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 2
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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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/1
419980561?accountid=14756

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.

Paper

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (15)

Ähnlich wie Paper

Ähnlich wie Paper (20)

Paper