many more students for whom funding was an issue

4


(Thelin, 2011). The issue is making sure students and families are aware of this aid and

have been educated in financial literacy to understand the financial costs of college.

Financial aid in the United States has increased over the last few decades, as has

matriculation. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who mostly attend less

selective institutions, are the main group who has suffered (Shireman, 2009). The shift

from need-based to merit based scholarships has posed a barrier to paying for college for

low-income students. Michaels (2006) suggests these scholarships reward the wealthy

when it comes to college costs, rather than creating more access to college for students

who need financial support. These scholarships are often providing monies for those

students already going who are also least likely to need the financial help in the first

place. Limitations to access and affordability in higher education identified in the history

of underserved students are glaring concerns, which indicate a need for assessment of the

problem.

Assessment Methods

Assessment by nature is used to measure the outcome and outputs. The measures

used with low socioeconomic students to gage their experiences with higher education

come from a variety of places as will be covered in this section. It is important to note

that there is a rise in two-generational assessment that focuses on underserved families

and how access to resources and success in the workforce, including higher education as

a vehicle to get there, that looks from a parent to child or child to parent approach.

Analysis based on a multigenerational focus and the long-term effects of low-income

students accessing, persisting, and graduating from the higher education system has been

a focus for legislatures in welfare reform. The appropriate measure for the success of

5


mass higher education should not just be the earnings and occupational attainment of

those who get into college, but whether underprivileged students who break the cycle of

disadvantage bring their children into the middle class (Atwell, et al., 2007).

Other assessments are being done that focus on the children as students and not as

much on the parent or guardian. When looking at access, there have been challenges in

assessment with ongoing evaluation for student outcomes for college preparation

programs due to inability to follow students closely after matriculation, which typically

ends the scope of the programs (Means & Pyne, 2016). Long-term longitudinal studies

are particularly hard to follow with underserved students because the populations are

often highly mobile, which interferes with tracking. Youth development programs,

including college access programs that support low-income students, are often evaluated

on a wide range of services because many are funded based on federal grants or mandates

and must report outcomes. Heinrich and Holzer (2016) identify that the majority of

assessments of these programs are based on meta-analysis and experimental evaluations.

Two key features that appear to increase the effectiveness are the frequency and intensity

in which programs engage youth in activities that are both academic and nonacademic in

their relationships with mentors.

Other assessment components that are measured and can help predict success in

higher education for low-income students are related to the physical act of being present

and completion of classes. Monitoring attendance and measuring completion rates of

course work by programs that support low-income students in both high school and

college help hold accountability (Heinrich & Holzer, 2016). These forms of assessment

lead to higher graduation rates and more engagement in both the K-12 and higher

6


education systems. When students are present for learning, they are more likely to

complete and can better navigate success in education.

Assessment measures for those traditional-aged students in the access to college

stage are often in accordance with completion and passing of individual school district

milestones in high school. This includes reporting academic achievement scores, and

completing a college entrance exam, in order to obtain a diploma to graduate from high

school. The scores are taken into account, but often times it is just a matter of completion

for each individual student to graduate from high school (Heinrich & Holzer, 2016).

Using these assessment tools can create a more universal form of measurement for a

district, but not necessarily for the state or nation as a whole and admissions requirements

still vary from institution to institution in higher education. A variance in assessment

tools can have implications for governance and how the data is used to inform decision-

making for how to better serve low-income students.

College Access Governance Implications

Access to higher education has seen many policy changes overtime that have both

helped and hurt the advancement opportunities for underprivileged students in higher

education. Examples that have had a negative impact include the elimination of the long-

standing tradition of free tuition at some public institutions, as well as continual reduction

of state funding to public higher education to drive up tuition costs, and attacking

affirmative action and open admissions (Atwell, et al., 2007). These impacts directly

affect the populations of underserved students as they address the financial component

with inability to afford the cost and the limited access for this group to higher education.

Low-income students primarily attend nonselective four-year schools and

7


community colleges and those who are not prepared do not graduate. Forsyth and Furlong

(2003) identify that “there is a clearly a need for policy to become more focused on

improving academic performance of disadvantaged young people during their school

year, rather than on university admissions” (p. 223). A result of this is that public policy

focuses more on postsecondary access rather than success (Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstien,

2007). The evidence shows trends of underrepresented students getting to college but not

through college as a result of bad policy for educational access. Heckman and Krueger’s

(2011) research suggests that “the payoff in terms of earnings associated with choosing a

highly selective college is greater for students from poor families than from those from

wealthy families” (p. 54). The identified barrier of cost for low socioeconomic students to

enter and persist in college is huge. From the evidence above, it indicates the changes that

need to occur in governance to enhance success.

Conversely, there has been governance that has helped traditionally underserved

students navigate more success in higher education. Gains have come from students’

deciding, as a result of receiving more financial aid, to attend institutions that are more

supportive of their needs and interests (Shireman, 2009). Higher education institutions

that have more full-time students who work fewer hours outside of the classroom have

higher graduation rates even with students who have less academic preparation. This is a

direct impact of the worries of the cost of education being removed. Financial aid that

covers living expenses can eliminate the amount of time students need to spend working

in order to study and can commit more time to studies (Shireman, 2009).

Research shows that students who attend better-funded more highly selective

institutions are more likely to both graduate and earn more money in the workforce than

8


those who do not (Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstien, 2007). This would suggest that more

funding for resources, connections to future employment, career services, and advising

are present in these institutions. If these institutions are only able to be accessed by a

select few based on eligibility requirements it creates inequity among low-income

students who have not been afforded the same opportunities to these types of institution.

This contributes to a continual cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer

as the gap widens between income levels in the United States.

Heinrich and Holzer (2016) suggest changes in federal youth policy that use

formula funding to provide greater support for paid work experience and work-based

learning. This incentivizes and adds to the recognition of postsecondary training to

achieve a career via pathways to employment and or postsecondary options for low-

income students.

The role of higher education institutions are to serve as research facilities, places

of technological advancement, and create a skilled a knowledgeable work force that is

further defined as human capital. They address that human capital advances the nation’s

productivity and argue that colleges should be seeking out youth with highest potential

according to merit, not market, and serve those from less advantaged families (Dickert-

Conlin & Rubenstien, 2007). This is yet another piece of evidence that the education

system is not meeting the needs of low-income student and families to afford them equal

opportunities for success. When governance is addressed in the form of servicing low-

income students there have been both gains and setbacks. Reexamining the history,

assessment methods, and gains to governance can be used as identifiers for best practices

in access and improved outlooks for future implications for economic success for low

9


socioeconomic students in higher education.

Best Practices in College Access

As previously identified in this paper, an intervention for underserved

populations has been the implementation of college access programs in areas where low-

income students live. College access programs are considered a vehicle to increase the

likelihood of success for low socioeconomic status students to access college. As Bloom

addresses (2008):

Access programs for the most part do not and cannot address some of the central barriers that first-generation college students face in accessing higher education. They are unable to affect the macroeconomic policies that shape college costs, the value of real income, and state and federal financial aid policy. Further, they cannot change larger social inequalities that create or deny access to the adequate academic preparation for higher education, tied as these things are to demographic segregation, public school funding, and lack of qualified teachers in high-need areas. The focus of almost all of the programs, then, is on individual level barriers: attempting to raise college aspirations and to provide the kinds of college-going social and cultural capital to which first-generation students may not have access. (p. 2)

Students in these programs who are first-generation are more often than not of low

socioeconomic status. The best practice of the individual goal setting and identity

building make these programs student-centered and goal focused. It can’t be a one-size-

fits-all model to get these students to and through college.

When visiting the Finnish educational system, students receive multiple

interventions early on in their formal schooling. An identified best practice is in the area

of counseling and career guidance. Currently, Finnish students receive two hours weekly

for three years of educational guidance and counseling in lower-secondary school that

reduces the risk of ill-informed decision making regarding further studies. Students enter

upper-secondary education with more effective knowledge, skills and attitudes than in the

10


past and are more likely than any other country to go on to postsecondary education with

successful navigation and completion (Sahlberg, 2010). Starting early is a key to more

success for students, especially those identified as underserved, but currently this practice

would most likely be a capacity issue for K-12 schools in funding and resources.

Elements of college access programs in America focus distribution of knowledge

of the college process, in-person experiences, and creating strong partnerships. Means

and Pyne (2016) identify best practices for college access programs to include disbursing

capital knowledge and information about how to navigate college, provide participants

with meaningful campus tours, and to create stronger partnerships with higher education

institutions to offer academic programs and services. These educational avenues

embedded with the identification of resources for students, can help bridge that gap into

college when they are highlighted as practices that lead to success.

When low-income students have had success in accessing college, research shows

they are not experiencing an equal level of participation in higher education as compared

to their peers of greater socioeconomic status. Suggestions of non-repayable subsidies

and housing or travel assistance help encourage enrollment at better institutions that

match and fit students’ needs (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003). Reducing the perceived cost of

financial constraints faced by low-income students can ensure creating wider access to

higher education. This eliminates the need for more students to have to work to stay in

school and pay for tuition. It allows more focus on studies and recreational time for

students to engage in the campus offerings.

Students need to feel more associated with their higher education institutions in

order to be more successful and persist. Many underserved students are navigating

11


college as the first in their families and may need added supports of people to help them

though the journey. Mentoring students from these backgrounds can help them make

connections and create opportunities important to building confidence for decision-

making. Pairing low-income students with mentors before and during college years helps

create a support network that not only builds relationships, but can create influencers that

promote educational opportunities in completion of postsecondary credentials (“Opening

doors,” 2013). This is a key best practice to hold accountability for the students and their

educational and life goals, as well as to feel supported and included.

The next section of this paper identifies personal recommendations, reactions, and

key ideas from research for future steps to widen access to college and enhance future

success rates for quality of life for underserved students and their families.

Recommendations

It was especially helpful for me to explore research on interventions and

suggestions for students once they are enrolled in higher education, as my current work is

dedicated to helping to serve low-income students and families in the K-12 system. The

idea of preparation for college stays present in my everyday work but it is important to

remember that the implications for this work extend to a goal for success on whichever

postsecondary pathway that students choose.

It would be helpful to create and update a list of where to find resources for

those working in or with higher education and a best practices already being implemented

on campuses on a national and local level to advise low socioeconomic students and

families in navigating postsecondary options. By collecting these in a publication or web

source that is continually updated, it would allow those aiding students and families and

12


the students and families themselves to be educated on finding and contacting resource,

or taking it one step further, policy makers, to help create changes, and advocate for

equity. By being able to identify successful models it could create a greater potential for

access and completion for postsecondary options for education for low-income students

on a broader level.

The largest takeaway in research was that with higher education becoming

much more diverse in populations, there needs to be a better understanding of how to

serve all types of students from varied backgrounds, especially focusing on traditionally

marginalized students. Heinrich and Holzer (2016) state that different opportunities

should be available to those students who may be more at risk as a result of their

socioeconomic status because individuals all embody different skills and track records,

and four year college is not always the pathway. Secondary schools, community colleges,

and employers need to become engaged with youth and integrate educational

opportunities and employment for them with less separation due to populations,

institutions, and policies. It means where policies fall short by programs operating in

silos, the mentality needs to change to be about working together for educational

opportunities about promoting access and retention in higher education to lead to a better

society for all.

Conclusion

Postsecondary institutions access and completion rates play a large factor in

determining future labor market success, which is why it is so critical in reducing

inequalities that exist with societal incomes (Dickert-Conlin & Rubenstien, 2007).

Shireman (2009) notes that a good college education builds the skills and provides

13


momentum for graduates towards a more successful future as citizens who positively

contribute to the state of the economy. If barriers such as affordability can be removed or

costs lowered, students of all backgrounds, specifically highlighting those from low-

income families, can make more intentional choices about where to attend college and be

more likely to graduate and obtain employment.

The topics covered in this paper including the history, assessment methods,

governance implications, identification of best practices, and further recommendations

surrounding college access and future implications for economic success are issues that

are critical to the higher education system. This paper has conveyed that society as a

whole will reap benefits as best practices are established and barriers removed to promote

underserved students to and though the higher education system.

14


References

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2007). Passing the torch: Does higher education for the disadvantaged pay off across the generations?. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from Project MUSE database.

Bloom, J. (2008). The pedagogy of college access programs: A critical anaylsis. (ASHE/Lumina Policy Briefs and Critical Essays No. 5). Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.

Dickert-Conlin, S., & Rubenstien, R. (2007). Economic inequality and higher education: Access, persistence, and success. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from Project MUSE database.

Forsyth, A., & Furlong, A. (2003). Access to higher education and disadvantaged young

people. British Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 205-225. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/stable/1501615

Heckman, J. J., & Krueger, A. B. (2003). Inequality in america: What role for human capital policies?. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Heinrich, C., & Holzer, H. (2011). Improving education and employment for disadvantaged young men: Proven and promising strategies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635, 163-191. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/stable/29779417

Jerrim, J., & Vignoles, A. (2015). University access for disadvantaged children: a

comparison across countries. Higher Education, 70(6), 903+. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2014). Income inequality, social mobility, and the decision to drop out of high school. American Economic Review, 105 (12), 333-396.

Means, D., & Pyne, K. B. (February 2016). After access: Underrepresented students’postmatriculation perceptions of college access capital. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17(4), 390-412.

doi: 10.1177/1521025115579247 Michaels, W. B. (2006). The trouble with diversity: How we learned to love identity and

ignore inequality. New York, New York: Metropolitan Books.

Opening doors to education for disadvantaged. (2013, Aug 14). Irish Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.stthomas.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1419980561?accountid=14756

15


Sahlsberg, P. (2010). Finnish lessons. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shireman, R. (2009). College Affordability and Student Success. Change, 41(2), 54-56. Tackling inequality: Getting the policy changes right. States News Service 27 Feb. 2014.

Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.

Thelin, J. (2011). A history of american higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

16

paper

Documents