Latina/o Community College Students: Understanding the Barriers of Developmental Education

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

By Daniel G. Solórzano, Nancy Acevedo-Gil, and Ryan E. Santos.  Latina/o students are the largest and fastest growing group in the K–12 sector of U.S. education (Lee et al., 2011; U.S. Census Bureau,2012).  Nationally, there are over 12 million Latina/o students in the K–12 population—23% of the overall total (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a). In California, 53% of all K–12 students are Latina/o (California Department of Education, 2013). This rapid increase in the Latina/o student population impels us to examine their postsecondary educational pathways. Notably, 80% of California Latina/o postsecondary students enroll in community colleges (Moore & Shulock, 2010).2 As Figure 1 shows, Latina/o enrollment in the California Community College (CCC) system is at an incline, while white student enrollment is declining. In 2010, Latinas/os surpassed the white student population as the largest group in the CCC system. These figures make clear that community colleges represent an increasingly vital postsecondary entry point for Latina/o students.  Relatively few Latina/o community college students persist to transfer, obtain a certificate, or complete a degree. The CCC system is designed to provide basic skills education, life-long learning opportunities, Career and Technical Education (CTE), and the opportunity to transfer to four-year colleges. On average, out of 100 Latinas/os in California who enroll in a CCC, four will complete a CTE degree and 14 will transfer to a California State University (CSU) and/or a University of California (UC) campus (Figure 2).3 Therefore, large numbers of students leave school without a certificate or degree. Thus, in spite of increasing enrollment, the community college system also represents the point in the educational pipeline where we lose the greatest number of Latina/o students (see Moore & Shulock, 2010; Ornelas & Solórzano, 2004; Rivas, Perez, Alvarez, & Solórzano, 2007; Solórzano,
Villalpando, & Oseguera, 2005).

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

California’s College Stopouts: The Significance of Financial Barriers to Continous School Enrollment

<Click on this link to download the report.>

By Veronica Terriquez, Oded Gurantz, and Ana Gomez.  In California, the majority of four-year and community college students do not complete their intended degrees and certificates on time (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2013; Fain, 2013). Many of these students “stop out”—that is, they leave college with the intention of returning later. Discontinuous enrollment is highest for students with lower academic preparation and lower socioeconomic status (Ewert, 2010; Goldrick-Rab, 2006). This is particularly troubling in light of the recent economic recession and the rising cost of higher education, which have both made paying for college more difficult. Students from lowincome backgrounds in particular may find they need to take time off from school to save money or to help their families pay their bills. Unfortunately, college students with discontinuous enrollment have significantly reduced likelihood of ever completing their degrees (Cabrera, Burkum, La Nasa, & Bibo, 2012), making this an urgent problem for higher education researchers and policymakers. In this policy brief, we describe the range of influences on the attendance patterns of California’s college students, focusing in particular on economic factors. Drawing from the mixed-methods California Young Adult Study (CYAS), we classify stopouts as students who enrolled in public or private community or four-year colleges and took a break from school for a term (quarter or semester) or more, not including summer, with the intention of returning. We include individuals who were on break from school but still planned to pursue postsecondary degrees, as well as those who had previously taken time off and successfully re-enrolled in postsecondary institutions. Who stops out of higher education? Over one third of students—and more men than women—stopped out of college. Overall, 37% of CYAS survey respondents who attended college reported stopping out at some point (Figure 1). Male students were more likely to stop out than female students (42% compared to 31%, respectively). Some students of color and those from low-income backgrounds were more likely than others to stop out. For example, 44% of Latino youth stopped out, compared to 34% of white youth. Results further suggest that African Americans exhibited high stopout rates, while Asian Americans exhibited comparatively low stopout rates.

<Click on this link to download the report.>

What Matters for Community College Success? Assumptions and Realities Concerning Student Supports for Low-Income Women

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

By Vicki Park, Christine Cerven, Jennifer Nations, Kelly Nielsen.  As open-access schools, community colleges are vital institutions that provide learning opportunities and experiences for students of wide-ranging interests and backgrounds. Compared to four-year institutions, they serve greater numbers of low-income people and students of color (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). California, which has the largest community college system in the United States, enrolls nearly one-fourth of the nation’s community college students (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). The state has developed an expansive, low-cost system of community colleges to serve its especially large and diverse population (Sengupta & Jepson, 2006).  In line with national efforts, California has undertaken a series of reform initiatives to improve student success in the state’s community colleges, especially with respect to completion rates, which have not been up to par (California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force, 2012). For example, only 31% of the 2003–2004 cohort of California community college students seeking a degree either obtained a certificate or degree or transferred to a university within six years of enrolling (Moore & Shulock, 2010). In response to these types of statistics, and in order to improve retention and completion rates, Governor Brown recently signed into law the California Student Success Act of 2012. This legislation is designed to improve completion rates by requiring community colleges to develop student success and support programs with, among other things, expanded orientation, assessment, and educational planning services for students. These types of broad efforts have placed a spotlight on how support services can facilitate student success, and what institutional conditions must exist in order for them to do so. To better understand the barriers to and supports for student success, this report focuses on the experiences of one large segment of community college students—low-income women. In general, women have made significant gains in college enrollment and completion, often outpacing men in both categories (Horn & Nevill, 2006; Wang & Parker, 2011).

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

Unequal Experiences and Outcomes for Black and Latino Males in California’s Public Education System

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

By John Rogers and Rhoda Freelon.  Across the nation there is growing interest in improving the situation of young men of color, who are underrepresented in higher education and dramatically overrepresented in the criminal justice system (Lee & Ransom, 2011). Numerous studies have documented that black males enrolled in school often lag behind their peers academically, have less access to rigorous coursework, experience racial bias from school personnel because of lower expectations for boys of color, and are more likely to drop out (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2011; Holzman, 2010; Howard, 2008; Jackson & Moore, 2006; Sharon et al., 2010). Although it would be reasonable to expect that Latino males face similar challenges, there are few comparable studies that reveal their experiences. Given the new demographic realities facing the nation—and facing California in particular—it is important that we gain a better understanding of how both groups fare in the state’s public K–12 and postsecondary education system.  The research described in this policy brief is part of a larger study, Pathways to Postsecondary Success, which examines the educational pathways of America’s low-income youth, especially in California. We focus here on young black and Latino males because they are nearly 3.5 times as likely as white children to live in poverty (Davis, Kilburn, & Schultz, 2009) and, in comparison to many other California youth, experience relatively low high school and college graduation rates.2 With these issues in mind, we sought answers to the following questions:

1. What inequities do Latino and black males encounter in California’s public schools?
2. What disparities in educational outcomes do Latino and black males in California face?
3. Are some public high schools better than others at promoting the achievement and success of these particular subgroups? What characteristics do successful schools share?

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

Postsecondary Educational Pathways of Low-Income Youth: An Analysis of Add Health Data

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

By Cynthia Feliciano and Mariam Ashtiani.  This study used data from a recent longitudinal survey conducted over a 14-year period to compare the educational pathways of young adults from low-income backgrounds to their middle/high-income counterparts. Specifically, the study examined whether the effect of low-income status in adolescence on postsecondary pathways is better explained by early academic indicators and educational ambitions or higher education enrollment patterns and out-of school responsibilities. The analysis showed that low-income youth are disadvantaged in terms of entry into higher education as well as degree attainment. Roughly half of young adults from low-income families do not complete any postsecondary schooling, and those who do enroll are less likely to earn bachelor’s degrees, partly due to lower educational ambitions and lower academic achievement in adolescence. Post-high school experiences are most decisive, however: Nontraditional patterns of enrollment in two-year colleges, shaped by out-of-school responsibilities such as full-time labor force participation and family obligations, are a key mechanism through which lowincome status in adolescence leads to lower likelihood of degree completion in young adulthood.

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

Peer-Reviewed Research on Low-Income Students in Postsecondary Education: Trends and Future Directions

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

By Vicki Park and Tara Watford.  The simultaneous impact of the Great Recession and a national focus on improving postsecondary access and persistence present both challenges and opportunities for the field of higher education. In this context, questions of how colleges and universities can better support low-income youth are increasingly at the forefront of research and educational reform agendas. The spotlight on higher education places researchers at an important crossroads—we need to assess not only what we know about low-income college students but also where our information gaps lie. Currently, we know that low-income students tend to enter and complete college in much smaller numbers than their middle- and high-income peers (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2012; Oseguera, 2012) and only 11% of low-income students earn a postsecondary degree by the age of 26 (Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2010). Historically underserved populations such as low-income Black, Latino and Native American students are less likely to earn degrees than their White and Asian/Pacific Islander peers (IHEP, 2011). Low-income students are also more likely to attend under-resourced, overburdened community colleges (Provasnik & Planty, 2008; Oseguera, 2012). But apart from these types of descriptive statistics, what research is being conducted on low-income college students? And specifically, how does the higher education field prioritize this research? In this brief, we examine several broad research trends that occur in five key peer-reviewed higher education journals over a 20-year period (1989–2008). In particular, we ask:

1. How many articles were published that examine low-income youth in the context of postsecondary education?
2. Were the data on low-income youth collected and analyzed via quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods approaches?
3. In what types of colleges and universities have low-income youth predominantly been studied?

Exploring these research trends allows us to better understand how the field has conceptualized the problems of college entry, persistence, and completion for low-income students. From this understanding, we can formulate research agendas= for the future that will be relevant and informative to initiatives aimed at improving college opportunities for low-income youth. More precisely, we can develop a deeper understanding of how higher education can promote equitable outcomes.

<Click on this link to download the complete report.>

Active Learning Is Found to Foster Higher Pass Rates in STEM Courses

<Click on the following web link to download the complete report>  “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics”

Authors: Scott Freeman, Mary Wenderoth, Sarah Eddy, Miles McDonough, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Michelle Smith  Organizations: The lead researchers are at the University of Washington. The paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Summary: The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 225 studies of undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM disciplines. The studies compared the failure rates of students whose STEM courses used some form of active-learning methods—like requiring students to participate in discussions and problem-solving activities while in class—with those of students whose courses were traditional lectures, in which they generally listened.  The studies were conducted at two- and four-year institutions chiefly in the United States and previously appeared in STEM-education journals, databases, dissertations, and conference proceedings. To be included, the studies had to assure that the students in each kind of course were equally qualified and able, their instructors were largely similar, and the examinations they took either were alike or used questions from the same pool.

Results: A 12-point difference emerged. While 34 percent of students in the lecture courses failed, 22 percent of students failed in courses that used active-learning methods.

Bottom Line: Calls for more STEM graduates have long been stymied by attrition in those majors, and introductory courses have often proved to be a big obstacle. Different teaching methods may help remedy that pattern.