Running Head: SUPPORTING LOW INCOME, HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS PERSITENCE

Supporting Low Income, High Achieving Students Persistence

Emily Merritt Boston College

Running Head: SUPPORTING LOW INCOME, HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS PERSITENCE

In recent years there has been a shift in emphasis on college student success from college enrollment to college persistence (American Counsel on Education, 2013). In the past most research focused on college enrollment and retention (Tinto, 2006-2007). More recently the Obama administration has funded research to further its goal of increasing Americans enrollment in and persistence from institutions of Higher Education (American Counsel on Education, 2013). Often the students most at risk for dropping out are students from low income and first generation backgrounds (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). As student affairs personnel we need to support these students in reaching their fullest potential. The benefits of a college degree are ever growing in todays global economy. As manufacturing and other blue-collared jobs are sent oversees or replaced by technology Americans with a college degree are far less likely to experience unemployment, because the growing job sectors continue to require higher education levels (American Counsel on Education, 2013). Graduates are more likely to have jobs with health insurance benefits and pensions; they are less likely to divorce, to be victims of violence, or to commit crimes. They will be more tolerant, open-minded, and civically engaged, and they will be healthier, happier, and live longer(American Counsel on Education, 2013, p. 7). Graduating from college benefits more than ones financial security, it increases the likelihood of a person being a productive American citizen. Obtaining a college degree offers low-income students the greatest opportunity for social mobility (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). Tinto (2006-2007) recognized that student retention was not merely a result of individual, personal characteristics and drive but impacted greatly by external factors such as financial support, cultural expectations, structural institutional barriers, and social support. Wyner, Bridgeland, and Diiulio (2007) found that high achieving low income students are far more

Running Head: SUPPORTING LOW INCOME, HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS PERSITENCE likely to drop out than their higher income peers. While 78 percent of higher-income highachieving twelfth graders can expect to complete a bachelors degree, the same is true for only 54 percent of lower-income high- achieving students. (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007,

p.7). This finding supports Tintos (2006-2007) research that it is not student ability, but student support that has the greatest impact on college persistence. Tinto (2006-2007) argues that retention research needs to shift from emphasis on theory to support of direct actions institutions can take. Once there is a greater understanding of what practices work, these policies need to be implemented at the institutional level (Tinto, 2006-2007). He also suggests that greater emphasis needs to be placed upon decreasing the gap between low income and higher income students to create greater equity in career income (Tinto, 2006-2007). The American Counsel on Education (2013) came up with additional suggestions to better support college retention. ACE (2013) suggests committing the entire campus culture to persistence efforts by giving an administrator the specific task of supporting student success, creating campus-wide programing, learning from past failures, focusing on student experience, having faculty that are invested in student success and engaging teachers, and supporting non traditional students. ACEs (2013) second priority in increasing retention and persistence is to improve educational quality and decrease financial roadblocks. This can be done by having nontraditional class times, supporting the transfer process, utilizing competency-based model, using technology to support student learning and cost effectiveness, and adjustment of the style of remedial courses. The third priority is to use concrete data to reach individual institutions needs (American Counsel on Education, 2013). While there is much that can me done at the college institutional level to encourage retention and persistence, some issues surrounding college enrollment, retention, and completion

Running Head: SUPPORTING LOW INCOME, HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS PERSITENCE stem back to inequality in pre-K and K-12 preparation (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). Low income students are disadvantaged from the point that they enter kindergarten, and the levels of low income high achieving students in the top 25% continues to decrease through out middle and high school (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). While the gap between low-

income students and higher income students enrolling in college as decreased in general, the gap between these students actually persisting from 4-year institutions with a bachelors degree has increased (Tinto, 2006-2007). One program that has been successful in supporting low-income high achieving students from first-generation families is the federally funded TRiO Student Support Services program (Grier-Reed & Ganuza, 2012). Students participate in Upward Bound, a college preparation program that addresses academic readiness, financial needs, cultural capital, and understanding of college expectations and preparation that students need to succeed in a college enrollment. Last year I worked as a summer tutor/ counselor for an Upward Bound program. I was able to see firsthand the many different dimensions that this program was able to focus on. The majority of my students in addition to being low-income, first generation students, were also war refugees from various African and Asian countries. Their parents had come to America in hopes of creating a better life for their children, however most of my students parents spoke very little English and had little understanding of the American Higher Education system. Many of my students spoke at least two or three languages, were responsible for either helping to financially support their families, or care for younger siblings, and were academically disadvantaged in some areas depending on when they entered into the American school systems. While they all had their families emotional support, without the financial resources, the ability to tour college campuses, essay writing support, and standardized testing preparation they received at Upward

Running Head: SUPPORTING LOW INCOME, HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS PERSITENCE Bound they would not have been nearly as prepared or to apply to colleges. The biggest impact of Upward Bound programming in high school and TRiO student services in college in my opinion is supporting students self-efficacy. Even once a student has access to all the resources they need, the socially and personally constructed barriers students experience can still often hold them back from college success. Grier-Reed and Ganuza (2012) set out to study how the use of constructivist career development in undergraduate years could support low income, high achieving students in persisting and finding a successful career or enrolling in graduate school. In their qualitative research study of 36 TRiO students at a large mid-western research institution Grier-Reed and Ganuza (2012) found that the focus on developing identity, cultural capital, and supportive relationships with peers corresponded with significant improvements in students confidence in all four domains of career decision self-efficacy included in our

statistical analysis (p.469). By supporting these students beliefs in their own skills and abilities student affairs personnel can encourage college persistence from high achieving, low-income students who might otherwise leave the university. Students who are able to enroll in Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and possibly the McNair Program (graduate school preparation) consecutively are offered the continuous and ongoing support necessary to not just enroll in an institution of higher education, but succeed academically and graduate. In my experience it is the students who only receive support in the enrollment process who slip through the cracks once they are attending college. By combining constructivist career development theory, student support services, and additional institutional structures low income students will be far more likely to succeed at and persist from college (Grier-Reed & Ganuza, 2012; Tinto, 2006-2007; Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007).

Running Head: SUPPORTING LOW INCOME, HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS PERSITENCE Reference List:

American Counsel on Education (2013). An open letter to college and university leaders: College completion must be our priority. Washington DC: National Commission on Higher Education Attainment. Grier-Reed, T., & Ganuza, Z. (2012) Using constructivist career development to improve career decision self-efficacy in TRiO students. Journal of College Student Development, 53 (3), 464-471. doi: 10.1353/csd.2012.0045 Tinto, V. (2006-2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 1-19. Wyner, J.S., Bridgeland, J.M. & Diiulio, J.J., Jr. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families (Report). Landsdowne, VA: The Jack Cook Kent Foundation & Civic Enterprises, LLC with Original Research by Westat.