University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships

(USC Thesis Other)

Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ASSESSING PERSISTENCE

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS AT COMMUNITY
COLLEGES: THE IMPACT OF STUDENT-PARENT RELATIONSHIPS

By

Jennifer Lynn Craig

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Jennifer Lynn Craig
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 2

Acknowledgements
It is difficult for me to encapsulate in words how humbling this experience has been for
me. I have grown so much as a student, friend, partner and family member that it is quite surreal
to reflect upon this experience at the end. It is equally as difficult to thank everyone that has
supported me during this process. Regardless of my likely failed attempt to thank everyone, I
will do my best. This list of individuals truly begins with my dissertation chair, Tracy
Tambascia. Thank you, Tracy, for believing in me from the very beginning. You convinced me
to do so many things that I never thought possible, and you never lost your faith in what I could
achieve. Thank you for bringing me to USC, and thank you carrying me through to the end.
The next person I would like to thank is Lynette Merriman. You are the busiest person I
know, yet you provide me with unwaivering support. I often find myself wondering how I got to
be so lucky. There are very few people I can say that I have traveled the world with, only 7
others to be exact, and I am honored to have shared that experience with you. But I can honestly
say that I am more honored to have you as one of my committee members. You do not attach
your name to anything for which you do not support, and I am still speechless that you agreed to
attach your name to mine. Thank you.
In addition to the faculty members who have inspired me along the way, I must thank my
higher education team – you know who you are. From start to finish, and even in the darkest of
hours, you helped me smile the whole way through. I’m so thankful to have met you all. I am
excited to begin the next phase, and to see where life takes us – hopefully towards a happy hour,
or two.
I also would like to thank my mom and stepdad, Melanie and Jon Montrelli. Thank you
for the phone calls, free meals, long talks, Green Bay Packers games, and love. At its core, this
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 3

dissertation is about parental support, and I could not think of more supportive parents. Jon, I
don’t think I truly understood what it meant to “have someone’s back” until I met you. Thank
you for having mine. You are one of my most favorite people in the entire world. Mom, you are
the strongest person I know. Thank you for making so many personal sacrifices for your family.
I wouldn’t be where I am today without the jetpack you gave me.
Finally, I would like to thank Matt Welti. Five years and two graduate programs later,
you are still here – thank you. While I spent many hours on campus and with classmates, you
were the one who truly experienced this program with me. Each word that I type belongs, in
part, to you. Any success or failure has been shared, and I would not have wanted to share it
with anyone else. Thank you for showing me what it truly means to be a team. We often joke
that I won’t know what to do with myself after I am done with school. Well, it is my turn to
unconditionally support you, as you have so patiently done for me.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………... 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………..... 9
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………. 12
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………………… 13
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………...…………….. 14
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions……………………………………………….. 15
Definitions…………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………... 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………... 20
College Completion Agenda………………………………………………...………………. 20
America’s Aging, Educated Workforce……………………………………………………... 21
Current College Completion Statistics………………………………………………………. 22
Community Colleges and Completion………………………………………………………. 24
Poverty in America………………………………………………………………………….. 26
SES and Race………………………………………………………………………………... 27
Low-Income Students……………………………………………………………………….. 28
Low-Income and Higher Education…………………………………………………………. 28
Affordability………………………………………………………………………………… 32
Mobility……………………………………………………………………………………... 33
SES and Mobility……………………………………………………………………………. 35
Value of a Two-Year or Four-Year Degree……………………………...………………….. 35
Community Colleges………………………………………………………………………... 37
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 5

Historical Context…………………………………………………………………………… 37
National Community College Student Profile………………………………………………. 39
California Community Colleges…………………………………………………………….. 40
Community College Transfer Process………………………………………………………. 42
Parental Involvement………………………………………………………………………... 43
Background for Parental Involvement………………………………………………………. 45
Typologies and Frameworks………………………………………………………………… 46
Family Income and Higher Education………………………………………………………. 47
Parent Programs at Community Colleges…………………………………………………… 49
Low-Income Student Relationships with Family…………………………………………… 50
Social Capital Theory……………………………………………………………………….. 52
Defining Social Capital……………………………………………………………………… 52
Other Forms of Capital……………………………………………………………………… 54
The Importance of Networks………………………………………………………………... 56
Parents and Families as Social Capital……………………………………………………… 57
Access to Social Capital……………………………………………………………………... 58
Exiting Communities………………………………………………………………………... 58
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS………………………………………………………………. 60
Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………...60
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………… 61
Population and Sample……………………………………………………………………… 62
Site Selection………………………………………………………………………………... 63
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 6

Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………………… 64
Data Collection and Processes………………………………………………………………. 67
Focus Group…………………………………………………………………………………. 68
Interview…………………………………………………………………………………….. 69
Document Analysis………………………………………………………………………….. 71
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………... 71
Validity……………………………………………………………………………………… 72
Role of the Researcher……………………………………………………...……………….. 73
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS…………………………………………………………………. 75
Participant Profile…………………………………………………………….………………75
Influences for Completion or Transfer……………………………………………………… 76
Socioeconomic Concerns……………………………………………………………………. 76
Programs and Services that Promote Completion or Transfer………………………………. 78
Networks and Role Models………………………………………………………………….. 80
Incentive of Upward Mobility…………………………………………...………………….. 84
Student-Parent Relationship…………………………………………………………………. 87
Student-Parent Relationships that Promote Transfer………………………………………... 87
Intangible Parental Involvement and Support……………………………………………….. 88
Tangible Parental Involvement and Support………………………………………………… 90
Student-Parent Relationships that Inhibit Transfer………………………………………….. 91
Participant Perspectives on Parental Involvement…………………………………………... 92
Improving Parental Involvement…………………………………………………………..... 92
Maintaining Parental Involvement…………………………………………………………... 94
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 7

Educational Level of Parents……………………………………………...………………… 96
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………… 97
Revisiting Social Capital…………………………………………………………………….. 97
Parents as Capital for College Persistence…………………………………………………... 98
Completing an Associate’s Degree………………………………………………………… 100
Completing a Bachelor’s Degree…………………………………………………………... 101
Social Capital and Summary of Findings………………………………………………….. 103
Recommendations for Establishing Positive Educational Capital…..………………………104
Recommendations for Further Research…………………………………………………….106
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..108
References……………………………………………………………………………………....109
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….128
APPENDIX A: Solicitation Email…………………………………………………………..128
APPENDIX B: Scheduling Email – Focus Group…………………………………………..129
APPENDIX C: Information Sheet…………………………………………………………..130
APPENDIX D: Focus Group Questions…………………………………………………….132
APPENDIX E: Scheduling Email – Interview……………………………………………...134
APPENDIX F: Interview Questions………………………………………………………...135

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 8

Abstract
This dissertation assesses the impact of student-parent relationships on low-income
students attending community colleges, as understood through the theoretical framework of
Social Capital. Low-income students have been identified by the American Graduation Initiative
as an at-risk population, and a current research gap exists regarding parental influence on low-
income community college student persistence. Using data collected from a focus group and
interviews with 10 low-income students attending a community college in southern California,
findings suggest that tangible or intangible parental involvement or support is a source of capital
that, when perceived as beneficial, can have a positive impact on postsecondary success. This
study recommends that: (1) the American Graduation Initiative should mandate postsecondary
institutions to establish programs, with the purpose of targeting and educating low-income
communities about college opportunities via local churches, youth groups, businesses, and
secondary schools, (2) parents of students should engage in conversations regarding education
within households, ideally starting at the K-12 level, to establish a positive culture of education,
which leads to increased educational capital, and (3) community colleges should partner with K-
12 institutions to create opportunities for low-income students to develop educational role
models outside of the student-parent relationship.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
In an effort to meet the goals outlined in President Obama’s American Graduation
Initiative—for eight million more college graduates by 2020—all aspects of postsecondary
education must be examined (The White House, 2009b). Due to the multifaceted nature of
higher education, with its variant student populations and institutions, the use of a single strategy
is not sufficient to meet national college completion goals. For example, efforts used to support
low-income Caucasian female students at four-year institutions may be different from strategies
used to support Latino male student veterans at community colleges. Culturally relevant student
services are most impactful when they are tailored to meet the individual needs of diverse
student populations (Brilliant, 2000; Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Meeting national
completion goals is not as simple as granting degrees to students; it requires acute solutions and
recommendations supported by empirical research. The following dissertation is a
phenomenological study regarding the impact of student-parent relationships on persistence and
transfer rates for low-income students attending community colleges, examined through the lens
of social capital.
While this study focuses exclusively on college completion issues for low-income
community college students, it is valuable first to address the broader purpose of this
phenomenology in relation to President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative and the theory
of social capital. In 2012, the overall degree completion rate for American students was less than
50% and the United States ranked 14
th
out of 36 developing countries (College Board Advocacy
and Policy Center, 2012). Poor college access, persistence, and growing student debt are macro
catalysts for low college graduation rates in the United States.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 10

Research suggests that low-income and underrepresented communities have limited
access to higher education (Allen & Jayakumar, 2012; Engle, Yeado, Brusi, & Cruz, 2012). One
barrier to access is decreased governmental funding for higher education in the United States.
Decreased federal and state funding for higher education has caused colleges and universities to
seek alternate sources of revenue, inclusive of raising tuition (Conner, & Rabovsky, 2011;
Weisbrod, Ballou, & Ash, 2008). Critics claim that public institutions are important for
providing affordable access to higher education for low-income or underrepresented students,
and that tuition increases have a greater negative impact on these populations (Conner, &
Rabovsky, 2011; Heller, 2001; Mumper, 2003; Ryan, 2004; Titus, 2006). Conner and Rabovsky
(2011) argued that the majority of private donations to help subsidize costs are given to top-tier
universities. Less-selective colleges and universities provide greater access to low-income and
underrepresented students, but may have fewer resources to make higher education more
affordable (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). Additionally, a developing trend for public and private
universities is to increase merit-based aid in lieu of income-based aid (Conner & Rabovsky,
2011; Tierney & Venegas, 2009; Toutkoushian & Shafiq, 2010). When institutions favor merit-
based aid, it disadvantages low-income and underrepresented populations, further limiting their
college access (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011; Hoxby, 2004; Luna, 2006; St. John, 2006). High-
income and non-minority statuses are linked to high ACT and SAT scores, ultimately reducing
opportunities for low-income or underrepresented students from receiving merit-based aid
(Griffith, 2011; McPherson & Schapiro, 1999). Heller (2006) also stated that 73% of merit-
based aid is granted to medium and high-income families. While all students are technically
eligible for merit-based aid, evidence indicates that a disproportionate amount of White, medium
and high-income students actually receive merit-based aid. For this reason, it is essential to
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 11

diagnose and find viable solutions to address access and persistence in underrepresented and
low-income communities.
Along with issues of access, underrepresented and low-income income students have
lower rates of college persistence. In 2007, the dropout rate for low-income students was twice
as high as the rate for middle-income students attending college (College Board Advocacy and
Policy Center, 2010). Historically underrepresented students, such as ethnic and racial
minorities, also persist at lower rates than their traditional peers (College Board Advocacy and
Policy Center, 2010). The American Graduation Initiative places emphasis on community
colleges as an integral part of degree attainment for Americans, yet, dropout rates are higher at
community colleges for low-income and underrepresented students—indicating that the
completion agenda may be difficult to achieve. In 2007, the national six-year graduation rate for
four-year universities was 57%, while in 2005 only 28% of students at two-year colleges
completed degrees within four years (NCES, 2011). While a portion of community college
students do not plan to complete degrees, Bailey (2005) stated that completion rates for low-
income, Native American, Black, and Latino students are lower than the national average. In
2012, nearly 40% of the American population was comprised of underrepresented populations,
and community colleges enroll more minority and low-income students than four-year higher
education institutions (Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2014; Park, Cerven, Nations, & Nielsen, 2013;
Provasnik & Planty, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a). Issues of persistence cannot singularly
be examined from the perspective of traditional college students (aged 18-22 years of age,
attending four-year institutions) given that a large percentage of students are non-traditional
(Reason, 2014; Shea & Bidjerano, 2014).
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 12

Access and persistence are not the only issues impacting degree completion for
Americans; debt is also a factor. While debt is relative, because people determine the impact of
debt in different ways, the potential for acquiring debt from higher education can deter
individuals from pursuing or completing postsecondary degrees (Adashi, & Gruppuso, 2010;
Baum, 2001; Callender & Jackson, 2005; Dwyer, Hodson, & McCloud, 2013). Callender and
Jackson (2005) found that debt aversion for college is stronger for families from low-income
backgrounds. In 1993, 55% of students financed their higher education and grew to 65% by
2004 (Rothstein & Rouse, 2011). The national student debt loan has reached one-trillion dollars,
and low-income populations have more outstanding student loan debt than their middle and high-
income peers (Fry, 2012). In 2012, 58% of the outstanding student loan debt was the
responsibility of low-income households (Fry, 2012). Additionally, low-income families spend
an average of more than 60% of their income on education while high-income families spend
less than 15% (College Board, 1999). Social capital theory posits that dominant groups establish
barriers to capital for non-dominant groups, and income inequality is one example of how access
to capital ultimately impacts access to higher education (Bourdieu, 1986; 1993).
Statement of the Problem
Low-income students are not enrolling in college or completing postsecondary degrees at
the same rate as their middle and high-income peers. In 2008, 15.5 million of the 35.2 million
young adults attending college were below or close to the poverty line (IHEP, 2014). Though
almost half of students pursuing higher education come from low-income families, this statistic
includes students who fail to complete their degrees (IHEP, 2014). By 25 years of age, half of
all high-income families have bachelor’s degrees, but for low-income families, this ratio drops to
1 in 10 (The Executive Office of the President, 2014).
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 13

Community colleges serve the greatest number of low-income students, and attrition rates
for low-income students are twice as high in comparison to middle-income students (Cohen et
al., 2014; College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010; Park et al., 2013; Park & Denson,
2013; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). Additionally, data from the Education Longitudinal Study
showed that between years 2002 and 2006, 44% of low-income families entered higher education
at the community college level, whereas only 15% of high-income families started at a two-year
college (CCRC, 2014). Research indicates that students are more likely to pursue a two or four-
year degree when higher education is supported by their parents (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011;
Fan & Chen, 2001; Perna & Titus, 2005; Porchea, Allen, Robbins & Phelps, 2010; Tierney &
Auerbach, 2005). However, we know little about student-parent relationships in low-income
families and how parents may impact decisions related to college enrollment and completion.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand the experiences of low-income students
attending community colleges and how their student-parent relationships impact persistence and
decision to transfer. For this study, student-parent relationships are examined through the lens of
Social Capital Theory. Social capital contends that an individual’s access to various forms of
capital (human, intellectual, physical, etc.) produces privilege (Bourdieu, 1993; Coleman, 1988).
This study defines the student-parent relationship as a form of capital that either positively or
negatively impacts persistence and transfer for low-income community college students.
The following research question guides this study:
1. What, if any, impact do student-parent relationships have on persistence and
transfer rates for low-income students attending community colleges?
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 14

a. What influences low-income students attending community colleges to
complete two-year degrees or transfer to four-year institutions?
b. Does the student-parent relationship inhibit or promote transfer for low-
income students at community colleges? If so, how?
c. Does the parent’s educational level influence persistence or transfer rates for
low-income students at community colleges? If so, how?
This phenomenological study was conducted at a community college with a dedicated
program serving low-income students and used document analysis, interviews and a focus group
to collect data.
The Significance of the Study
Research regarding the impact of student-parent relationships for low-income students
attending community colleges is missing from current literature, and this study provides valuable
information to several communities. The first to benefit from this phenomenological study is
governmentally funded programs such as TRIO or the Extended Opportunity Program and
Services (EOPS). These programs have been established to assist low-income and
disadvantaged students enrolled in higher education. This study provides new insights for
student services professionals and low-income students on managing the student-parent
relationship—helping student services professionals and students make informed suggestions for
increased or decreased parental involvement, and for advisement practices that assist low-income
students with their parent relationships. Second, this study aids low-income students with
understanding how the student-parent relationship impacts their postsecondary success. Through
this study, students recognize that there is a community of students with similar situations,
potentially providing additional support and coping mechanisms for dealing with high-impact or
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 15

low-impact student-parent relationships. Third, this study also helps low-income parents of
college students understand their potential role in helping their children complete college. This
study assists parents of low-income students learn how to best support academic success, in the
form of persistence and transfer, for their children attending community colleges. Fourth, this
study helps to inform the U.S. Department of Education and the American Graduation Initiative
on potential strategies for assisting low-income students with degree completion – a population
for which the American Graduation Initiative designates as “at-risk.” Findings from this study
inform administrative offices on campus, like financial aid, on the realities of outstanding loan
debt for low-income students and their families and help financial aid offices develop new
strategies to promote persistence while confronting issues of debt aversion for low-income
families. Lastly, this study provides community college academic advisors and counselors with
insight into the culture of low-income families and how to best support these students.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
The following section will address the limitations, delimitations, and assumptions that
exist within this study. Beginning with limitations, while student participants were pre-identified
as low-income by a federal TRIO program, participants may not have fully comprehended the
extent to which they were low-income. Perceptions of low-income status are relative to the
individual and the communities for which they are a member. For example, a high-school
student with an annual family income of $50,000 may identify low-income if the average family
income at their high school is $120,000. The same student may not identify as low-income if
they attend a high school with an average family income of $50,000. Data regarding household
income were difficult to gather because participants may have had difficulty conceptualizing
their financial situation. It is important to note that low-income students self-select to participate
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 16

in federal TRIO programs; therefore, another limitation is that the participants for this study may
have had increased persistence and transfer rates compared to other low-income community
college students. Along with potential knowledge gaps, students may have been reluctant to
share information about the relationship they had with their parents. Some student-parent
relationships are not positive, and student participants may have felt that their family
relationships should remain private. Given that this study centers on the perceived impact of
student-parent relationships from the student perspective, a willingness to share was essential.
Also, the identity of the interviewer creates limitations, in that participants may have been more
or less comfortable as a result of their association with the researcher’s identity (Maxwell, 2013).
For example, researchers may appear to be in a position of authority and some participants will
be unwilling or uncomfortable revealing personal information to an authority figure. Document
analysis also has limitations. Rich data was not always available in documents, reports, or
assessments and websites often lacked the thick description needed for qualitative research.
Documents can also harbor bias (Merriam, 2009). The site for the study also presents some
limitations. This study took place within the United States, at a community college in the state
of California, and participants were contacted through the campus EOPS program. Given that
the study was conducted at one institution, through one program, it did not yield a large number
of participants. Finally, phenomenological research is specific to the participants being studied;
therefore, the results are not generalizable (Merriam, 2009). Data collected about the impact of
student-parent relationships on persistence and transfer for low-income students at community
colleges is not relevant to all communities.
There are a few delimitations for this study. First, this study does not include low-
income students who failed to complete degrees. As this study focuses on indicators for degree
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 17

completion, only low-income students making progress towards transferring or completing
degrees were included. Additionally, parents did not participate in focus groups or interviews,
because it was important to gather data from the student perspective. This study seeks to
understand the factors students believe support their completion, and how low-income students
perceive the impact of student-parent relationships. Finally, four-year colleges and universities
are not included in this study.
In addition to limitations and delimitations, certain assumptions were also present within
this study. Maxwell (2013) stated that researcher bias is a threat to validity. As the researcher, it
is important to disclose that I come from a low-income family background, and previous to this
study, had certain assumptions about the of impact student-parent relationships on degree
completion. One assumption was that parents of low-income community college students
hindered degree completion by discouraging their children from transferring and taking on
additional student loans, and instead, encouraged their children to pursue employment in lieu of
higher education.
Definitions
There are several terms used in this study that need to be defined in an effort to promote
clarity and transparency.
1. Low-Income – The terms low-income and low-SES are used interchangeably. Families
are designated as “low-income” when their taxable earnings are 1.5 times the poverty
level or lower (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2014).
2. Low-Socioeconomic (SES) – Families are designated as “low-SES” when their access to
education, social class resources, or employment is limited (American Psychological
Association, 2014). While low-SES is defined and designated through a social class lens,
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 18

and low-income has a more monetary characterization, low-SES and low-income are
used interchangeably.
3. Poverty – Poverty is defined by an individual or family’s inability to meet minimum
financial requirements, as determined by society (Brandolini, Magri & Smeeding, 2010).
The United States identifies poverty using a predefined financial threshold, that changes
depending on family size, and families are designated in poverty when their a family
income does not meet this threshold (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2008).
4. The American Graduation Initiative/The College Completion Agenda – The American
Graduation Initiative and the College Completion Agenda are used interchangeably.
These terms refer to the national goals set by the White House for higher education
degree attainment in the United States.
5. Parental Involvement – The interaction between the parent and the student or the school
(i.e. discussions about higher education in the home) (Fan & Chen, 2001).
6. Capital – The power and privilege individuals or groups have in a given society to
generate opportunity (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Coleman, 1988; Dika & Singh, 2002;
Lin, 1999; Marx, 1933; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000).
7. Networks – The relationships garnered through one’s professional, personal, or social
groups; connected to social capital (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Networks can either
be positive or negative.
8. Persistence – Persistence is determined by the percentage of college completers divided
by the size of the same cohort upon entry (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011).
9. Transfer – The process by which community college students continue their higher
education by pursing a bachelor’s degree at a four-year college or university.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 19

10. Access – The representation of underrepresented groups in higher education equivalent to
their non-minority peers, relative to the population demographics (Bragg & Durham,
2012).
11. Mobility – Mobility is the ability for a group or individual to change social or economic
class based upon their current access to resources, or lack thereof (Bloome & Western,
2011; Hauser & Featherman, 1977).
Conclusion
This study seeks to minimize existing research gaps in reference to low-income
community college student persistence, while simultaneously supporting national goals set by the
White House for the American Graduation Initiative. Community colleges have been charged
with graduating a significant portion of individuals enrolled in higher education, and low-income
students are not only an at-risk population identified by the White House, they are more likely to
start their postsecondary education at a two-year institution. It is important to conduct research
on how to help this population persist. While existing research suggests parental involvement
increases student success, it is not known how student-parent relationships influenced social
capital, persistence and transfer of low-income students attending community colleges. The
following section provides relevant literature to support the significance of this study. Areas will
include the College Completion Agenda, low-SES students and families, mobility, community
college student populations, parental involvement, and social capital theory.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 20

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The following literature review is a synthesis of theoretical and empirical data regarding
the impact of student-parent relationships on low-SES, transfer-ready, community college
students. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a foundational background to help inform this
study through existing research. Topics will include the Completion Agenda, mobility, low-SES
students and communities, social capital theory, community college climate, and parent
involvement. The thread by which all topics are connected is the student-parent relationship, and
how this relationship impacts retention and transfer rates for low-SES students attending
community colleges.
The College Completion Agenda
In 2008, the College Board’s Commission on Access, Admissions and Success in Higher
Education published a report entitled, Coming to Our Senses: Education and the American
Future. This report noted recent and disheartening trends in education, including significant
drops in college and high school completion rankings and disparities for low-income and
minority students (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). The report also found that
the proportion of adults with postsecondary credentials in the U.S. was not keeping pace with
growth in other industrialized nations (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010).
According to Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010), the United States is currently projected to be
at least three million college-educated employees short of workforce demands by 2018
(Humphreys, 2012).
President Obama set an ambitious goal in his very first State of the Union address: “By
2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world”
(The White House, 2009a, para. 7). The president noted that, “…in a global economy where the
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 21

most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway
to opportunity—it is a prerequisite” and that “…every American will need to get more than a
high school diploma” (The White House, 2009c, para. 52). Based upon the Commission’s
report, a college completion goal has been set to increase the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds
who hold an associate degree or higher to 55 percent by the year 2025 (College Board Advocacy
and Policy Center, 2010). While not mandated, the college completion agenda is a national
agenda. Nonprofit organizations and foundations have come together, along with the U.S.
Department of Education, to raise awareness of the need for a better-educated population and to
find ways to increase college completion (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012).
America’s Aging, Educated Workforce
Within the next decade, America will retire its most educated generation (College Board
Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010; Collins, 2003). Among adults aged 55 to 63, the United
States ranks 4
th
in the world for higher education attainment. Younger generations in America
are not only smaller, but projections suggest that 25 to 34-year olds will fail to meet or exceed
the educational levels of their parents (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010;
Collins, 2003). Given the statistics, postsecondary attainment is an educational issue with
economic consequences (Collins, 2003). In 2011, 30.7 million jobs in America were held by
individuals with bachelor’s degrees (Carnevale, 2011). In his speech at the University of Texas,
at Austin, President Barack Obama asserted that education is an economic issue because eight
out of ten new jobs in America will require a postsecondary degree or workforce training
(Obama, 2010). Additionally, individuals who do not attain any postsecondary education are
twice as likely to be unemployed (Obama, 2010). President Obama’s College Completion
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 22

agenda has therefore been established to combat the issues related to educational attainment gaps
and the American economy.
Current College Completion Statistics
In 2007, Americans conferred over 600,000 more associate’s and bachelor’s degrees,
combined, than in 1995 (Hussar & Bailey, 2011). While data may demonstrate improvement in
degree attainment, college graduation rates are increasing slowly, if at all. The three-year
graduation rate for students in two-year colleges was 29.9 percent in 2010, up slightly from the
previous two years (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). In 2012, the three-year
graduation rates for students in two-year colleges remained at about 20 percent (College Board
Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012). Additionally, the average six-year graduation rate for
students seeking bachelor’s degrees in four-year institutions was 58.8 percent in 2010, merely
one-half percentage point above the previous year (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center,
2010).
Though these percentages may not show significant growth, other reports on college
completion provide a more optimistic position (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center,
2012). First, degree attainment rates may be higher than statistics project. Advances in student
tracking suggest that students may be completing degrees at institutions different from where
they started, rather than entirely dropping out of the higher education system. Students are more
mobile than previously thought, and failure to monitor transfer student academic achievement
leads to inaccurate degree attainment rates (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012).
Second, according to U.S. Census data from 2011, 43.1% of Americans ages 25 to 34 hold a
two- or four-year college degree, an increase of two percentage points from the 2009 figure
(College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012). The Pew Research Center for Social and
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 23

Demographic Trends found that in 2012 a record numbers of Americans ages 25 to 29 held a
high school credential (including GEDs) and at least a bachelor’s degree (College Board
Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012). Ninety percent of those in that age range have completed
high school, up from 86% in 2006, and one-third had a bachelor’s degrees or higher. The Pew
Center points out that these increases have occurred despite demographic changes in our country
that were predicted to produce a decline in educational attainment (College Board Advocacy and
Policy Center, 2012). In addition, bachelor’s degree attainment for males, Blacks, and Latinos,
while lower than the overall national average, is rising (College Board Advocacy and Policy
Center, 2012).
Even though metrics represented earlier focus on two and four year US degree
attainment, one factor influencing the national agenda on American college completion is global
competition. Past international rankings on degree attainment showed the US placing 12th and
16th in 2008 and 2009 respectively (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012). The
2012 international rankings show a slight improvement from 2009 in the percentage of
individuals between the ages of 25 to 34 who have an associate’s degree or higher, however, out
of 36 industrialized countries, the US only moved into 14th place with an overall degree
completion rate of 42.3 percent (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012).
Despite some advances, the U.S. still has much ground to cover to align the many aspects
of our education system toward increased postsecondary attainment, particularly for low-income
and historically underrepresented groups in higher education. The U.S. is still emerging from a
serious economic recession that depressed incomes for many who are trying to pursue, and
afford, higher education (College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2012).

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 24

Community Colleges and Completion
Community colleges are the largest part of the American higher education system; they
offer affordable tuition, open admissions policies, flexibility for part-time schedules, and are
conveniently located (Cohen, et al., 2014; The White House, 2009a). The college completion
initiative set by the White House aims to build on the strengths of community colleges, and
focuses much of its attention on community college graduates. As a part of the initiative, the 5
million additional community college graduates goal will place community colleges in a critical
role for providing affordable, open-enrollment to increase the number of certificates and
associate degrees earned by their students. Additionally, increased enrollment requires greater
community college funding. Under the president’s plan, new grants will increase the resources
community colleges need to expand and improve instruction and education. If community
college initiatives to expand enrollment increase education and employment outcomes, then
community colleges will continue to receive federal funding (The White House, 2009a).
Community colleges will also improve their facilities to support the education and training of
their students. To assist, President Obama is proposing a 2.5 billion dollar fund to catalyze 10
billion dollars in community college facility improvement (The White House, 2009a).
Furthermore, creating more online educational software has the potential to create convenient
pathways for students to gain knowledge, skills, and the education they need to become more
competitive (The White House, 2009a). Under the president’s plan, the Departments of Defense,
Education, and Labor will work to make these types of courses available through the community
colleges (The White House, 2009a). Finally, college completion rates must be met. Nearly half
of students who enter community college, who intend to earn a degree or transfer, fail to meet
this goal within six years (Schneider, & Yin, 2012; The White House, 2009a). Schneider and
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 25

Yin (2012) stated that of all full-time degree-seeking community college students who started in
2006, over 320,000 had not yet completed degrees by 2009.
As shown in Figure 1, 28 percent of the community college population in 2006 was in the
bottom socioeconomic quartile, an increase of 7 percent from 1982, and low-income students
have one of the highest dropout rates—negatively impacting college completion rates
(Carnevale, & Strohl, 2010; College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). Only 60 percent
of low-income students expect to complete a bachelor’s degree, compared with the 80 percent of
high-income students (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005; Carnevale, & Strohl, 2010). Low-
income students are also more likely to obtain a certificate as their highest degree (Bailey, et al.,
2005).
Figure 1
Change in Socioeconomic Distribution at Community Colleges 1982-2006

Source: Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2010). How increasing college access is increasing
inequality, and what to do about it. Rewarding strivers: Helping low-income students succeed in
college, 71-183.

21%
27%
28%
24%
28%
30%
27%
16%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Bottom SES
Quartile
Third SES Quartile Second SES
Quartile
Top SES Quartile
1982 2006
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 26

Poverty in America
In 2012, the official poverty threshold for a family of four (two children, two adults) in
the United States was $23,283 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b). The poverty threshold is the lowest
amount of financial resources required to attain basic needs (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b). The
poverty level in the United States reached a 15-year high in 2009 with 4 million additional
Americans living at or below the poverty line (Engberg & Allen, 2011). In 2012, the median
household income was $51,017, and the poverty rate in America reached 15%, with 46.5 million
people living in poverty (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor & Smith, 2013). Nearly 12 percent of those
qualifying for poverty status were families, nearly 9.5 million families. Disaggregating the data
by race, the poverty levels within Asian, White, Latino, and Black groups were 11.7%, 12.7%,
25%, and 27.2%, respectively (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2013). Please see Figure 2 for a visual
representation of US poverty levels by racial group. Children under the age of 18 experienced
the greatest percentage of poverty, with 1 in 5 of all children in America meeting the poverty
status (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2013).
Figure 2
2012 Percentages of the US Population Living at or Below the Poverty Line by Racial Group

11.70%
12.70%
25.00%
27.20%
Asian White Latino Black
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 27

Engberg and Allen (2011) found that young people without college degrees are more
likely to live in poverty. Because low-income students often lack requisite educational
proficiencies, they are less competitive for jobs, and are more likely to live at or below the
poverty line (Engberg & Allen, 2011). The achievement gap in America is the largest since the
Great Depression, widening to 30 and 40 percent between low-income and high-income children
born within 1970 and 2001 (Reardon, 2011; Rhoades, 2012).
SES and Race
Recent research suggests that there are significant gaps between race and household
earnings in the United States (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2013; Zhan & Sherraden, 2011). According
to DeNavas-Walt et al. (2013) Black and Latino ethnic communities had the largest percentage
of individuals living at or below the poverty line in 2012. In 2000, Latino and Black households
accounted for 21 percent of all households in America, but only comprised 3% of the total
wealth, including assets (Zhan & Sherraden, 2011). Additionally, while the net worth for White
households in 2007 averaged $170,400, Black and Latino families reached a mere 10 and 12
percent of White families, a net worth of $17,100 and $21,000 respectively (Federal Reserve
Board, 2009).
In 2012, White, non-Latino communities were the largest racial group in the United
States and comprised 40.7% of the total poverty population. However, only 12.7% of all
American Caucasians were living at or below the poverty line in 2012 (DeNavas-Walt et al.,
2013). Asian American communities living in the United States had the lowest group-specific
poverty rate with 11.7%, one percentage point lower than White Americans (DeNavas-Walt et
al., 2013). In 2010, Latinos became the biggest underrepresented population in the United
States, and in 2012 one quarter of Latinos were living in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 28

Zhan and Sherraden (2011) stated that while the Latino population is the largest in the US,
children of this community have low levels of educational attainment. Moreover, Black racial
groups in the U.S. had the largest poverty percentage, with 27.2 percent (DeNavas-Walt et al.,
2013). In short, Latino and Black Americans have over twice as many individuals classifying for
poverty status as their White peers. The next section will investigate how higher education
attainment is impacted for communities from low-income backgrounds.
Low-Income Students
There are two measurements of socioeconomic status. The first identifies socioeconomic
status as the combination of one’s occupation, income, and education (American Psychological
Association, 2014). The second defines SES through a lens of social class, using an individual’s
access to resources in the form of power and privilege. Low-SES is thus designated by one’s
lack of access to employment, education, or social class resources. Similarly, the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2014), noted that low-income
individuals are those whose family’s taxable earnings are lower than 1.5 times the poverty level
income. In the United States, for a family of 4, the average low-income level for the 48
contiguous states is $35,775, $44,730 for the state of Alaska, and $41,145 for the state of Hawaii.
An individual in the U.S. may identify themselves as low-income if they fall within the
aforementioned earnings parameters—which reflect income levels 1.5 times the poverty line,
according to the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). High-income
American families make, on average, more than $150,000 per year (Francis, 2012).
Low-Income and Higher Education
As early as the seventh grade, low-income communities have lower postsecondary degree
attainment expectations (Terenzini, Cabrera & Bernal, 2001). Low-income students take college
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 29

entrance exams at lower rates, and the rising costs of higher education contributes to the gap
between individuals who receive a college education and those who do not (Engberg & Allen,
2011; Terenzini et al., 2001). Kezar (2011) stated that low-income students encounter more
difficulty navigating the higher education process than the average student because, “Many low-
income students are first-generation students, unfamiliar with the specialized terms and resources
of higher education” (p. 222). Low-income and first-generation students often lack the social or
intellectual capital to support their success in higher education. As illustrated through their 2006
study of 10 low-income community college students, Pak, Bensimon, Malcom, Marquez, and
Park revealed that feelings of inadequacy are a result of low-income students’ lack of exposure
to higher education. Low-income students at community colleges are socially conditioned to
believe that they are not prepared, academically or financially, for four-year institutions (Pak et
al., 2006). Feelings of inadequacy are not the only barriers low-income encounter in regards to
higher education; underrepresentation, financial burden, and completion are also concerns for
low-income students.
Zhan and Sherraden (2011) argued that economic success is dependent on college access
and education. Yet, students from low-income backgrounds are underrepresented in elite higher
education institutions (Park & Denson, 2013). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement
are strongly connected (Coleman et al., 1966). In the United States, the likelihood for low-
income students to attend college immediately after completing high school is lower than for
students from high-income families (NCES, 2012). Figure 3 shows that for the 1982 birth
cohort, 80% of the top income quartile had entered college while only 29% of the lowest income
quartile did the same (Reardon, 2011).

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 30

Figure 3
Fraction of Students Entering College, by Income Quartile and Birth Year

Source: Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and
the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. Whither opportunity, 91-116.

In 2010, immediate enrollment in college for low-income high school graduates was 52%,
compared to 82% for high-income graduates (NCES, 2012). The trend between income and
academic achievement is similar when reviewing college completion rates. Figure 4 shows that
for the 1982 birth cohort, 54% of the top income quartile completed postsecondary degrees while
only 9% of the lowest income quartile completed (Reardon, 2011).

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 31

Figure 4
Fraction of Students Completing College, by Income Quartile and Birth Year

Source: Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and
the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. Whither opportunity, 91-116.

While low-income students have made gains in college enrollment rates since the 1970s,
high-income students have made greater gains over the past 40 years (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011).
In their 2011 study of high school graduates in America from years 1972, 1982, 1992, and 2004,
Bastedo and Jaquette found that academic preparation has increased for all socioeconomic
groups. However, while low-income students have made significant academic progress, these
students continue to be underprepared for selective higher education institutions (Bastedo &
Jaquette, 2011). Bastedo and Jaquette (2011) asserted that unless policymakers enact initiatives
to assist low-income students gain admittance to elite institutions, stratification between high-
income and low-income students will remain.
Assets that impact educational achievement can be split into two categories: financial
assets and nonfinancial assets. Financial assets, or cash, can assist with tuition costs for higher
education or private, K-12 institutions (Nam & Huang, 2009; Yeung & Conley, 2008).
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 32

Nonfinancial assets, “may signal a better developmental environment for children, e.g., the
quality of homes, neighborhoods, and schools” (Zhan & Sherraden, 2011, p. 2169).
Underrepresented groups, including low-income populations, have limited access to financial
and nonfinancial assets or capital—reducing educational opportunities and access to resources
(Zhan & Sherraden, 2011).
One contributor to the achievement gap is highly selective institutions, by percentage,
have the least amount of Pell Grant recipients (Park & Denson, 2013). National accountability
initiatives are placing increased pressure on institutions to graduate more students in less time,
and low-income students often require remedial coursework, which necessitates more time and
financial resources (Carnevale, Strohl & Smith, 2009). Dowd (2007) argued that completion
rates for students required to take remedial coursework is low and the necessity for remedial
education is high. Approximately 42 to 70 percent of first-year community college students will
enroll in remedial courses (Adelman, 2004; Kirst, 2007; Parsad & Lewis, 2003).
Affordability
Affordability is relative; the meaning of affordability, in reference to education, is
dependent on the perception of affordability by various groups and communities (Baum, 2001).
Higher education is an expectation for high-SES communities, yet, for low-SES communities,
higher education is more commonly viewed as a luxury that is associated with increasing one’s
economic status (Brand & Xie, 2010). Affordability of education depends on families’ access to
resources and credit, and the services or commodities families are willing to sacrifice to pay for
education (Baum, 2001). Individuals will pursue a college degree as long as there is a significant
return on investment (Brand & Xie, 2010). As tuition costs rise, a greater percentage of annual
income for families is designated for education—which is especially significant for low-income
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 33

families (Baum, 2001). During the 1971-1972 academic year, low-income families spent 42% of
their annual income on tuition for public, four-year universities (College Board, 1999). Almost
30 years later in the 1999-2000 academic year, low-income families spent 61% of their annual
income on education for the same type of institution (College Board, 1999). For high-income
families, the percentage of income used for public universities did not exceed 6% between 1971
and 2000, and for private universities, the percentage did not exceed 15% (College Board, 1999).
High-income parents are able to provide their children with quality postsecondary education
because they have the income, incentive and knowledge to increase opportunity (Corak, 2013;
DeParle, 2012).
Mobility
Definitions for mobility include 1) the sociological “process of stratification,” where the
transference of “life chances” is passed down through each generation, and 2) an economic
characteristic—socioeconomic status is determined by occupation and the educational, social,
and monetary benefits derived from one’s occupational status (Bloome & Western, 2011, p. 376;
Hauser & Featherman, 1977). While occupational mobility has typically been the center of prior
research, educational attainment is also relevant to help explain broader concepts of class
mobility (Bloome & Western, 2011). Bloome and Western (2011) argued that educational
achievement is increasingly significant because it facilitates upward income mobility.
Parents’ economic status has the greatest influence on economic outcomes for youth
(Corak, 2013; DeParle, 2012). Research conducted throughout the past several decades on
generational wealth has determined that children in America, on average, will become wealthier
than their parents; however, it is less certain if children can increase their economic rank relative
to other income quartiles in a given society (Bengali & Daly, 2013). Bengali and Daly (2013)
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 34

note that two types of economic mobility exist, absolute and relative. Absolute mobility is
determined by a child’s wealth in direct comparison to their parent’s, and relative mobility is
determined by an individual’s ability to change their economic rank within a given society
(Bengali & Daly, 2013). The United States has relatively high absolute mobility, with anywhere
from 67-81% of Americans making more than their parents did at the same age. However, it is
more difficult to make conclusions regarding relative mobility (Bengali & Daly, 2013; DeParle,
2012). Economic mobility is low in countries with high economic disparity, and the United
States has lower mobility rates than the majority of advanced countries (Corak, 2013). Bengali
and Daly (2013) found that when dividing the American population into fifths by economic rank,
the wealthiest and poorest groups experience relatively little mobility. Sixty-two percent of
Americans born in the top economic quintile remain within the top two-fifths, and 65% of
Americans born in the bottom economic quintile remain in the bottom two-fifths (DeParle,
2012). Additionally, while the poorest students experience the greatest difficulty with upward
mobility and the likelihood that high school students will attend college decreases as family
income shrinks, education is one method poor families can use to increase their economic rank
(Bailey & Dynarski, 2011; Baum, 2001; Bengali & Daly, 2013; Brand, & Xie, 2010; Cohen, et
al., 2014). Unfortunately, individuals who could have the greatest benefit from higher education
are the least likely to pursue a college degree (Brand & Xie, 2010). Only 5% of the poorest
quintile in America rises to the top quintile without a college education, whereas 30% of the
poorest students with a college degree will advance to the top quintile (Bengali & Daly, 2013).
It is important to note, however, that only 7% of the bottom quintile actually receives a college
degree compared to the more than 50% of the top quintile that complete college (Bengali &
Daly, 2013).
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 35

SES and Mobility
From an educational perspective, certificate and associate degree attainment may be
linked to improvements in socioeconomic status, and low-SES students benefit more, financially,
from selective higher education institutions than their high-income peers (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). For example, while high-income students may already have access to capital
(via parents or communities) one typically gains through college degree attainment—low-income
college students experience greater mobility gains because they enter higher education with less
capital. However, Bloome and Western (2011) argued that socioeconomic mobility has
decreased since the 1970s and inequality stifles mobility. Census data revealed that in the 1980s,
income mobility declined and was low throughout the 1990s. Researchers argued that between
the 1980s and 2000s, rising costs for postsecondary education decreased opportunities for
mobility—increases in college attainment during this period overwhelmingly favored high-
income students (Ellwood & Kane, 2000; Kane 2004). The socioeconomic stratification process
is cyclical; income inequality hinders college access, and lack of educational access widens the
socioeconomic gap (Bloome & Western, 2011).
The Value of a Two-Year or Four-Year Degree
As previously stated, students pursue postsecondary education when there is a high
economic return on investment (Becker, 1964; Brand, & Xie, 2010; Card, 1995, 2001; Heckman
& Honore´, 1990; Manski, 1990; Mincer, 1974; Willis & Rosen, 1979). Carnevale (2011)
argued that the financial return on a college education is almost always greater than the cost.
Individuals with a bachelor’s degree earn an average of $22,000 more annually than those
without bachelor’s degrees (Baum, Ma & Payea, 2010). While evidence suggests that average
lifetime earnings increase with each level of degree attainment, critics argue that higher
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 36

education is granting more degrees than there are jobs to fill (Carnevale, 2011). In 2011, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) claimed that the American population is overeducated because
while 25 million jobs in the United States required bachelor’s degrees, there were more than 25
million college-educated Americans who accepted positions for which they were over qualified.
Carnevale (2011) elaborated, stating the number of jobs occupied by individuals with bachelor’s
degrees was 30.7 million. Carnevale (2011) also argued that even though a portion of the
American population is overqualified for their occupations, regardless of position, employers
will pay a “wage premium” for college graduates because they place value on college education.
The college wage premium has increased from approximately 30 to 74 percent since the 1980s,
evidence negating the assumption that the American workforce is over-educated (Carnevale,
2011). Furthermore, the unemployment rate for recent high school graduates was 35% in 2010,
whereas the unemployment rate for new college graduates was 9.2% in the same year, and .6%
lower than the national average (Carnevale, 2011).
Carnevale, Rose, and Cheah (2013) argued that postsecondary education is worth the
investment. On average, income earned over a lifetime increases as the level of degree earned
also increases (Carnevale et al., 2013; College Board, 2013; Corak, 2013). In 2007, students
who graduated with bachelor’s degrees made, on average, $55,000 per year, while students with
only high school diplomas averaged an annual income of $30,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).
The income difference between associate’s bachelor’s degrees is $600,000 over a lifetime—with
earners of associate’s degrees making an average of $1.7 million and earners of bachelor’s
degrees making $2.3 million (Carnevale et al., 2013). Carnevale et al. (2013) expanded, stating
that not only does the type of degree matter in reference to economic gains; lifetime earnings
continue to increase as individuals obtain their master’s, doctorate, or professional doctorate
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 37

degrees. The average lifetime incomes for individuals who have earned a master’s, doctorate, or
professional doctorate degree are $2.7, $3.3, and $3.6 million respectively (Carnevale et al.,
2013). It should be noted, however, that in some cases occupation can eclipse level of degree
earned (Carnevale et al., 2013). For example, 28.2% of associate’s degree earners’ income is the
same or more than the median income for a person with a bachelor’s degree (Carnevale et al.,
2013).
Community Colleges
Community colleges are open-access institutions that serve a myriad of constituents,
ranging from recent high school graduates with aspirations for transferring to four-year
institutions, to working professionals earning technical degrees (Park, et al., 2013; Sengupta &
Jepson, 2006). The following section will provide a brief historical context for community
colleges in America. Information will also be presented on the national characteristics common
to student constituents of community colleges. This section will conclude with a review of the
California Community College system, referencing its original purpose as seen through the
California Master Plan, and provide a summation of characteristics common to California
community college student populations.
Historical Context
In the mid to late 19
th
century, university professors believed that research institutions, in
order to be “true research and professional development centers,” should not provide
remediation, and that junior schools should be responsible for both vocational training and
general education for young adults (Cohen, et al., 2014, p. 6; Kane & Rouse, 1999). What was
initially proposed as grades 13 and 14, the early version of community colleges sought to extend
high school for young adults, providing remedial education if necessary (Cohen et al., 2014;
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 38

Kane & Rouse, 1999). Grades 13 and 14 eventually evolved into the modern community college
as four-year colleges and universities opted to retain and educate their freshman and sophomore
students (Cohen et al., 2014). Cohen et al. (2014) stated that the motivation for creating
community colleges was threefold: to train and employ a workforce for the emerging American
industry, to extend adolescent education, and to provide greater higher education opportunities
for all communities. Influenced by the need to educate a growing American workforce, two-year
institutions increased vocational degree and certificate offerings (Beach, 2012: Cohen et al.,
2014). From 1910 to 1960, the percentage of 18-year olds who enrolled in higher education, at
any level, within one year of graduating high school grew from 5 to 45 percent, and the current
number of community colleges in the United States has increased 150% since 1960—serving 15
times the number of students (Cohen et al., 2014). From 1973 to 2012, the enrollment of 18 to
24 year olds at community colleges grew from 6.9 to 12.7 million (NCES, 2014). Programs that
increased college accessibility, such as financial aid and the GI Bill, also contributed to the
growth of students enrolling in community colleges from the 1940s until the beginning of the
1970s (Cohen et al., 2014; Rumann, Rivera, & Hernandez, 2011). In 2010, 40% of students
entering higher education enrolled at a community college, and 61% of students over the age of
30 started at a two-year institution (Cohen et al., 2014; NCES, 2012).
Even though general education never officially became the responsibility of community
colleges, two-year institutions continue to act as “gatekeepers” for four-year colleges and
universities, filtering high and low achieving students through required coursework like math
and writing, to either a four-year institution or the workforce (Cohen et al., 2014; Dowd, 2007;
Jenkins, & Cho, 2012; Goldrick-Rab, 2010). Dowd (2007) asserted that the divide between
students with high and low amounts of resources, or capital, is perpetuated by community
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 39

colleges. Community colleges enroll the greatest number of students, projecting ideals of social
mobility through merit, but also act as educational monitors in that the very existence of
community colleges allows four-year private and public universities to practice more selective
admissions process and enroll fewer students (Dowd, 2007; Park et al., 2013).
The growth in community colleges can also be attributed to the belief that schools are
responsible for fixing the educational problems of society (Cohen et al., 2014). In recent years,
there is increased pressure on community colleges to increase transfer rates to four-year
institutions (Dowd, 2007). However, community colleges have experienced greater pressure to
provide remedial education, which stymies transfer to four-year institutions for a portion of the
community college population due to the additional “deficiency” coursework requirements
(Dowd, 2007). Whether it is promoting access for all communities, providing remedial
education, or training a workforce, community colleges have been able to legitimize their place
in the educational landscape by adapting practices to meet the needs of current societal and
educational issues (Cohen et al., 2014; Dougherty, 1994; Mullin, 2012).
National Community College Student Profile
Increased enrollment for community colleges is due to its inclusive student population
(Cohen et al., 2014). In 2012, community colleges served 30% of the total postsecondary
student population ages 18 to 24 in the United States (NCES, 2014). Community colleges have
an “open-door” policy, meaning that any individual may enroll. Part-time, nontraditionally aged,
veteran, minority, or academically underprepared students are all constituents of the community
college system (Cohen et al., 2014; McIntosh & Rouse, 2009; Park et al., 2013; Provasnik &
Planty, 2008; Sengupta & Jepson, 2006). Community colleges also serve a greater number of
low-SES, nontraditional, and underrepresented student communities in comparison with four-
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 40

year colleges and universities, and educate 14% of the over 700,000 total international students
in the United States (Cohen et al., 2014; Park et al., 2013; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). In
addition to serving a wide range of cultures and ethnicities, community colleges educate students
of all ages. The mean age for community college students in the United States is 29 years, and
the mode is less than 19 years old—asserting that while community colleges provide service to
students primarily under the age of 20, a significant group of community college students are
over the age of 50 (Cohen et al., 2014). Given that community colleges educate a spectrum of
individuals and communities, the lives of students at community colleges present unique
challenges. According to the National Center for Education Statistics in the 2003-04 academic
year (NCES, 2012), 45% of community college students were first generation college students,
21% were living at or below the poverty line, 78% were employed either full-time or part time,
and of the 25% claiming dependents, nearly half were single parents. Community colleges have
been influenced by the needs of industry, while providing a lower-cost option for individuals
seeking educational opportunity (Cohen et al., 2014; Grubb, Badway, Bell, Bragg, & Russman,
1997; Kochan, & Osterman, 1994; Ullman, 2012; Yarnall, 2014). Tuition and fees for
community colleges are less than half as much as public universities and private, four-year
universities are 10 times the cost of community colleges (Provasnik & Planty, 2008).
California Community Colleges
Two-year institutions in the state of California are a product of the three-tiered California
Master Plan, developed in the 1960s (Altbach, 2011; Jain, Herrera, Bernal & Solorzano, 2011;
Johnson-Ahorlu, Alvarez, & Hurtado, 2013). At the top of the three-tiered system is the
University of California (UC). The UC system’s universities are research-focused, highly
selective, and have the largest budgets—admitting only the top eighth of high school graduates
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 41

in the state (Altbach, 2011; Hellenbrand, 2011; Johnson-Ahorlu et al., 2013). UC schools also
receive larger stipends per student than both the California State University and the California
Community College (Hellenbrand, 2011). In the middle, as the second tier of California’s higher
education system, is California State University (CSU). CSU institutions are not expected to
conduct research or offer doctoral degrees, and primarily award master’s and bachelor’s degrees
(Altbach, 2011; Johnson-Ahorlu et al., 2013). California community colleges comprise the third
and final tier of California Master Plan. Altbach (2011), Jain et al. (2011), and Johnson-Ahorlu
et al. (2013) explained that the purpose of California community colleges is chiefly instructional;
there is no expectation of research and community colleges primarily award certificate and
associate’s degrees.
Community colleges are open-door institutions, enrolling a greater amount of students
than any other type of institution. Inclusivity at the community college level is fundamental to
the purpose of the California Master Plan (Altbach, 2011; Cohen et al., 2014; McIntosh &
Rouse, 2009; Park et al., 2013; Provasnik & Planty, 2008; Sengupta & Jepson, 2006). Serving
approximately one-fifth of the nation’s total community college student population, the state of
California is home to the largest community college system in the United States (California
Community Colleges, 2015b; Park et al., 2013; Provasnik & Planty, 2008). California
community colleges currently serve over 2.1 million students at 113 institutions (California
Community Colleges, 2015b). Disaggregating the 2014 enrollment data by race, Latinos were
the largest minority group, comprising almost 39% of the total student population. In the same
year, percentages for White, Asian and Pacific Islander, Black, Filipino, and Native American
student populations were 31%, 11%, 7%, 3%, and 0.5% respectively (California Community
Colleges, 2015b). Please see Figure 3 for the 2015 student profile by race or ethnicity at
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 42

California community colleges. Fifty-four percent of the California community college student
population was female in 2015, while 45% was male (California Community Colleges, 2015b).
Finally, 87% of community college students in California are enrolled part-time (Cohan et al.,
2014).
Figure 3
2015 California Community College Enrollments by Race

Community College Transfer Process
While some four-year colleges and universities throughout the U.S. may have unique
criteria for transfer admission, there are general similarities. Using California residents and the
UC system as an example, community college students who are interested in transferring need to
achieve the following: 60 semester or 90 quarter units of transferrable coursework; have a
minimum GPA of 2.4; and complete courses in English composition, mathematics, arts and
humanities, social and behavioral sciences, and physical and biological sciences (University of
California, 2014). It is important to note that only 15% of community college students, who
Black
7.3%
Native
American
0.5%
Asian
10.8%
Filipino
3.1%
Latino
38.9%
Pacific
Islander
0.5%
White
31%
Multi-
Ethnicity
3.5%
Unknown
4.4%
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 43

started in 2006, graduated from a four-year institution within six years (Shapiro et al., 2012).
Transfer centers were established at community colleges to assist students who plan to pursue
four-year degrees (Gándara, Alvarado, Driscoll, & Orfield, 2012). Gándara et al. (2012)
explained that, “the transfer center should not be the only place that students can go for transfer
information, but that it should provide a coordinating function for those resources…” (p. 10).
The role of the community college transfer center is to not only to help transfer-ready students
navigate the process, but to also to inform students who may not transfer otherwise.
Community colleges serve large, diverse student populations from various socioeconomic
backgrounds. This study is needed because there is a gap in existing research regarding low-
income community college students, and how student-parent relationships impact persistence
and decision to transfer. In the next section, the connection between student educational success
and parental involvement will be described in an effort to reiterate that additional research is
needed regarding student-parent relationships and their influence on low-SES community college
students.
Parental Involvement
Parental involvement is best described as a multifaceted collection of behaviors, as
opposed to one singular action (Fan & Chen, 2001). In this section, parental involvement will
focus on the interaction between the parent and the school or student, and how involvement
influences student success. It is important to note that very few frameworks exist to define or
explain student-parent relationships at the postsecondary level. In 2007, 4,518 first-year and
4,644 senior college students in the United States completed questions regarding their support
systems for the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The NSSE (2007) reported
that of these students, those who had frequent contact with their parents reported increased
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 44

college satisfaction and engagement. While the 2007 NSSE report suggests a positive
relationship between success and parental involvement at the college level, the majority of
research regarding parental involvement focuses on the K-12 environment.
Definitions for parental involvement vary and it is difficult to gather definitive
conclusions on which type of involvement is best for student success (Fan & Chen, 2001;
McNeal, 1999). Fan and Chen (2001) defined parental involvement in school to include
participation at school events, parent-teacher communication about students, promotion of
educational diligence at home (i.e. rules about regarding homework), student-parent
communication about school, and descriptions of children’s academic desires. Research
suggests that general parental involvement has a positive impact on student success in higher
education, yet specific empirical evidence does not exist regarding the impact of parental
involvement on persistence or transfer rates for community college students from low-SES
backgrounds (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Fan & Chen, 2001; Perna & Titus, 2005; Porchea, et
al., 2010; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). Parents who promote higher education as a common
standard within their households are more likely to have children who pursue two-year or four-
year degrees. However, it should be noted that educational outcomes as a result of parental
involvement differ between various racial and SES groups (Perna & Titus, 2005; Porchea et al.,
2010). In 2005, Perna and Titus used data from the National Education Longitudinal Study
(NELS) to explore how parental involvement impacts enrollment in two-year or four-year
colleges or universities for African American, Latino, White, and Asian American ethnic groups.
NELS data on 9,810 high school graduates from 1992, and 1994 when the same students were
college sophomores, revealed that parental involvement as a form of social capital is positively
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 45

related, in general, to immediate enrollment in higher education in the fall after high school
graduation (Perna & Titus, 2005). However, Perna and Titus explain:
On average, African Americans and Hispanics are disadvantaged in the college
enrollment process not only because of their own low levels of the types of economic,
human, and cultural capital that are valued in the college enrollment process but also
because of the low levels of resources that are available to promote college enrollment
through the social networks at the schools they attend (Perna & Titus, 2005, p. 511).

A central question in this study is whether parental involvement aids or hinders
persistence and transfer rates for low-SES students—an empirical data gap within recent
literature. Tierney and Auerbach (2005) found that educational success of underrepresented
groups, including low-SES students, requires positive parental involvement. The next section
will present a brief history of parental involvement in the United States, followed by a
description of Epstein’s typology and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s framework for parental
involvement, and conclude with a description parent programs at community colleges.
Background for Parental Involvement
In early 20
th
century America, educators perceived parental involvement with student
instruction as negative, and government-funded boarding schools were established to remove
children from their parents (Dawson, 2012; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). Early American
boarding schools were developed predominantly for Native American populations in an effort to
separate youth from their native languages and traditions—supporting what researchers of that
era viewed as necessary assimilation to the American culture (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005; Stout,
2012). However, boarding schools did not benefit Native American students; instead, they failed
to increase their educational achievement levels to meet those of other students in the United
States (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). More recently in US history, and influenced by the cultural
deficit model, urban schools in the 1960s and 1970s provided parent education programs to poor
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 46

and minority families, claiming that families from low-SES or underrepresented backgrounds
lacked adequate parenting skills and therefore needed proper educational training (Tierney &
Auerbach, 2005; Swap, 1993). In the 1980s and 1990s, the attitude towards parental
involvement in education shifted, and parental involvement was seen as a method to promote
student success, as opposed to a detrimental interaction (Donovan & McKelfresh, 2008; Tierney
& Auerbach, 2005). Campaigns to reinforce college-going cultures for low-SES and minority
parents were developed (i.e. College: Making it Happen, or Think College Early), but rarely
succeeded in establishing valuable or influential parent-institution relationships (Delgado-Gaitan,
1994; Dodd & Konzal, 1999; Fine, 1991; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005).
Typologies and Frameworks
Typologies or frameworks are assistive methods that can be used for defining the various
manifestations of parental involvement. In 1987, Epstein developed a typology for parental
involvement from the perspective of the school. While Epstein’s typology focuses on K-12
education, the following categories for involvement may still be relevant to postsecondary
persistence and success. This typology uses four categories of involvement: 1) necessary
responsibilities, 2) communication between the parent and the school, 3) parental participation at
the institution, and 4) at-home learning activities that involve the parent (Epstein, 1987).
Epstein’s (1987) typology should not be viewed as stage process, but rather a framework with
several categories. In 1992 and 1994, Epstein revised her typology, moving from four to six
categories for parental involvement: 1) support for parents in raising their children, 2)
communication between the parent and the school, 3) parental participation at the institution, 4)
at-at home learning activities that involve the parent, 5) parental participation in decision-making
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 47

processes that impact the school, and 6) parental participation in collaborative activities between
the school and the community.
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) developed a three-pronged theoretical framework
regarding parental involvement with adolescent students. The purpose of this framework was
not only to categorize the types of parental involvement, but also to clarify why parents become
involved (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). The first aspect of Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler’s (1995) framework sought to define the impetus for parental involvement in children’s
education. The second issue centered on the decisions parents make regarding the type of
educational involvement they choose (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). The final aspect of
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995) framework focused on why positive educational
outcomes are a result of parental involvement. Whether using a typology or theoretical
framework, researchers have attempted to define parental involvement in education through
identifiable characteristics or behaviors—resulting in a myriad of conclusions (Fan & Chen,
2001). While historical references, typologies or frameworks exist to help deconstruct parental
involvement and student success, all fail to explain the impact of parental involvement on
transfer-ready low-SES students at community colleges.
Family Income and Higher Education
Families with access to resources, or capital, have a greater ability to influence student
success in higher education (Perna & Titus, 2005). While low-SES parents pursued higher
education in the 20
th
century for the benefit of their children, low-SES students continue to be
underrepresented at four-year institutions (Cohen et al., 2014; Park et al., 2013; Park & Denson,
2013; Provasnik & Planty, 2008; Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). Tierney and Auerbach (2005)
explained that higher education requires increased sacrifice for low-SES families due to costs
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 48

and unfamiliar processes. Families, especially those from low-SES or underrepresented
backgrounds, can develop opposition towards higher education as a result of intimidating
processes or tasks that are required for college entrance (Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). For
example, families who have never completed a financial aid application may find it cumbersome,
which may stifle enrollment for some students. Bolívar and Chrispeels (2011) also argued that
parents from low-SES backgrounds have less time to foster helpful relationships with their kids.
Single parents who work full-time may have other responsibilities that impede educational
involvement with their children. In order for parents to truly assist in the academic success of
their children, first the economic, social, and physical needs of the parents must be met (López,
Scriber & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). Tierney & Auerbach (2005) found that family involvement
is essential for successful higher education programs. While the absence of parental involvement
does not always prevent student academic achievement, parents must be actively involved in
order to have a positive influence on student success (Coleman, 1988). Conducting this study
was important because the impact of student-parent relationships, on persistence and decisions to
transfer for low-SES community college students, had not yet been explored—a key
achievement necessary to meet the goals of the college Completion Agenda.
Student characteristics, including background, are indicators of student success (Chang,
Denson, Sáenz & Misa, 2006; Habley & McClanahan, 2004; Porchea et al., 2010; Robbins,
Allen, Casillas, Peterson & Le, 2006). High-SES students are more likely to have parents with
postsecondary degrees and have greater access to cultural, human, intellectual, and social
capital—advantages that promote a college-going and academic achievement culture within the
family unit (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011). Students from low-SES backgrounds at community
colleges persist at lower rates, and have weaker academic performance, in comparison with their
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 49

mid and high-SES peers (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011; Porchea et al., 2010). Between 1975 and
2009, the difference in percentage points of high-SES and low-SES students who enrolled in
higher education immediately after high school remained constant at 29%; 84% of high-income
students and 55% of low-income students enrolled immediately after high school in 2009 (Baum,
Kurose & McPherson, 2013). The consistent enrollment percentage difference indicates that
increases in financial aid opportunities have not equalized the enrollment gap for low-SES
students, and educational access and persistence continue to be dependent on parental affluence
(Baum et al., 2013; Donovan & McKelfresh, 2008).
Parent Programs at Community Colleges
Through an internet search using the keyword “parent programs” with “universities,”
“colleges,” or “community colleges,” the difference between parent programs at two-year and
four-year institutions is clear. Four year colleges and universities provide dedicated web pages
for parents of students attending their institution. Institutions like the University of Chicago, the
University of Alabama, and Boston University all have websites welcoming the parents and
families of new or continuing students to their respective universities (Boston University, 2014;
The University of Alabama, 2014; The University of Chicago, 2014). Statements on parent
program websites for four-year institutions include themes of collaborative student-parent choice
for institutional selection, parents as members of the university “family,” and the promotion of
increased involvement of parents with the university and their child’s education (Boston
University, 2014; Northeastern University, 2014; The University of Alabama, 2014; The
University of Chicago, 2014; The University of Southern California, 2014). Donovan and
McKelfresh (2008) found university websites for parents and families provide helpful
information including, but not limited to; support services, involvement programs for parents and
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 50

families, newsletters, and important deadlines. Four-year institutions have historically strong
relationships with parents due to their reliance on tuition (Donovan & McKelfresh, 2008).
Public institutions have come to acknowledge the benefits of parental involvement and have
since created advisory boards and departments dedicated to involving parents with the university
(Daniel, Evans & Scott, 2001; Donovan & McKelfresh, 2008; Savage, 2005; 2007). While
information targeting parents of students at two-year institutions exist, the term “parent
programs” generally means something different at community colleges and typically refers to
adult learners and nontraditional student programs (Dutchess Community College, 2014; Indian
Hills Community College, 2014). In 1988, the Commission on the Future of Community
Colleges charged community colleges to educate the American population—a community-based
education strategy that increases services for “working women, single parent heads of
households, and unwed teenage parents” (Cohen, et al., 2014, p. 335). Single-parent or parent
education programs are more prevalent than departments dedicated to assisting the parents of
enrolled students at community colleges. Community colleges have historically provided
specialized counseling for parents attending the institution, offered courses about parenting, and
targeted non-traditional students including older adults (Cohen et al., 2014). Additionally,
Cohen et al. (2014) cited that some community colleges offer programs that administer exams to
high school students and help parents interpret the academic test results with their students.
However, community colleges generally do not center their efforts or information towards the
parents of children enrolled (Cohen et al., 2014).
Low-Income Student Relationships with Family
Generally, parental involvement has a positive impact on student educational success
(Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Fan & Chen, 2001; Perna & Titus, 2005; Porchea, et al., 2010;
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 51

Tierney & Auerbach, 2005). One argument used to explain the educational gap between high
and low-SES students are that high-SES students have greater access to resources or capital,
including social networks maintained by parents who often are college-educated, which help
navigate the higher education process (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011). Using data from 25 studies to
conduct a meta-analysis, Fan and Chen (2001) found that there was a positive correlation
between parental involvement, in the form of high expectations, and overall GPA for students.
Fan and Chen (2001) also stated that parental involvement and SES are positively related. The
higher the income, the more likely parents are to be involved with their children—ultimately
leading to academic persistence and success (Fan & Chen, 2001). Additionally, in their study of
21 community colleges and 4,481 students who completed the Student Readiness Inventory
(SRI), Porchea et al. (2010) found that both the SES and education level of parents’ is positively
correlated to the likelihood their student will transfer to a four-year institution. While recent
evidence points toward the benefits of parental involvement, there is a dearth of current research
specifically on the impact of student-parent relationships on persistence and transfer rates for
low-income students at community colleges.
Parental involvement is one form of capital students can utilize to achieve educational
attainment and success. However, there is a lack of research outlining to what extent parental
involvement influences decisions to persist and transfer for low-SES students at community
colleges. The next section details the theory of social capital, including how parents and
networks are forms of capital that can help or hinder a student’s ability to access higher
education and complete a degree—which is an essential task required for the Completion
Agenda to be considered a success.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 52

Social Capital Theory
This study centers on the influences of student-parent relationships, as social capital, on
low-income students attending community colleges. A central argument of Social Capital
Theory (SCT) is the idea that an individual’s capital (financial, familial, situational, etc.)
facilitates privilege (Bourdieu, 1993; Coleman, 1988). Privilege is defined as benefits
individuals acquire due to existing or increases in capital. The following sections discuss the
theory of social capital and how it relies on networks, and how parents of students constitute a
form of social capital.
Defining Social Capital
Prior to defining the aspects of social capital, it is important to provide a contextual
foundation for the theory. The term capital was first defined by Marx (1933) as economic
language, contending that capital was defined by the surplus, or profit, privileged groups gained
from goods sold (Lin, 1999). Powerful groups, which controlled industry, employed workers at
a wage adequate enough to maintain a basic level of survival, and sold products at a price
conducive for the highest return on investment (Lin, 1999; Marx, 1933). Essentially, capital
enables individuals or groups to achieve goods or experiences that otherwise would not be
available without the possession of such capital. While existing research alludes to the potential
negative impact of capital, which will be elaborated upon in a proceeding section, social capital
is similar to other forms of capital in that it facilitates opportunity (Coleman, 1988).
The foundation for social capital theory was built upon neighborhood studies, where it
was recognized that communities sought to safeguard their existence through trusting social
networks (Coleman, 1988; Dika & Singh, 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Social capital is
achieved when a group or individual is able to make connections with other groups or
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 53

individuals, to achieve a level of networking or privilege that promotes advantages, like access to
resources or cultural permanence (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Coleman, 1988; Dika & Singh,
2002; Lin, 1999; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). For example, an
applicant applies to a position where more than 200 other individuals have applied. However,
this applicant goes to the same church as the hiring manager and is able to secure an interview.
The applicant used her or his social capital to ensure opportunity. Coleman (1988) argued that
social capital is more difficult to grasp because it is defined by the relationships that exist
between people and groups. Additionally, the impetus for social capital is sustainability of
beneficial, yet intangible, relationships (Perna & Titus, 2005).
While the main purpose of social capital is to undergird other forms of capital
(intellectual, physical, human, etc.), another function of social capital is to facilitate collective
action (Lin, 1999; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Perna & Titus, 2005; Woolcock & Narayan,
2000). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) claimed social capital researchers focus on resulting action
initiated by social capital. Collective social capital helps communities acquire resources through
the proliferation of privilege and an advantaged community will use capital to acquire more
personal or communal capital (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Coleman, 1988). A privileged
student group at a prestigious college or university, with the same political agenda, may stage a
protest to enact change within the institution. Essentially, social capital uses resources garnered
by individuals or groups, and their social networks, to maintain status, privilege, or resources that
promote the prior (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Coleman, 1988). The importance of networks in
social capital is defined in a proceeding next section.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 54

Other Forms of Capital
Capital, in any form, facilitates opportunity for individuals or groups who possess capital
(Bourdieu, 1986; 1993; Coleman, 1988; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Perna & Titus, 2005;
Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Therefore it is beneficial, first, to define what social capital is not,
by providing definitions for other categories of capital. The following text provides research on
how social capital is different from human, cultural, physical and intellectual capital.
Social capital is different than human capital in that human capital results in individuals’
capability to transform and act in new ways, facilitating opportunity. To elaborate, Coleman
(1988) and Lin (1999) agreed that human capital is a result of a person’s investment in their own
development, resources, or skills with the expectation for positive results. For example, a
student may complete a Master of Science in Engineering because their professional goals
require this level of education. Individuals or groups who invest in human capital experience
improvement in their personal and professional statuses (i.e. work promotions, skill
development, or knowledge attainment) (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999).
Cultural capital is the proliferation of privilege by dominant communities through
investments in cultural norms or symbols, with the purpose of maintaining dominance (Bourdieu,
1986: 1993; Perna & Titus, 2005). Cultural capital is best described by theorist Pierre
Bourdieu’s (1993) theory of fields. Bourdieu (1993) argued that cultural capital exists within
historical fields (societies), where dominant agents (individuals or groups) establish the doxa
(rules) of the field. Privileged agents make decisions based on their habitus (background,
including culture and experiences) to preserve their dominance within the field (Bourdieu, 1993).
To illustrate, before women had the right to vote in the United States, men maintained this right
by law, exclusively. Male politicians in America, or agents of the field, used their habitus to
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 55

create doxa that excluded women from the right to vote. In short, cultural capital is the extent to
which an individual or group can successfully navigate or succeed in a given society, which is
primarily determined by their social class, and their relationship with privileging symbols and
meanings adopted by the dominant community (Bourdieu, 1986; 1993; Perna & Titus, 2005).
One of the easier types of capital to define, physical capital is the ability for a person to
garner or maintain privilege through their physical property (Coleman, 1988). For example,
Coleman (1988) described how property rights for privileged individuals can reinforce physical
capital. Communities with high-achieving public school systems may experience increased
property values, excluding families from low-SES backgrounds the opportunity to live and send
their children to schools within this city—therefore, physical capital for privileged groups is
reinforced.
Intellectual capital is the knowledge of how to do something and what that something is;
in other words, intellectual capital is tacit and explicit knowledge (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011;
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Bolívar and Chrispeels (2011), and Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)
argued, tacit intellectual capital is the knowledge of how to do something; explicit intellectual
capital is the knowledge of how to describe the ability. An individual may possess the explicit
intellectual capital to explain how the GRE exam is administered (number of sections, computer-
based test, time limit, etc.), but may lack the tacit intellectual capital to define the vocabulary
words present within the test. Additionally, Bolívar and Chrispeels (2011) defined intellectual
capital as an informed collective effort towards action—one that is supported through capital
fostered socially.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 56

The Importance of Networks
Woolcock and Narayan (2000) stated that social capital is not derived from what an
individual knows, but rather from the people or communities for whom this individual is
associated. Family, friends, colleagues or other, used for personal benefit in a time of need,
comprise the network of social capital (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Social capital networks are
relationship webs groups or persons use to garner or maintain privilege—a social capital network
is defined by how these relationships are interconnected (Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 1999). That is,
the power of one’s social capital is positively correlated with the size of her or his network
(Bourdieu, 1986). The strength of intellectual, economic, cultural, human, and other forms of
capital is enabled through large social capital networks—the bigger the network, connections,
and ability for action, the more capital a group or individual owns (Bourdieu, 1986; Dika &
Singh, 2002; Lin, 1999; Perna & Titus, 2005).
Size is one feature of the social capital network. Another feature is what Lin (1999)
referred to as the “heterophilous” and “homophilous” principle. While most people will develop
networks within cultures or socioeconomic statuses most similar to their own, other individuals
will develop connections within “weak” or dissimilar social relationships, in an effort to achieve
more capital or upward mobility (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999; Perna & Titus, 2005). For
example, a football player’s network may be comprised primarily of other football players
(homophilous principle). However, the same football player may seek out relationships with
dancers— to increase physical capital and become a more dynamic athlete (heterophilous
principle). Woolcock and Narayan (2000) argued that attainment of prestige, whether personally
or professionally, is typically a result of heterophilous relationships with individuals in positions
of power or privilege.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 57

Parents and Families as Social Capital
Regardless of their role within or the size of their network, parents influence capital for
students. Perna and Titus (2005) stated that, “Social capital is derived from two types of
relationships: the relationship between a student and his/her parents; and the relationships
between a student’s parents and other adults…” (p. 488). Capital for children gained through the
social networks of their parents is only as good as the social capital shared between the child and
parent (Coleman, 1988). Coleman (1988) explained that while human capital may be high for a
parent, the same parent must have a relationship strong enough with their child for human capital
to be impactful. Human, and other, capital is useless without strong parent-child social
relationships (Coleman, 1988).
In a study conducted by Dika and Singh (2002), researchers found a positive relationship
between social capital and educational attainment. Parent involvement is also increasingly
critical for low-income families and families with minimal English proficiency (Bolívar &
Chrispeels, 2011). Students mimic cultural norms projected by their parents, including positive
college expectations—a consequence indicative of social capital via parent involvement
(Coleman, 1988; Perna & Titus, 2005). Furthermore, the rate at which high school students
enroll in two-year and four-year colleges is positively related to parent involvement (Perna &
Titus, 2005; Porchea, et al., 2010). Porchea, et al. (2010) argued that college enrollment after
high school is supported by social capital as parental involvement, and parents generate privilege
through new and established networks. While arguments exist for the advantages of social
capital, the next section highlights social capital’s shortcomings.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 58

Access to Social Capital
Capital, in any form, is not equally accessible. The likelihood that parental involvement,
through social capital, promotes college enrollment differs between groups (Perna & Titus,
2005). Bourdieu (1986) argued that social capital is a tool used by the dominant group to
maintain privilege, and to purposefully exclude non-dominant groups from resources. Perna and
Titus (2005) agreed, stating different racial groups are victims of structural oppression in that
they are denied access to institutional resources. Social class, sex, and ethnicity for
underrepresented groups operate as barriers to social capital (Dika & Singh, 2002). For students,
internalizing the value for college enrollment after high school graduation is partially dependent
on cultural group norms—which may have different levels of value placed on a college
education (Horvat, 2001; Perna & Titus, 2005). Additionally, Perna and Titus (2005) stated that
disadvantaged groups “relative to other groups in terms of their social positions…may also be
disadvantaged in terms of their access to valued resources” (p. 491). In short, social
relationships can also be disadvantaging. There are communities lacking necessary resources to
create social ties or networks that produce capital (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Woolcock &
Narayan, 2000).
Exiting Communities
While reduced social capital leads to negative impacts on resource attainment, leaving
communities with strong social capital is also damaging (Coleman, 1988). Given that social
capital is produced through the networks between individuals, and privilege is increased through
social capital, an individual can terminate their access to resources by leaving a community
(Coleman, 1988; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Coleman (1988) explained that students of
families, who move often, surrender social capital resources each time they leave a community—
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 59

privileges within groups are no longer accessible to parents who move with great frequency.
Finally, Woolcock and Narayan (2000) argued that exiting certain powerful communities may be
impossible because group members will conceal resources to prevent mobility, upward or other.
Summary
There is a gap in existing literature and empirical evidence outlining the influence of
student-parent relationships on low-SES community college students’ decisions to persist or
transfer to four-year institutions of higher education. Academic success, in the form of
certificate, associate’s , and bachelor’s degrees, of low-SES students is imperative for President
Obama’s College Completion Agenda to be considered a success by 2020. Low-income students
comprise a significant proportion of the student population who do not complete degrees due to
economic, cultural, or intellectual capital setbacks, and community colleges serve a
disproportionately high number of these students. Parental involvement is suggested as one
means by which to positively influence academic achievement, but research lacks in how this
relationship influences low-income community college students. Using social capital theory as a
lens by which to understand parental involvement, this study aimed to collect empirical evidence
to determine the extent to which student-parent relationships influence community college
students’ decisions to persist and/or transfer.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 60

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Low-income students transfer from community colleges to four-year universities at lower
rates than their middle and high-income peers. Low-income students also have lower rates of
postsecondary persistence than their traditional counterparts. Though there is some published
work in this area, the impact of student-parent relationships on transfer and persistence rates for
low-income students is poorly understood in current research. This study is guided by the
framework of social capital, and how student-parent relationships are one form of capital that
may or may not influence educational persistence (Bourdieu, 1986; 1993; Coleman, 1988; Lin,
1999). Bourdieu (1986; 1993) argued that increases in capital facilitate increases in opportunity;
however, an individual’s status within society determines their level of access to capital or
opportunities. In the following methods section, I will describe the research methodology used
for this study. Guiding research questions are identified, as well as interview protocol and data
collection methodologies.
Research Questions
To better understand the relationship between persistence and transfer rates for low-
income community college students, I conducted a qualitative study in the United States, at a
community college within the state of California, with an established program to support low-
income students. The guiding research question for this study was: What, if any, impact do
student-parent relationships have on persistence and transfer rates for low-income students
attending community colleges? The emerging questions were: What influences low-income
students attending community colleges to complete two-year degrees or transfer to four-year
institutions? Does the student-parent relationship inhibit or promote transfer for low-income
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 61

students at community colleges? If so, how? Does the parent’s educational level influence
persistence or transfer rates for low-income students at community colleges? If so, how?
Methodology
A qualitative approach to researching the impact of student-parent relationships on
persistence for low-income students at community colleges was used for this study. Qualitative
methods allow researchers to closely study personal perspectives or meanings, surprising
phenomena, or the environments where certain trends occur (Maxwell, 2013). In social capital
theory, the contexts for which certain phenomena occur are of equal, if not greater, importance
than the phenomena itself (Bourdieu, 1986; 1993; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999). This study
explored the student-parent relationship, how that relationship developed capital, and how that
influenced students’ persistence or transfer rates. Qualitative studies allow researchers to extract
potential meaning from data through participant-researcher interactions, and the impact of
student-parent relationships from the student perspective was the focus for this study (Corbin,
2008).
Maxwell (2013) stated that one characteristic of qualitative research is that it interprets
phenomena, and meaning humans assign to experiences, in a natural setting. This qualitative
study used a phenomenological approach to data collection and analysis. Through interviews,
phenomenological studies seek to understand an experience from multiple perspectives, and
extract the fundamental cause for a phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). Phenomenological studies
assess how phenomena are created through individuals’ shared experiences (Merriam, 2009).
The impact of student-parent relationships on low-income student persistence and transfer at
community colleges was the shared experience central to this study.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 62

Population and Sample
In an effort to effectively study the low-income community college student population,
intentionality was essential in regards to the unit of analysis, or population sample. Purposeful
sampling, the method that was employed for this study, is used when the researcher wants to
understand a phenomenon occurring within a specific community (Merriam, 2009). According
to Merriam (2009), researchers establish parameters for selecting participants in order to collect
rich and relevant data for a given study. The first parameter required the study to be conducted
in the United States, at a community college within the state of California. The second
parameter, or defined subpopulation, was low-income students attending community colleges.
The third parameter required that the population studied were students participating in a low-
income support service program at the selected community college. If the desired number of
participants could not have been obtained using the aforementioned parameters, low-income
students accessing the campus transfer center’s services would have also been contacted. Details
regarding site selection will be presented in the next section. This study attempted to achieve a
representative sample, meaning that all ethnicities and genders were eligible to be interviewed.
Purposeful sampling was used to collect data on low-income students attending community
colleges (Merriam, 2009). During the 2009-2010 academic year, the community college where
this study took place successfully transferred over 400 students to four-year public schools
within the state of California (Postsecondary Education Commission, 2015). Given that
approximately 21% of community college populations are living at or below the poverty line, I
hoped to study a statistically significant number of low-income transfer eligible individuals from
the approximately 400 transfer students—10-15 participants were contacted (NCES, 2012). All
participants needed to be transfer eligible, and have had at least one living parent. Purposeful
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 63

sampling helps researchers understand a specific phenomenon because it gathers data exclusive
to the participating group—increasing the likelihood of rich and relevant data (Merriam, 2009).
The researcher made participant selections for both the focus group and interviews, to ensure
maximum representation through purposeful sampling. It is important to note that the chosen
participant population included individuals who were older, on average, than traditional college
students—including all students between the ages of 18 and 34—assuming that younger students
may have communicated with, or have been more reliant upon, their parents.
Site Selection
To maximize access to the sample population, a community college with a dedicated
student support program for low-income students was purposefully chosen for this study.
Additionally, the selected community college needed to be located in a city with a significant
low-income population. Using the Carnegie Foundation’s (2014) definition for higher education
institutions, California College (pseudonym) is a very large, public, two-year institution located
in the south western region of the United States. California College (CC) operates on a semester
system, offers associate’s degrees, and is an undergraduate two-year institution with a student
population of over 35,000 (Carnegie Foundation, 2014). CC is accredited by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges and the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges. CC opened in 1945, is housed in a suburb within Los Angeles County, and is the
largest campus in its district (California Community Colleges, 2015a). Between 2009 and 2013,
an average of 15.2% of the population surrounding CC lived below the poverty level and the
median household income was $56,014 – around $5,000 less than the average for the state of
California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a). CC was chosen for this study not only due to the
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 64

characteristics of the population surrounding the campus, but also because CC has an EOPS
program that supports low-income students, which is described below.
California College offers support services for low-income students through its state-
funded EOPS program. The US Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education
supports the TRIO Program—which provides support services, like EOPS, to low-income
students (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The US Department of Education explains:
The Federal TRIO Programs (TRIO) are Federal outreach and student services programs
designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged
backgrounds. TRIO includes eight programs targeted to serve and assist low-income
individuals, first-generation college students, and individuals with disabilities to progress
through the academic pipeline form middle school to post-baccalaureate programs…The
recipients of the grants, depending on the specific program, are institutions of higher
education, public and private agencies and organizations including community-based
organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth and secondary schools
(U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

According to the CC website (2014), the EOPS program’s purpose is to assist eligible students in
attending and completing college (college website, 2014). Eligibility for the EOPS program
includes qualifying for a BOG waiver, US citizenship or permanent residency, and full-time
enrollment (college website, 2014). The services CC provides made this institution a well-suited
site for this study, and the EOPS program at CC assisted this study by recruiting eligible student
participants.
Instrumentation
In an effort to support validity for this study, three data collection techniques were used
to triangulate the data. The three methods were focus groups, interviews, and document analysis.
Merriam (2009) explained that the use of triangulation is to ensure the reliability of the study and
the credibility of the researcher. Using multiple data collection methods ensured that the
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 65

outcomes were valid. In other words, validity is achieved when results remain consistent
regardless of the research method (Maxwell, 2013).
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) stated that when doing fieldwork, it should first be the goal of
the researcher to make participants feel at ease. Taking the time to prepare and practice focus
group and interview questions is beneficial to the overall success of fieldwork (Maxwell, 2013).
To ensure that participants felt comfortable, and to increase the likelihood that the fieldwork
would be successful, field testing was conducted. Field testing helps researchers anticipate how
participants will respond to questions (Maxwell, 2013). When developing interview and focus
group protocol, not only is it important to conduct field tests, it is also vital to create interview
protocol that facilitates responses from participants that are relevant to the research question and
are easily coded (Fink, 2013; Maxwell, 2013). Purposeful questions were created and tested for
both the focus group and interview data collection processes.
One focus group was used as the initial data collection method for this study. Focus
groups are typically comprised of 7 to 10 participants and the purpose is to foster open dialogue
between individuals regarding particular topics (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Focus
groups were purposefully chosen as one data collection method because participants would
ideally use the experiences of other participants to self-reflect, developing perspectives into their
own student-parent relationships. Focus groups are purposefully chosen to initiate data
collection because they are intended to be casual and non-threatening to participants (Merriam,
2009). Low-income community college students participating in low-income support services
were invited to participate in this study. Conversations between participants in focus groups
encourage new insights or opinions not previously recognized (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Focus
groups are good for collecting data on general topics; however, they can be problematic if certain
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 66

participants dominate conversations – which occurred during this study (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). One of the three participants was highly vocal during the focus group. This command
over the conversation by one participant may have caused the other two participants to reveal
less than what could have been revealed through an individual interview. The focus group
participants were comprised of CC students who identified as low-income and were on the
transfer track. It was also important to build interest in the study to access more participants
through snowball sampling for individual interviews (Merriam, 2009). Initially, there were not a
significant number of participants, and follow-up emails were sent to existing participants,
asking for more participants.
The second data collection method used for this study was one-on-one interviews with
low-income, community college students. Merriam (2009) stated that interviews are used when
observations cannot capture how participants feel or relate to the world around them. Interviews
are the main form of data collection for qualitative research, and the purpose is to understand
how participants think about relevant subject matter (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009).
Interviews are meant to gather rich data and understand participants’ perspectives by allowing
them to talk freely (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In what could not be collected by any other
method, interviews allow researchers to learn about experiences, cultures, social lives, challenges
and feelings associated with these categories (Weiss, 1994). While interviews are essential for
qualitative studies, Merriam (2009) argued that interviews can be problematic when asking
participants about topics that are sensitive or stimulate painful memories (Merriam, 2009). In
this study, 7 interviews were used to collect data on the impact of student-parent relationships on
persistence and transfer rates for low-income community college students. Weiss (1994) stated
that due to the richness of data collected by interviews, a smaller sample size is sufficient.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 67

The final data collection method that was used for this phenomenological study was
document analysis. Both documents and artifacts were used to help determine the impact of
student-parent relationships on persistence and transfer rates for low-income community college
students. Merriam (2009) defined documents as a general term for a variety of visual, physical,
or written data. Artifacts are different from documents in that they are objects, like diaries or
official records, which represent communication (Merriam, 2009). Professionals working at the
California College EOPS office were asked for any documents or artifacts such as reports,
assessments or websites regarding the graduation and retention rates for low-income community
college students. The documents and artifacts were collected, and analyzed for themes of
student-parent involvement as a source or barrier to social capital, to increase validity for this
study. The pamphlets and brochures were collected from the EOPS office on the CC campus.
Data Collection and Processes
Merriam (2009) argued that maintaining rigorous data collection methods are one way
researchers can ensure credibility for their study. In the section that follows, the process used for
data collection will be outlined. It is important to note that anonymity was maintained
throughout the study using pseudonyms for all participants, documents, and locations. Prior to
any data collection, all participants were informed that their identities remained anonymous.
Additionally, all documents, including focus group and interview transcripts, were kept in a
password protected laptop.
Acquiring participants for this study was the initial step for data collection. After
receiving IRB approval at USC, I partnered with CC’s EOPS program, and this department
solicited participants on behalf of the study. Through the CC EOPS contact list, a solicitation
email was sent by the office on my behalf. Glesne (2011) argued that individuals should be
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 68

given enough information about a study to make an informed choice regarding their
participation. The email included a brief description of the study and participants’ eligibility for
the study (Appendix A). Recipients of the solicitation email were offered a $10 Amazon gift
card at the completion of the study. Once the responses were received, I selected participants for
either the focus group or interview – ensuring purposeful sampling. An even balance between
genders, ethnicities, and year in school were sought for a representative sample, but all
participants were required to be on the transfer track or transfer eligible. All eight individuals
who responded to the initial solicitation email from the EOPS office were selected for this study.
Through snowball sampling, I was able to secure two additional participants. It is important to
note that a limited number of responses were received and every student who was interested in
being a participant was selected.
Focus Group
Eligible individuals were contacted via email, using the CC EOPS listserv (Appendix A).
The email explained that participants were selected for either a focus group or interview. Once
focus group participants were selected, a personalized email was sent to identify participants’
availability (Appendix B). Once the time, date, and location were solidified, the participants
were sent a reminder email 24-hours prior to the focus group. The location of the focus group
was secured with assistance from a CC EOPS staff member. The focus group took place in a
private conference room on the CC campus—to limit interruptions and maximize convenience
for participants. Upon arrival, participants were asked to be seated. Subjects were then asked to
review an Information Sheet about this study and encouraged to ask questions (Appendix C).
The information sheet detailed the purpose of the study and asked participants if they agreed to
the focus group being audio recorded. The information sheet also guaranteed subject anonymity.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 69

Light refreshments including water and cookies were available for the participants. Before the
focus group started, I introduced myself as the researcher and gave an overview of the focus
group agenda. I also revealed my background as a low-income student, and informed the
participants that I was open to questions at the end of the session. Bogdan and Biklen (2007)
stated that it is important to reiterate the importance of confidentiality—I also conveyed that the
subjects would remain unidentified. After initial introductions were complete, I began by asking
the group purposeful questions. For the full list of focus group questions, see Appendix D. An
open-ended interview protocol was used for the focus group because it allows researchers to
probe after their participants have answered a question (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Field notes
were taken during the focus group as a supplement to the audio recordings. Audio recordings
and field notes were saved on the password protected laptop used for this study. At the end of
the focus group, participants were thanked and asked if they could be contacted again for
clarification purposes. All follow-up data were coded and pseudonyms were used to ensure
anonymity. As participants exited, they were given a $10 gift certificate and asked, if
comfortable, to identify any individuals that were appropriate to also participate in the study’s
interviews. Merriam (2009) described this method of attaining additional participants as
snowball, chain, or network sampling.
Interview
Eligible subjects for interviews were contacted via email though the CC EOPS listserv of
students (Appendix A). The email explained that the student would be chosen for either a focus
group or interview. Once responses were received, participants were contacted via email and
asked to indicate their availability for a one-on-one interview (Appendix E). After the date, time,
and location were confirmed, participants were sent a reminder email 24-hours before the date of
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 70

their interview. Similar to focus groups, the interview locations were secured with assistance
from a CC EOPS staff member. The interviews took place in a private conference room on the
CC campus—to maximize privacy and limit interruptions. When the participants arrived, they
were instructed to be seated and asked unscripted questions like, “how are you today?” Or,
“How’s it going?” These questions were followed by a brief introduction from the interviewer.
I also revealed my background as a low-income student, and informed the participants that I was
open to questions at the end of the session. According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), successful
interviews start with casual conversation to promote a high level of comfort between the
researcher and the interviewee. Led by the researcher, subjects were walked through the
Information Sheet and encouraged to ask questions (Appendix C). The subjects were asked if
they were comfortable with the use of an audio recorder. All audio was stored on the password
protected laptop used for this study. If participants were not comfortable with recording the
interview, the audio recorder was not used. Interviewees were also informed that notes would be
taken during the interview. Similar to the focus group, the interview information sheet stated
that participants would remain anonymous. Prior to asking questions, I explained the interview
process to the participant and emphasized that confidentiality would be maintained. Next, I
asked the participant questions from the pre-established template (Appendix F), and an open-
ended interview protocol was used (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). At the end of the interview, the
participant was thanked and asked if they could be contacted again for clarification purposes,
once the transcriptions were complete. All follow-up data was coded and pseudonyms were used
to ensure anonymity. As the participant exited, they were given a $10 gift certificate and asked,
if comfortable, to identify any individuals they felt could also participate in the study.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 71

Document analysis
The final data collection process used for this study was document analysis. The EOPS
website was reviewed to understand the eligibility requirements of the program for the students.
The requirements for students were as follows: the student must be a California resident, the
student must be enrolled full-time (12 units), the student must qualify for the Board of Governors
waiver, and the EOPS office must determine that the student was educationally eligible (EOPS,
2015). Along with the eligibility information listed on the EOPS website, I also requested copies
of emails or other forms of correspondence between students and their parents, if available. In
addition to correspondence, documents like reports, assessments or websites from the CC EOPS
office were collected and stored on the password protected laptop used for this study.
Data Analysis
Once data collection was complete, it was necessary to concentrate on analyzing the data.
Merriam (2009) stated that data analysis starts early with proper management of data through
organization. While the majority of data analysis was conducted after the data collection was
complete, Merriam (2009) argued that analysis should be done simultaneously with data
collection. After each data collection session (i.e. focus group or interview) the researcher
analyzed the collected information (Merriam, 2009). Using techniques supported by Corbin
(2008), general categories or codes were created after the focus group, interviews, and document
analysis to organize the data and identify emerging themes. The codes were used to analyze all
sources of data including field notes, transcriptions, thick descriptions, and documents garnered
from the CC EOPS office or the participants. It was important for analysis to simultaneously
categorize and make connections between the data (Maxwell, 2013). After the codes were
solidified, transcripts from the focus group and interviews were read and scrutinized for potential
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 72

patterns or themes. Merriam (2009) contended that one of the goals of data analysis is to make
interpretations that help answer the research question through data consolidation. The data were
categorized, compared and analyzed for trends, themes or recurring patterns—all processes
necessary to uncover findings relevant to the study.
Validity
The ethics of a researcher, including their methods for data collection and analysis, is
significant to the validity of a study. Merriam (2009) argued that there are eight essential aspects
to ensure reliability and validity: triangulation, member checks, adequate engagement in data
collection, researcher’s position or reflexivity, peer review, audit trail, rich or thick description,
and maximum variation. Triangulation was achieved by using three data collection methods:
focus groups, interviews, and document analysis. At the conclusion of both the focus group and
the interviews, participants were asked if they could be contacted for clarification purposes—
supporting the use of member checks. In reference to adequate engagement in the data
collection process, the researcher led the focus group, interviews, and singularly conducted
document analysis for any materials received during the study. While an outside source was
hired to transcribe the audio recordings, coding of the transcriptions was done by the researcher.
Additionally, the researcher further engaged with the data by scrutinizing any apparent
discrepancies. The researcher’s position will be provided in the next section. For peer review,
this study was reviewed by a peer group of seven doctoral students at the University of Southern
California. The seven individuals were students in the Educational Doctorate program at USC,
and whose research was connected to this study through the American Graduation Initiative.
While the members of this research group focused on acute topics different from the impact of
student-parent relationships on persistence and transfer rates for low-income community college
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 73

students, group members were connected through the shared topic of the College Completion
Agenda. In addition, this study was reviewed and approved by a 3-member doctoral defense
committee. This study itself, especially the methods section, served as an audit trail—providing
elaborate details that documented each step of the process, in an effort to increase reliability.
Thick description was used not only to outline the methods for this study, rich description was
also used for field notes and to supplement the audio transcriptions. Finally, while this study
centered exclusively on low-income students at CC, maximum variation was achieved by not
placing limitations on the gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of the participants. The
decision to have an inclusive subject population was purposeful, and necessary to achieve
maximum variation.
Merriam’s (2009) eight characteristics of validity help researchers ensure that their
studies are legitimate. While validity is vital, it is also subject to threats. Maxwell (2013)
explained that threats to validity can only be expunged through evidence. This study took into
account the various alternate explanations for proposed conclusions, but used triangulated
evidence to support the ultimate findings.
The Role of the Researcher
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggested that one of the many roles of a researcher is to
ensure trustworthiness. Preparation, and using ethical research methods, is a technique that
promotes trustworthiness (Glesne, 2011). In training for the educational doctoral program, and
arguably this study, I completed a master’s-level course in ethnography. This course required
me to conduct qualitative research through interviews, focus groups, and document analysis.
The ethnography course also required students to code and transcribe interview audio
recordings—increasing my preparation for this study. In addition to the ethnography course, the
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 74

educational doctoral program (Ed.D.) provided me with the requisite knowledge necessary to
complete a qualitative dissertation. Courses such as Inquiry I and Inquiry II exposed me the
commonly accepted research strategies to effectively conduct and complete a qualitative research
study. Prior to initiating research, the guiding research questions were also peer edited and
approved by my dissertation advisor to ensure that the focus group, interview, and document
analysis protocol were appropriate for this study.
To assist with preparation, and to guarantee that the researcher maintains an ethical role
within the study, it is important to state potential researcher bias. Maxwell (2013) suggested that
researcher bias can occur when data selection matches existing assumptions held by the
researcher. I was raised in a low-income family by a single-parent, and my mother discouraged
me from pursuing a master’s degree in higher education. My mother suggested that it would be
more beneficial for me to seek out employment, avoiding additional student loan debt. Given
that my parent discouraged me from pursuing an advanced degree, my bias was in assuming that
all low-income parents would discourage their children from continuing their education.
In addition to researcher bias, reactivity is another potential threat to validity (Maxwell,
2013). Reactivity is the researcher’s influence on his or her participants. Maxwell (2013)
argued that it is impossible to eliminate reactivity completely, so it is important to recognize it
and use it appropriately. For this study, it could be argued that reactivity was used when asking
participants probing questions about topics that could have potentially answered the research
questions. I recognized that reactivity was a possibility, so probing questions were only used in
situations where it was appropriate.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 75

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of student-parent relationships on
college completion for low-income students at community colleges. This study also focused on
the role of student-parent relationships, as a form of social capital, in a student’s decision to
persist. In the chapter that follows, data from interviews, document analysis, and a focus group
will be presented to answer this study’s main and guiding research questions:
What impact, if any, do student-parent relationships have on persistence and transfer rates
for low-income students attending community colleges?
o What influences low-income students attending community colleges to complete
two-year degrees or transfer to four-year institutions?
o Does the student parent relationship inhibit or promote transfer for low-income
students at community colleges? If so, how?
o Does the parent’s educational level influence persistence or transfer rates for low-
income students at community colleges? If so, how?
Participant Profile
A participant profile has first been provided to increase transparency in reference to
participant characteristics. A total of ten students at CC participated in this study. Eight of the
participants were female and two were male. Given the student profile at CC, with 77% Latino,
14% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 57% female students, the participants selected for this study
were representative of the institution’s student profile. Six of the ten participants planned to
transfer to a four-year college or university after CC, and four planned to complete their
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 76

postsecondary education at the community college level. For more details, including participant
age ranges, and the educational background of the participants’ parents, refer to Figure 4.
Figure 4
Assessing Persistence: Participant Profile

Influences for Completion or Transfer
The first guiding question for this study was, “What influences low-income students
attending community colleges to complete two-year degrees or transfer to four-year
institutions?” Inherently, this guiding question asked for factors that promote college
completion. While factors that support completion will be discussed, it is first valuable to
illustrate the potential barriers to completion for low-income students.
Socioeconomic Concerns
For low-income students attending community colleges, the decision to complete a two
or four-year degree was influenced not only by personal and environmental conditions, but also
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 77

by socioeconomic factors. When asked about their low-income status, many of the participants
expressed concern over the impact a low-income status had on their everyday lives. Kelly stated,
Yeah. No money, no shopping. It’s like you have to limit yourself and you can’t always
get what you want…It affects your whole life, all the way around. I mean, educational
wise, materialistic wise. Just in every way, shape and form.
In addition to expressing general concerns over their socioeconomic status, not being able
to pay for school was a specific concern for the participants. Of the 10 individuals who
participated in this study, concern over finances was the only identified barrier to completing a
two-year degree or transferring to a four-year institution. Stacey stated that she would only
discontinue her education for financial reasons:
I think just financially. I think I would finish, but it would just take me a longer time
because of certain years that they have Financial Aid for… Yeah so it kind of took me a
while here to transfer, especially the math classes… Eventually, I did use up most of my
Financial Aid… I didn’t really know that much but now I do. I’m more informed so I
just hope that it will last me as long as I can attend [a state school], at least for my
Bachelor’s. Then, once I do decide to go in for my Master’s, hopefully, they’ll still cover
me, at least for a couple.
This study did not examine issues of remediation for low-income students, yet through her
statements, Stacey identified remediation courses as another barrier to completion. While
Stacey’s statements revealed an additional obstacle for low-income students – the eventual
depletion of financial aid – Stacey expressed that her experience was beneficial because it taught
her how to navigate future educational systems.
Along with Stacey, Lisa had similar concerns regarding the depletion of her financial aid.
Lisa stated, “I’m working on my AA, my associate’s degree, and this is my last year, and I don’t
know if I want to transfer, if my financial aid…I am worried that I will use it up…Because, I’ve
been in school too long.” Lisa was also concerned that she would not be able to continue her
education for fear of exhausting her financial aid. Participant Violet stated, “It’s always
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 78

financial” when asked for reasons why she would not continue with her postsecondary education.
Ginger agreed with Violet’s reasons for not completing, stating,
Money would probably be the issue, if anything. Also, family problems, like if my
parents needed for me to help with the baby, with my little brother, or if I needed to work
if anything happened with my parents, that would probably be it.
Ginger stated that assisting her family, financially, was also a reason she may not continue with
her education. While perceived financial obstacles to completion existed for these low-income
students, there were also influential factors that promoted persistence and completion.
Programs and Services that Promote Completion or Transfer
Socioeconomic barriers to completion and transfer were a significant concern for the
participants in this study. However, the participants were also asked to explain what they
believed to be the factors contributing to their persistence. As stated in a previous chapter,
participants for this study were contacted via the Extended Opportunity Program and Services
(EOPS) office at California College. The EOPS office provided all eligible students with
programs and resources to support completion or transfer.
Document analysis of the CC EOPS website and social media showed that interested
students could find student support information online and in the EOPS office itself. On the
main page for the EOPS website for CC, students could find information on eligibility, a video
on frequently asked questions, and a list of services provided by the office. Programs to support
students included: registration and enrollment assistance, educational planning and goal
advisement, program review and follow-up, university transfer assistance, book grants and bus
passes, assistance in completion of financial aid applications, development workshops, cultural
activities, and single parent programs.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 79

The EOPS office at CC also provided students with information on their student support
services through social media. EOPS at CC had its own Twitter account for students to follow,
and a personalized Facebook page. In the “About” section of the Facebook page, visitors of the
site were greeted with the tagline, “EOPS is more than just book grants… come in and find out!”
The tagline was followed by a link to the EOPS CC website. Through social media, the EOPS
office connected with current and prospective students who were or could be eligible for their
services.
Along with websites and social media, the EOPS department at CC also provided
students, who arrived in person, with flyers regarding student resources. Flyers included
information for program eligibility and how to apply, online resources, tutoring, important EOPS
dates, the Transfer Center, and career workshops. There was also a handout with information
concerning a non-crisis peer support hotline. Ranging from cultural events to academic
advisement, from paper flyers to Twitter, the EOPS office at CC provided several avenues for
which low-income students could receive college completion and transfer support.
When asked about their experience at CC, participants referenced the programs and
services offered by the EOPS office. Kelly stated, “You know I felt comfortable, so that’s why I
just kept coming here…Not just that, but over here I’ve been having a lot more opportunities
than any other campus as far as scholarships and job opportunities and a lot of programs that
they offer here. They help out a lot actually…” Lisa agreed, stating,
I was at Bayside Community College for three years and I just moved to CC last August.
I’m new here, and I mainly think that it was difficult for me because I didn’t know
everything about this college. But it’s very nice, and they treat me nice, and they help me
a lot with information and everything… One day my car didn’t start, and I called for help,
and somebody came right away. It’s very nice.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 80

Kelly and Lisa both started college at different institutions, but persisted at CC due, in part, to the
programs and services offered by, and through, the EOPS department. In addition to EOPS, Lisa
and Jessica referred to the EOPS Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education (CARE) office
– a department dedicated to providing assistance to single parents with children under the age of
14. Lisa recalled how the CARE office would provide students with refreshments during the
day, and how that service was a positive influence on her persistence and feeling a part of the
community at CC. Not only were the participants for this study given information and resources
specific to EOPS, they were also referred to student services offices outside of EOPS – specific
to their personal needs.
Networks and Role Models
Nine of the ten participants noted that their personal networks, comprised of individuals
who valued higher education, made a positive impact on their decision to complete or transfer.
Networks included cultural communities, friends, colleagues, family members, and individuals
who served as personal role models. Social Capital Theory asserts that privilege or opportunities
are cultivated through a person’s network – the bigger the network, the greater the advantages
(Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Coleman, 1988; Dika & Singh, 2002; Lin, 1999; Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). For this study, participants discussed how their
networks and relationships impacted their educational outcomes or capital. While a participant’s
network included their parents, the impact of student-parent relationships on completion and
transfer for low-income community college students will be discussed in a forthcoming section.
For two of the participants, having a sense of cultural belonging within the campus
community was an important aspect of persistence. Lisa elaborated, “[CC] is very nice and
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 81

[EOPS] helps you. I feel like, a lot of times before when I was at Bayside Community College, I
didn’t see other Asian students…But at [CC], everywhere I always see Asian [students], and I
feel more comfortable.” Kelly had similar sentiments, stating,
I’ve actually gone to other [community colleges]… and I just like the surroundings and
the atmosphere on this campus. Cultural-wise, from my perspective, it’s a lot more
Hispanics here. Which… Not just that but over here I’ve been having a lot more
opportunities than any other campus as far as scholarships and job opportunities and a lot
of programs that they offer here. They help out a lot actually.
In addition to one’s cultural community, extended family members were also a positive
influence on completion. When asked about her community outside of CC and the influence it
had on higher education, Violet described,
My father in law, he’s an engineer. He went to college in Cuba but now he just works.
He’s a contractor… [My in-laws] do have college educations and they’re always telling
me, “You are so great. You came here years ago. You didn’t speak English, and now
look you. You’re going to graduate.” So they’re always telling me good things.
Casey recalled how her siblings gave her words of encouragement when she was feeling
discouraged about school. Casey stated, “Yeah, they’re the ones like, ‘No, you’re almost half-
way done and why are you going to quit?’ Then I’ll be like, ‘Okay, fine.’ I’ll be fine.” For
Casey, one of her sisters was also her role model for higher education. Casey explained, “Yeah,
when I was younger, I used to see her going to CC with her books and studying. She was a role
model, you could say that.” Tori feels supported by her own children, stating, “Well, now that I
talk more [about school], a lot too, they’re really supportive of it.”
Participants’ networks were also expanded through friends of their family members. In
regards to her mother’s network, Stacey explained,
[My mom] has a couple of friends as well… She met them when I was in elementary
school and most of them actually have daughters and sons my age… I would say my
mom’s friends also have good kids on a good path… They don’t help me like,
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 82

financially, but like words of encouragement, they do. When I see them, they’re like,
“Oh that’s good that you’re at CC,” or, “that’s good that you transferred. Just keep up the
good work.” They’ll tell me little words of encouragement, so that makes me feel better
like, “Oh, I’m actually doing a good job.”
According to the interview and focus group data, personal relationships outside of the
family unit, and inclusive of role models, had a strong influence on higher education completion
and transfer outcomes. Participant Kelly attributed her persistence to the relationships she has
with CC professors. Kelly explained,
That’s another reason why I actually stayed [at CC]. A lot of professors here are
dedicated… They go above and beyond what their expectations are to be. They help you
out with personal issues and not just school related matters. They help you out with jobs.
I’ve had wonderful professors here, which I have not had at any other campus.
In addition to her professors at CC, Kelly described a friend from her community for whom she
admired in reference to higher education. Kelly said,
Actually, one of my friends who I grew up with… She has her Master's in social work
and she makes really good money. After I lost my job, she told me, “Go to school.”
Now she's travelling and makes good money and works when she wants to and works
when she doesn't want to… Now I have other friends that have their degrees, but of the
ones that I grew up with, she is my inspiration. She is what motivates me to get there.
For Ginger, her church community had a significant positive influence on her choice to
pursue a 4-year degree after CC. Ginger elaborated,
I have one church friend, she actually graduated from Cactus State… My pastor, he’s
attending State College right now. He’s very encouraging too. He was just like, “If you
need any money for applying to colleges…I’ll help you out.” So he’s like, “I’ll help you
out with anything you need.” He’s like, “If you need corrections on you essays, just
come to me.” He helps me out too because he’s doing social work, so he kind of
encouraged me.
A leader within Ginger’s community served as her educational role model. In her interview,
Tori identified the Program Director as a role model, stating that the director of her program
makes her “feel good about going to school. If you feel bad or anything, she’s very upbeat and
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 83

helps us, the students, a lot.” For Violet, her boss was a role model because “She is a
professional, she’s the boss and I would like to be like her one day.” Violet was inspired to do
well in college, to eventually have the same career success as her supervisor at CC.
Casey’s best friend, and the other mothers in her community, provided her with the
support she needed to complete two degrees at CC. When asked to elaborate, Casey stated,
My BFF, yeah, she does [provide me with support]. She’s here with me in CC, [we are]
graduating together hopefully this June… And the other [mothers]… Some already
graduated either from a college or university. They’re like my sisters when I feel like
giving up… [My best friend] is like, “No, you can’t. We’re almost done. We have to do
it.” Whenever [my best friend] feels like that, I’ll be like, “No, we’re almost done too, so
just hang in there. I’ll help you, you help me.”
Jessica also identified a personal friend that she looked to for support. Jessica explained,
I have a friend that I met here. It’s a guy. He doesn’t have any papers at all. He’s an
immigrant and he goes to [a state school] now. He’s a math major. He’s already going to
get his bachelor’s. He’s always after me saying, “Jessica do this, go to school.”
Sometimes he helps me out with my kids. I call him when I need a ride. Whenever I
need help like for school or something, he’s always there to push me. He encourages me.
Albert talked about the benefits of having a large group of friends, and how his network
inspires him to pursue educational and other opportunities. Albert stated,
My network is so large at this point… [I benefit from my network for] just basic things
like being able to talk with someone from [the local technical school], “Hey, how'd your
finals go?” Things like that. Sometimes you don't just want to hear from CC, because
we're around all these people all the time. You get different perspectives of what it's like
to go to school [further inland] or what it's like to go to school in the [near the coast]… I
listen to all these things… I love to get these stories. It's motivating to see people
succeed…
For Zack, the benefits of pursuing a college education were also felt when he associated with a
network of individuals who had college experience. Zack said,
I associate with some other people that have actually had college experience. [They are]
graduated people from the Air Force, and so forth. They talk about [college]. I can
actually talk about [college] now too, because it's like, “Okay, cool.” We could actually
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 84

be on the same page and talk about something that's familiar to me. You know what I
mean?
The Incentive of Upward Mobility
In addition to the professional, personal, religious, and cultural networks that offered
support for completion and transfer, nine of the ten participants in this study made statements
that the prospect of upward mobility was a motivation to persist. Ginger believed that having a
college education provided more professional opportunities. Ginger explained,
I do want to get a better job. I understand that now, too, it's changing. You need to have
a high school diploma, and you need to have more than an AA for some jobs. So I want
to get a better job. I understand that [my parents] try their best to support me, but I want
to also support my family without having to worry about anything.
Ginger wanted to achieve financial security, and believed higher education was the way to
actualize her goal. Similar to Ginger, participant Zack recalled that having a college education
was important for him to meet his career aspirations of leaving his job in the retail sector. Zack
said,
I actually enrolled [in college] right after high school, I just enrolled for one semester,
and then I quit school and I started going back to work. Basically that's what I did for
about 20 years. Then I got my own family, so now I said, “I've got to go back and
actually have a career to take care of them.”
Zack wanted to pursue a more lucrative career so that his children did not have the same
experiences as he did. Zack continued,
When I was two-years-old, [my parents] were only living off tortillas and stuff, beans
every day and so forth. I know what the struggle was. I don't blame them for anything
that happened. I know sometimes we have to take steps that are necessary for things, but
now I feel it’s my responsibility to show the path to my kids and say, “It's not just high
school. It's college. It's not even CC anymore. It's a university. That's where I want
you.” That's the expectations I have for them, so they can do that for their kids as well.
For Zack, pursuing a degree in higher education will prepare him for the career he wants. While
Zack understood why his parents struggled financially, he wanted to achieve the upward mobility
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 85

that translates into educational success for his children. Similar to Zack, Stacey talked about the
influence her mother had on how she felt about her own future. Stacey stated,
My mother, she's a single parent and I think she really encouraged me to pursue
education because seeing her struggling and how she was [raising children] and being
alone. It kind of made me feel like, “Okay I have to do this for myself and I have to
improve everyone else's life around me…” I feel like, going to school was the best way.
Education is the only way to go because if you want a good job, you can't get it other
way.
For both Stacey and Zack, increasing their educational capital related to upward mobility.
Stacey expressed how her parents would urge her to do “better than they did,” and she
felt that higher education was the catalyst by which to achieve her parents’ goals. Participant
Kelly agreed, and asserted that obtaining a postsecondary degree was requisite to increasing
one’s socioeconomic status. Kelly stated, “My perspective is pretty much that's why I'm here [at
CC] because I don't want to be in the low income category forever.” Kelly elaborated,
I had my first daughter when I was 15. I just have been working ever since then, and am
finding myself always getting in dead end jobs not being able to move up in the ranks. I
had lost my employment a few years ago. That's what made me come back to school… I
said, “I'm not going to be like this for the rest of my life.”
After Kelly gave birth to her daughter, her parents told her that she was responsible for the
wellbeing of her future family. In recognizing her arguably significant task, Kelly decided that
completing a college education was not only important for her personal upward mobility, it
would also benefit her children.
For these participants, the desire to complete a postsecondary degree was twofold: to
change their socioeconomic status for the better, and also to establish a college-going culture
within their current and future families. When asked about their main motivations for
completing a college degree, eight of the ten participants identified their current or future
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 86

children as inspiration. Jessica stated, “… I work for my kids. Everything I do is for my kids.”
Albert echoed Brenda’s statement, mentioning how his daughter was the catalyst for his effort
towards upward mobility, “It’s completely, 100% her. I was a big ‘knuckle-head’ before. A lot
of my friends and family can attest to that.” Tori detailed her plan for establishing a college-
going culture in her house, stating,
Everything I was doing not only made me feel better, but I looked at my kids when I was
doing it… I want to make sure that my kids see that school is not just an option… I want
them to have way more than I did in life. I want them to have so many more options than
I did. Like, okay, I didn't go to school, so I can't do this or I can't do this. I don't want
them to just work. I don't want them to have a job. I want them to have a future. I want
them to have a career. I want them to love what they do.
Casey also referred to her children when asked about her motivation to complete a postsecondary
degree. Casey said, “It's my kids that have me here… to show them the importance of
education, to show them that education is everything. It could take them all over the world. Yes,
that's why I'm here, to be a role model to them… So they could see how important education is.”
Lisa also felt that it was important to lead by example. Lisa asserted,
When I go school, and my daughter sees that, I motivate her to work harder. I said [to
my daughter], “You see, even mommy still has to go to school. So you need to do good
in school and get a better job later… See, if you want to have luxury stuff, you better do
good at school and have a better job. Then you can get whatever you want later.”
For Zack, the incentive to complete his degree was to establish more positive educational
and professional opportunities for his children. Zack explained,
I think I have all the motivation I need from earlier. It's like I said. I think the best
motivation is my kids right now. I want to give them a better future. I want to give them
that foundation where they could actually say, “Okay, my dad's doing it. I could do it
now…” That's one of the things that I always talk to my kids about. I go, “I don't want
you to be like me. I want you to be better than me. Always be better than me, no matter
what you do.”
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 87

Stacey’s desire for upward mobility achieved through college was due in part to her
childhood experiences. Stacey recalled,
My dad wasn't around that much, but when he was, he was just drinking all the time or
going out with friends. I also saw that other view and it made me think like, “Oh I don't
want to throw my life away.” I want to do something beneficial for myself and for my
family. When my mom separated from him, it was really bad because she didn't have a
job, she's never worked before, and my dad would actually treat her poorly. He would
even tell her, "Oh, you're no good without me; you'll die…” Seeing both of my father's
careless side and my mom's caring side made me feel like I have to go to school, and
eventually if I have a family of my own, I want them to do better than myself.
Stacey’s childhood experiences, as well as witnessing the adversarial conditions of her parents’
relationship, influenced her decision to pursue a college education. Stacey wanted what she
perceived as a better life for herself and the family she eventually planned to have.
The Student-Parent Relationship
This study also aimed to understand how the student-parent relationship impacted
persistence and completion. The second guiding question for this study was “Does the student-
parent relationship inhibit or promote transfer for low-income students at community colleges?
If so, how?” In the following section, themes that emerged from the interviews described both
the supportive relationships that promoted transfer, and the absent relationships that inhibited
transfer for the individuals who participated in this study.
Student-Parent Relationships that Promote Transfer
Of the ten CC students interviewed for this study, five participants expressed both
intangible and tangible factors for positive student-parent relationships, in reference to support
for higher education. Four of the five students who expressed positive student-parent
educational relationships planned to transfer to a 4-year college or university. Each of the four
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 88

students expressed comparable examples of parental involvement – supporting education and
ultimately college completion.
Intangible Parental Involvement and Support. This study defines intangible parental
involvement as verbal interactions occurring, or the perceived educational culture existing,
between students and their parents. Violet, who transferred from CC to a local university,
explained what the culture of education was like in her home,
Everything related to education was a priority in my house, everything. If [my parents]
need to go to a high school meeting because we got involved in sports, or theater, they
were always there… My dad and my mother they always wanted my sister and me to
study, to become a professional… He always says, “You have to do what you like. If I
want you to be a doctor, but you don’t like medicine, you’re not very happy. You have to
do whatever you want to do.”
Violet attributed a significant portion of her educational success to the fact that her parents
stressed the importance of earning a degree – regardless of profession. Even in adulthood, Violet
said that her father was “…always there and asking [her] about how it is going in school even
though [she doesn’t] live with him but [they’re] always talking.” Similar to Violet, Stacey stated
that her mother’s support came in the form actions and words of encouragement. Stacey recalled
that her mother “would always be there, like in parent conferences, taking us to school… She
would let us go to every after school program that was available, and sometimes go with us to
trips that the school would have, she would volunteer. She was very involved and I think that
motivated me also to participate more in classes.” Stacey believed that her mother’s
involvement was the catalyst for her educational success. Stacey continued,
Well, [my mother has] always been there since I can remember. In elementary school,
when I would get diplomas for good behaviors, good sportsmanship, English proficiency
advancement, everything, she's always been there… She gives me a lot of words of
encouragement like, “You can do this. I know you can get through it. You've gone
through worse stuff.” She's like, “If you can get through this, you can get to the next
point with the B's.” She's just very supportive that way.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 89

Much like Violet’s father, Stacey’s mom continued supporting Stacey through college using
words of encouragement. Stacey said her and her mother “Talk all the time during the day. Like,
she'll call me and ask me how my day's going, if I need something, where I'm at, who I'm with…
We text all throughout the day as well. She sends me little good luck messages before my tests
or my finals.”
When asked what contributes to her educational persistence, Ginger recalled how her
parents would hold her accountable for her education. Ginger explained, “My parents would
never let me fail a class, and they would never let me miss school. I had to be on my death bed
before I'd miss school. They would always be like, ‘You don't want to end up like me,’
basically.” Education was an important aspect of Ginger’s adolescence, and she attributed her
desire to graduate from a 4-year institution to her parents’ persistence in stressing the importance
of education in her youth.
Similar to the perception of unconditional support, but different from the method used by
Ginger’s parents, Albert contended that his mother’s lack of educational pressure was the reason
he persisted in higher education – ultimately making the decision to pursue a four-year degree.
Albert elaborated, “[My mom is] a very big person on, ‘you live your life – I'm not going to live
it.’ My mom’s very big on, I'm here until you need me and if you don't, then bye. The same
thing with my little brother, she's trying to guide him but he's going to ultimately choose his
educational path.” Albert insisted that his mother’s relaxed, yet supportive, attitude towards
education helped him actualize his scholastic dreams. Albert felt that he would not have decided
to pursue a four-year degree had his mother placed pressure on him. Albert also believes that his
mother’s unconditional support is the reason he has been doing well.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 90

Tangible Parental Involvement and Support. As well as intangible parental
involvement and support for education, four of the six students who had four-year degree
aspirations also identified tangible parental involvement and support. For Violet, parental
involvement and support for education was also monetary. Violet explained,
Yeah I remember once in Peru I went to a private university but I’m a low income
student. My dad had to work more than sixteen hours per day. He had to drive a taxi.
Then I remember him telling me about how important was for him that I will finish my
career because he was working so hard… It makes him happy even if he has to work
twenty four hours a day, he will do it because he’s happy for me.
Parallel to Violet, Ginger’s parents insisted that her educational goals were important, and that
no expense was too great. Ginger recalled,
They pushed me towards college, so when I told them, “I don't need to go to a four-year
college, or a State School, because it is expensive,” My dad was like, “No. We can do it.
I'll send you money, or I'll work harder…” They're very supportive with me going to
college and paying everything that I need to do. Before I started working at the CC
EOPS office, they would pay for my books and everything… They drive me to school.
For Ginger, her parents’ paying for tuition and books, and providing transportation contributed
positively to her academic achievement and future educational goals.
While Albert’s mother refrained from scholastic pressure or expectations, Albert asserted
that the further along he was with his studies, the more his mother was willing to assist
financially. Albert illustrated,
The more I go to school the more she's willing to say, “Hey, what do you need, what do
you need at this point?” If I need a book, usually we get together before the semester
begins and I'll say, “Can you anticipate being able to give me some money to pay for the
books or my bus pass that first month?” She's completely there financially. Never
pressing, “Hey, you have to do this or do that.” She left you alone if you wanted to be
left alone… But when you're in school, she seems like she's just 100% there for you.
Albert also understood the significance of his mother’s financial support, recognizing the
sacrifices she made as the matriarch of a low-income family. Albert stated,
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 91

How many kids can say, “My mom paid my bus pass this month?” It's small things like
that. My mom lives paycheck to paycheck, she tells us, “I don't have enough to help you
a whole month, but I can do this one week.” That's finding 12 dollars… When my mom
tells me, “I've got this much money and you're going to take my last penny,” that's
motivating. That's motivating for me not to let her down, not to let my daughter down…
[My mom] sees my sister go from literally living in her mom’s house, 30 years old, to
making 70,000 a year. Being able to afford all these things, that [is what my mom]
always wanted. To her, that means all those tuition payments, all those book payments –
that makes it worth it for her in the end.
Student-Parent Relationships that Inhibit Transfer
Of the four participants who planned to complete their higher education at the community
college level, none made statements suggesting, specifically, that their student-parent
relationships prevented a decision to transfer to a four-year institution. However, three of those
four participants, along with two who planned to complete a four year degree, asserted that
education was not a significant priority in their home. Zack said that the expectations for
education in his household ended with high school completion. Zack noted,
My expectations were just to finish high school. It was finish high school, go to work,
and then help with the bills… College was not a focus. Even though I was always good
at school, I never [pursued higher education] because we needed more financial
assistance at my house. I just stopped coming to [community college]… [My parents
were] always saying, “Oh, we need money for this. We don't have money for that. We
never have money…” I think they knew about [college], but it was not a priority.
In addition to a lack of support for education, the pressure to contribute to his family financially
also prevented Zack from completing a postsecondary degree immediately after high school.
When asked how his parents currently felt about his educational aspirations, Zack added,
I get mixed emotions from my mother. My dad doesn't say much. My mother, when I
first started going back to school, [she was] like, “You're going to quit.” There's not
really a feeling like I'm doing something good. Like I said, I'm not really doing it for
them. I'm doing it more for myself and my kids. Even though I still care for [my
parents], I always wanted to make them proud, but it's still that thing where they're like,
“Ah ha, we don't know if he's actually going to finish.”
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 92

Tori said that her experience was similar to Zack’s. Tori stated that she “didn't really
have that person saying, ‘you have to go to school.’” Tori said, “Well growing up college was
never talked about… I didn’t grow up with education being important at all. It wasn’t even an
option. It was just that we didn’t have anybody to always be taking us to school or stuff like
that.” For Kelly, she described frankly that her parents’ were, “Not supportive… As far as
getting any emotional support, financial support or any type of support from them that has to do
with school, I never really get that from them.” Lisa, whose parents live outside of the United
States, felt isolated in reference to education, stating that her parents “couldn’t help [her with]
anything, so [she had] to do everything [herself].”
When asked how her parents’ supported her education, Jessica explained that “Some
parents just don’t care. ‘I’m not going to go to school today.’ ‘Oh, that’s fine. Okay, stay in
bed.’ That’s the way my mom was.” Jessica suggested that she may have been further along in
postsecondary degree attainment had her mother created a culture of education during secondary
school.
Participant Perspectives on Parental Involvement
Improving Parental Involvement. During the focus group and interviews, participants
were also asked to describe what they believed to be ideal parental involvement with education.
Five participants, three of whom planned to finish their education at the community college
level, made statements suggesting an overall desire to improve parental involvement beyond
what they received from their own parents. Zack stated,
I think [parental involvement] is very important. I think it is because we always talk
about other people being role models and so forth. Having our kids look at other people
as role models when we actually are the ones that are supposed to be the role model for
our kids. I think parents should get involved more, as far as trying to get their kids the
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 93

proper information, and not just say, “Okay, go to school and try to find it on your
own…” I wish I had the family where they would say, “You know what. You've got to
go to school no matter what. We'll struggle, but as long as you get your school going…”
I think I would have been a lot better off than where I am right now.
Tori, as well as Zack, used a different approach to education with her children because of what
she experienced in her youth. Tori described the actions parents should take,
Ask them questions. Tell them, “Okay did you go do this? Do you have enough money
for your books? How does that work? Did you look up any information?” I think
[parental involvement] is very important. Like I said, my daughter is attending CC now.
Parent involvement is very important because you got to understand they're just kids
graduating from high school. They just say, “Okay. I'm going to go to college.” That's it.
It doesn't work that easily, honey. It doesn't. You have to make sure you know
everything. [Your kids can’t] just go, “Okay I'm going to go enroll. But nobody's called
me.” You have to tell your kids that no one will call them. I've been there a lot for my
daughter and I see the students who don't have their parents to walk them through it. I'm
walking my daughter through it. If I don't, she's going to miss out on all kinds of
opportunities… [My kids] want to do sports. They want to go to college. They want to
work in [a certain profession]. I love it. I'm glad that I'm able to help. I guess in a way
[it’s] good that all that happened to me [as a kid] because maybe I wouldn't have been so
motivated to go to college and stuff. The fact that I was deprived of [parental support
with education], I'm making sure that [my kids] know that they can [go to college].
Tori’s self-disclosed deprivation of parental involvement motivated her to establish a strong
college-going culture within her own family.
Kelly wanted to ensure her daughter knew that the path to success was through education
– a belief for which her own parents did not express. Kelly explained,
I think it's important for [parents] to be more involved because that gives me, as being
their child, more confidence because I have their support and their guidance. With my
daughter, it's different. I try to do what my parents never did with me… No matter what I
always tell her, "You're not going to be anything in this world if you don't have a
degree… You're going to have a better job. You're going to love what you do.”
Participants Kelly, Jessica, and Lisa all agreed that parental involvement was critical.
Jessica stated specifically that parental involvement was “very important. Because I wish that
my mom would’ve been a little bit more involved.” Lisa wished that her parents had made
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 94

education a priority in her youth, she felt that her experiences motivated her to be the catalyst for
establishing a college-going culture within her family in the present. Lisa stated that parental
involvement was imperative “because before when [she] lived with her parents, they didn’t tell
[her] anything [about education]. Because, maybe [her family] just lived in small town, and
farmed, and their life was very simple, so they didn’t think too much about education or
something luxury like [college] in the big city.” Lisa felt that education created opportunities to
obtain things her family viewed as “luxury.” Lisa also shared that she used her knowledge of
higher education to encourage her parents to be more involved with their other children’s
education.
Maintaining Parental Involvement. Four of the six participants who planned to
transfer and complete their degrees at four-year institutions made statements suggesting parental
involvement was essential, and alluded that they were satisfied with the educational culture
established by their parents. Violet explained,
[Parents] should be present in every meeting at school. Like I said, sports events or
theater – my mom and my dad they were always there and if one was working the other
one was there. I will say if you’re not present in the life of children…you will lose a lot
of opportunity.
Violet felt that her parents were successful at establishing a culture of support in reference to
education – a culture that helped her with college persistence.
Stacey described how her mother’s involvement and support translated from secondary
education to college,
My mom was there in elementary and high school. But in college, there's no parent
conferences and stuff like that. However, she does ask like, "How's it going? What do
you do?" We talk about the stuff I do for projects and assignments. I think that's very
helpful because [parents] also learn what you're learning and what's going on in the
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 95

world. I think it's very important that the parent is involved in their child's process of
education.
For Stacey, her decision to persist and transfer to a four-year university or college was directly
related to the support she received from her mother. Ginger also explained that in order for
students to continue through college, they needed to feel support from their parents. Ginger
stated,
I think [parental involvement is important] because I know some students that can't even
go to their parents and talk to them about school because [their parents] get mad because
they want them to work instead. I think it's very encouraging because I know when my
parents ask me how my day is, or they ask me, what am I doing in school, I'm like, "Oh,
they really care…"
Ginger asserted that even though opportunities for parents to be involved with education
lessened during college, she felt it was valuable for her and her mother to maintain contact
because it provided her with support she needed to persist.
Albert described the pressure-free support of his mother, and maintained that this type of
involvement was precisely the reason he persisted and planned to transfer to a four-year college
or university. Albert also explained he learned that dialogue regarding education was essential,
and that he planned to establish the same college-going culture with his daughter as his mother
established with him. Albert elaborated,
I never got the parents that told their kids they had to go school. If my daughter wants to
go to a trade school right out of high school, [I’ll tell her], “I support you in any
education, in any endeavor that you want to do. I would like to see you continue your
education.” I think half the battle is starting the dialogue and the discussion with [my
daughter] that, “Your dads going to college.” I've brought her many times and shown her
my library. I tell her, “This is where I go to class.” She sees me going to school and
she's sees me doing homework. Hopefully one day she'll see me walk the stage [at
graduation]. [My daughter] is starting to say, "I want to go to [your] school." I say, "No,
you’ll go to a better school."

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 96

The Educational Level of Parents
The third and final guiding question for this study was, “Does the parent’s educational
level influence persistence or transfer rates for low-income students at community colleges? If
so, how?” Only Violet and Casey had parents with some college education, and both
participants expressed different degree aspirations. Violet planned to complete a four-year degree
while Casey planned to finish her degree at CC. In short, and specifically for this study, parents’
educational level had no identifiable influence on persistence or transfer rates for the
participating low-income community college students. However, students’ perceived
educational support from their parents appeared to be of greater significance – the more frequent
and positive the parental involvement, or support for education, the more likely participants’ had
goals aimed at completing a bachelor’s degree.
Through document analysis, interviews, and a focus group, qualitative data was collected
and examined to answer this study’s main research question; how student-parent relationships
impacted persistence and transfer rates for low-income community college students. In the final
chapter that follows, Social Capital Theory will be used to interpret the data further – providing
insight as to whether or not parents themselves were sources of capital for the participants in this
study. The proceeding chapter will also provide suggestions for establishing positive educational
capital for low-income students at community colleges, and recommendations for future
research.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 97

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of student-parent relationships on
persistence and transfer rates for low-income community college students, as characterized by
the theory of social capital. While this study is not generalizable, data suggests that the student-
parent relationship is a form of capital, with the potential to facilitate positive educational
outcomes. In this chapter, successful educational outcomes are defined by a participant’s
decision to complete a degree at CC or transfer to a four-year college or university. In the
sections that follow, the theory of social capital will first be revisited, and then applied to
participants in two categories for this study: those who chose to complete a degree at CC, and
those who chose to transfer to a four-year college or university. The chapter will conclude with
recommendations for generating educational capital through student-parent relationships, and
recommendations for future research.
Revisiting Social Capital
Social capital, according to Bourdieu and Coleman (1993; 1988), is an individual or
group’s ability to use their resources to facilitate or maintain privilege. An individual’s
resources can include personal relationships, professional networks, or access to wealth.
Theoretically, a person will experience increased opportunity as their social network increases –
benefitting from the other groups’ or individuals’ access to resources (Coleman, 1993; Dika &
Singh, 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Bourdieu (1993) asserted that individuals or groups
make choices based on their cultural background or experiences – their habitus. Bourdieu
(1993) also argued that rules (doxa) are established by dominant groups or people (agents) to
reinforce their culture within a society (field). For example, the EOPS office at CC was one
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 98

agent that provided the participants in this study with information and resources to better
navigate the educational field and the doxa, so they could complete a degree or transfer to a four-
year institution. While a comparison would need to be made between students who reported
benefiting from the services offered by EOPS and those who did not to determine the
department’s actual educational impact, EOPS helped to develop a positive educational habitus
for the participants of this study – ultimately promoting persistence. For the participants in this
study, their household is one field where parents have the power to influence the doxa and
habitus in reference to education. The participants for this study were asked to reflect upon the
relationships they had with their parents, with regard to education, and whether or not this
relationship impacted their decision to persist at CC or transfer to a four-year institution.
Parents as Capital for College Persistence
Social Capital Theory suggests that groups or individuals will form relationships with
people or groups outside of their community – to increase their network and ultimately their
capital (Coleman, 1993; Dika & Singh, 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This study
determined that the student-parent relationship is a form of capital that, when positive, promotes
educational success for low-income community college students. Positive student-parent
relationships are defined by a perception of parental support by the participant. Parental support
that establishes a college-going culture is a form of capital that can create successful educational
outcomes for individuals who experience positive relationships.
Lisa, Jessica, and Tori’s student-parent relationships did not yield significant educational
capital. These three participants all identified educationally beneficial relationships outside of
their immediate family. Lisa and Jessica acknowledged friends at CC who motivated them to
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 99

complete their degrees, and Tori named her work supervisor as an educational role model. Lisa,
Jessica, and Tori’s decision to complete was due, in part, to the educational capital gained from
their associations outside of the student-parent relationship. One finding for this study is that
low-income students attending community colleges need access to educational capital and
support in order to complete degrees; however, students who decide to complete associate’s
degrees exclusively are less likely to have access to educational capital through student-parent
relationships.
As previously noted, four of the six participants for this study (66%) who planned to
complete a bachelor’s degree spoke about having a positive student-parent relationship in
reference to education. However, three of the four students (75%) who planned to complete only
an associate’s degree suggested that their parents were not supportive of continuing education,
or that they lacked a culture of education within their household.
While data for this study suggest that student-parent relationships can increase
educational capital, data may have been skewed given that participants self-selected to take part
in the campus EOPS program, indicating that the participants for this study may have had a pre-
existing determination to transfer or complete their college education. This predetermination had
an impact on the data because a comparison could not be made between student-parent
relationships of students who decided to persist, and those who decided not to persist, or,
between those who participated in EOPS and those who did not. The participants for this study
may have already maintained a certain level of educational capital in that they possessed a desire
to complete a degree. However, research has yet to determine if the desire to complete a degree
develops into educational capital. The predetermination to persist could explain why none of the
participants made any specific statements suggesting their student-parent relationship had a
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 100

negative impact on their decision to persist or transfer. Therefore, for this study Social Capital
Theory offered a lens through which the student-parent relationships of transfer and non-transfer
students were compared.
Completing an Associate’s Degree
Lisa, Jessica, and Tori were three of the four participants who stated that they would be
completing associate’s degrees, but not pursue a four-year degree. While each participant’s
situation was unique, Lisa, Jessica, and Tori all had one thing in common – education was not an
expressed priority in their household. Both Jessica and Tori made statements suggesting that
their parents did not pressure them to attend school, and Lisa revealed that she came from a
family of farmers, who lived outside of the United States, where exposure to the benefits of
education was minimal. Each of the three individuals wished that their parents had been more
involved with education, specifically, that they had conversations about education. Using
Bourdieu’s definition of social capital as a way to analyze the educational outcomes of Lisa,
Jessica, and Tori, it was clear these three participants used their experiences and background to
inform their decisions regarding education. Given that education was not a priority in their
familial field, in that their student-parent relationships did not include discussions about or
support for education, Lisa, Jessca, and Tori did not have high educational capital. In this study,
participants with lower educational capital more often chose to end their postsecondary
education at the community college level.
It is important to note that not all low-income students, with little to no educational
support from their parents, will end their higher education at the community college level. The
findings of this study are specific to this particular group of participants. For example, Kelly had
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 101

intentions of completing a bachelor’s degree, but expressed that her parents gave her little to no
educational support. Similar to Lisa, Jessica, and Tori, Kelly also found inspiration to persist
outside of the student-parent relationship – through a friend who obtained a four-year degree. In
addition to Kelly, even though Zack planned to obtain a bachelor’s degree, he stated that his
parents were highly unsupportive – telling him that they did not believe he would complete a
degree.
Completing a Bachelor’s Degree
It is not accurate to state that all positive student-parent relationships will result in low-
income community college students choosing to transfer to a four-year institution. However, for
this particular study, four of the six participants who planned to complete four-year degrees
stated that their parents established a positive culture of education within their household.
Violet, Stacey, Ginger, and Albert commonly expressed that their parents’ support for education
contributed to their persistence. Violet and Stacy both discussed how their parents were highly
involved with their education – attending various school-sponsored activities like sporting events
or parent-teacher conferences. Violet and Stacy explained that their parents would rarely miss
activities having to do with their education, and that this level of involvement contributed to their
aspirations to complete a bachelor’s degree. Ginger stated that her parents very rarely let her
miss school, and would never let her be unsuccessful in a course. Ginger’s parents would tell her
that she needed to succeed beyond their level of success, and that education was the avenue by
which to do so. While Albert’s mom did not place pressure on him to complete a college degree,
Albert attributes his persistence to his mom’s unconditional support.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 102

In addition to intangible support, financial assistance – in any amount – motivated Violet,
Stacy, Ginger and Albert to pursue their educational goals. As stated previously, low-income
families spend a higher percentage of their annual income on higher education than high-income
families (College Board, 1999). With regard to costs for public universities during the 1999-
2000 academic year, low-income families spent 61% of their total annual income, compared to
high-income families that spent no greater than 6% (College Board, 1999). Violet, Stacy, Ginger
and Albert all recognized the financial sacrifice their parents made. Violet and Ginger explained
how their parents insisted on working long hours, or “harder,” to secure a financial contribution
to their education. Both Stacy and Albert stated that while the financial contribution from their
parents was small, it helped significantly to know that they were supported. The only identified
barrier to completion expressed by the participants for this study was financial. Violet, Stacy,
Ginger and Albert experienced gains in their educational capital because their parents were
willing to contribute financially towards their education. This study found that a parent’s
willingness to monetarily support their child’s education had a positive impact on educational
capital for low-income students at CC.
Although parental support for Violet, Stacey, Ginger, and Albert may have varied in
execution, each of these four participants had a positive culture of education established within
their households through the support and dialogue maintained by their student-parent
relationships. According to Bourdieu’s theory of social capital, the familial fields for Violet,
Stacey, Ginger, and Albert facilitated increased educational capital through the existing college-
going culture – maintaining a habitus that encouraged college persistence. This study also found
that low-income students attending community colleges are more likely to pursue bachelor’s
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 103

degrees if educational capital exists within their households as a result of positive student-parent
relationships.
While four of the six participants with positive student-parent relationships decided to
pursue bachelor’s degrees, not all low-income students, with educational support from their
parents, will transfer to a four-year college or university. For participant Casey, her parents
supported her education and encouraged her to “do better than they did.” While Casey attributed
her decision to complete a degree to the supportive student-parent relationship she experienced,
Casey chose not to pursue a four-year degree.
Social Capital and Summary of Findings
Using the theory of social capital to explain the results of this study, the student-parent
relationship is a form of capital in that supportive and positive relationships, with reference to
education, can facilitate increased educational capital for children of low-income families. For
this study, positive student-parent relationships are characterized by tangible or intangible
parental support, with particular emphasis on parents having an open dialogue with their children
about education within their households. Participants with more educational capital, through
positive student-parent relationships, were more likely to express a desire to complete a
bachelor’s degree. Additionally, a participant’s decision to pursue a four-year degree was less
connected to the parent’s educational level, but more related to whether or not a culture of
education was established in the household. Agents of the field will make decisions based on the
existing doxa of the field and their habitus (Bourdieu, 1993). In other words, for this study,
children of parents who established a positive culture of education in their household were more
likely to pursue bachelor’s degrees.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 104

Recommendations for Establishing Positive Educational Capital
This section offers recommendations for establishing positive educational capital within
low-income student communities at community colleges. Recommendations for supporting the
educational efforts of low-income students includes local governments, parents, and community
colleges.
1. The American Graduation Initiative should mandate postsecondary institutions to
establish programs, with the purpose of targeting and educating low-income communities
about college opportunities via local churches, youth groups, businesses, and secondary
schools. It is not only important for the American Graduate Initiative to establish completion
goals for postsecondary institutions; it is also valuable for colleges and universities to have a
direct impact on low-income communities – one of the populations most at risk for not
completing a college degree. Programs targeting parents will include public service
announcements that will be aired on local television and radio stations, with the purpose of
reaching and educating parents where they are, instead of requiring parents to independently seek
out information regarding higher education. Participants Ginger and Tori identified religious and
professional role models, outside of their immediate family, who influenced their decision to
persist in higher education. Postsecondary institutions should create programs that target K-12
schools, churches, youth groups, or local businesses in low-income communities, with the
purpose of distributing and presenting materials on the importance of higher education and how
these establishments can help. These programs should also dedicate time to addressing issues of
access, financial aid, and how parents can establish a positive college-going culture within their
households. Nearly all of the participants for this study identified factors outside of their
student-parent relationship that influenced their persistence in a positive way. Through these
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 105

educational programs established by colleges and universities, additional influencers beyond the
student-parent relationship will be identified and reinforced.
2. Parents of students should engage in conversations regarding education within
households to establish a positive culture of education, which leads to increased educational
capital. Student-parent conversations regarding education should begin at the K-12 level.
All of the participants for this study agreed that parents should be involved with their child’s
education. More specifically, it was suggested that parents should attend school-sponsored
activities and have conversations with their children about education. From student-teacher
conferences to athletic activities, the more a parent shows interest in education, the more likely a
student will develop educational capital.
While it is not always possible for parents to attend all school-related events, especially
for low-income families, this study has also shown that educational capital can be developed via
student-parent dialogue concerning education. Topics can range from current homework
assignments to advice on how to enroll in college. Essentially, as long as education is a part of
household discourse, in a supportive and positive way, low-income students can develop
educational capital and will more likely pursue a postsecondary degree. Engaging in dialogue
about education should start at the K-12 level – in an effort to establish a college-going culture
early. This is not to argue, however, that educational capital cannot be developed after K-12. As
evidenced by this study, five of the ten participants revealed that their student-parent
relationships were not entirely supportive in reference to education, but the participants
developed educational capital individually, or outside their household – making the decision to
complete an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 106

It is important to note that establishing an educational dialogue within low-income
households to promote educational success does not require a certain level of education on the
part of the parent. The educational success of the participants in this study was less attributed to
their parent’s educational level, but influenced more by whether or not their parents established a
positive culture of education within the home – by talking to their children about their education,
including college. In short, one does not need a college degree to promote positive educational
outcomes for low-income students.
3. Community colleges should partner with K-12 institutions to create opportunities for
low-income students to develop educational role models outside of the student-parent
relationship. Additionally, if not fostered through the student-parent relationship, low-income
students should be provided with opportunities to develop educational role models outside of
their households. Community colleges could pair with middle and high schools with large, low-
income student populations to implement, or expand existing, mentoring programs. Terenzini et
al. (2001) asserted that low-income students begin to express lower degree aspirations, compared
to their middle and high-income peers, as early as the 7
th
grade. Collaborative mentoring
programs should start in the 7
th
grade and continue with the student through the college
application process. Ideally, participating low-income students will meet with their mentors on a
biweekly or monthly basis – establishing a college-going culture and increasing educational
capital through assistance and advice regarding education.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study also reveals opportunities for future research. First, to supplement the data
found for this study with a valuable comparison, research should be conducted on the student-
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 107

parent relationships of low-income students who decide not to pursue or complete a college
degree or certificate at all. Along with those who choose not to complete, future research should
compare low-income students not involved with EOPS, to the low-income students who are
active participants of EOPS.
Seven of the ten participants were parents themselves, and data revealed that their
children were a significant motivator for persistence. Future research should focus on low-
income students with children, and how their experiences as parents influence their decisions to
complete postsecondary degrees.
Another recommended area for research should be within low-income households,
examining persistence patterns between children of single parents and multiple parents. To
participate in this study, individuals were required to have one living parent. This study did not
specifically ask participants if they grew up in single or multi-parent homes. Therefore, no
differentiation was made between children of single or multiple parents. While this study posits
that postsecondary success is a result of increased educational capital, established through
positive student-parent relationships, more research should be conducted to inform acute
recommendations for parents whose children may be less likely to complete postsecondary
degrees, as the result of living within a single or multi-parent household.
Finally, future research should explore the relationship between possessing a desire to
complete a postsecondary degree and educational capital. As previously stated, the participants
for this study all self-selected to participate in the EOPS program at CC. Each participant had a
predetermined desire to complete a postsecondary degree prior to this study; therefore, a
comparison of educational capital could not be made between students who persisted and those
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 108

who did not. Furthermore, there were participants in this study who did not identify positive
student-parent relationships, but still maintained a desire to complete a college degree.
Additional research should be directed at whether or not simply possessing the desire to
complete a degree translates into increased educational capital.
Conclusion
Low-income community college students are an at-risk population, less likely to
complete a postsecondary degree than their middle or high-income peers (College Board
Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010). In order to meet President Obama’s goals for college
completion in the United States – for 8 million more college graduates by the year 2020 – at-risk
student populations like these must be examined to identify strategies that promote increased
educational persistence and success. Student-parent relationships are one avenue by which a
low-income student may gain social and educational capital that, ideally, translates into college
degree completion (Perna & Titus, 2005). For the participants in this phenomenological study,
positive student-parent relationships, in reference to education, were more often found in
students who planned to pursue and complete bachelor’s degrees. That is not to say that positive
student-parent relationships were absent for low-income students who planned to complete their
postsecondary education at the community college level – positive student-parent relationships
with reference to education were simply more infrequent. A parent can increase the educational
capital for their child, but they must be actively involved in order to do so (Coleman, 1988).
This study found that the most impactful type of parental involvement was conversational –
students and parents engaging in positive dialogue about education.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 109

References
Adashi, E. Y., & Gruppuso, P. A. (2010). Commentary: the unsustainable cost of undergraduate
medical education: an overlooked element of US health care reform. Academic Medicine,
85(5), 763-765.
Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary
education, 1972-2000 (Monograph). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Allen, W. R., & Jayakumar, U. (2012). Water, Water Everywhere but not a Drop to Drink:
Higher Education Access and Success for Black and Latino Students in California, USA.
Advances in Education in Diverse Communities: Research, Policy and Praxis, 7, 71-87.
Altbach, P. G. (2011). The research university. Economic & Political Weekly, 46(16), 65.
American Psychological Association (2014). Education & socioeconomic status. American
Psychological Association. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx
Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: Changing inequality in US college
entry and completion (No. w17633). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005). Graduation Rates, Student Goals, and Measuring
Community College Effectiveness. CCRC Brief Number 28. Community College
Research Center, Columbia University.
Bailey, T. R. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on program effectiveness at
community colleges.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 110

Bastedo, M. N., & Jaquette, O. (2011). Running in place: Low-income students and the
dynamics of higher education stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
33(3), 318-339.
Baum, S. (2001). College education: Who can afford it. New York: Agathon Press.
Baum, S., Kurose, C., & McPherson, M. (2013). An overview of American higher education.
The Future of Children, 23(1), 17-39.
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for
individuals and society. Washington, DC: The College Board.
Beach, J. M. (2012). Gateway to opportunity: A history of the community college in the United
States. Stylus Publishing, LLC..
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special
Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bengali, L., & Daly, M. (2013). US economic mobility: the dream and the data. FRBSF
Economic Letter, (Mar 4).
Bloome, D., & Western, B. (2011). Cohort Change and Racial Differences in Educational and
Income Mobility. Social forces, 90(2), 375-395.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolívar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2011). Enhancing parent leadership through building social
and intellectual capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 4-38.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, 241-258. New York: Greenwood.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 111

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Boston University (2014). Get involved and stay informed. Boston University Alumni & Friends,
Parents Program. Retrieved from: http://www.bu.edu/parentsprogram/.
Bragg, D. D., & Durham, B. (2012). Perspectives on access and equity in the era of (community)
college completion. Community College Review, 40(2), 106-125.
Brand, J. E., & Xie, Y. (2010). Who benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection
in heterogeneous economic returns to higher education. American Sociological Review,
75(2), 273-302.
Brandolini, A., Magri, S., & Smeeding, T. M. (2010). Asset‐ based measurement of poverty.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 267-284.
Brilliant, J. J. (2000). Issues in counseling immigrant college students. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 24(7), 557-586.
California Community Colleges (2015a). About us. Chancellor’s Office. Retrieved from:
http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/collegeDetails
California Community Colleges (2015b). Key facts about California community colleges.
Chancellor’s Office. Retrieved from:
http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx
Callender, C., & Jackson, J. (2005). Does the fear of debt deter students from higher education?.
Journal of social policy, 34(04), 509-540.
Carnegie Foundation (2014). Carnegie Classifications. Retrieved from
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 112

Card, D. (1995). Using geographic variation in college proximity to estimate the return to
schooling. Pp. 201–222 in Aspects of Labour Market Behavior: Essays in Honour of
John Vanderkamp, edited by L. Christofides, E. Kenneth Grant, and R. Swidinsky.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Card, D. (2001). Estimating the return to schooling: Progress on some persistent econometric
problems. Econometrica 69:1127–60.
Carnevale, A. P. (2011). College is still worth it. Inside Higher Education.
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2013). The college payoff: Education, occupations,
lifetime earnings.
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education
Requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on
Education and the Workforce.
Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2010). How increasing college access is increasing inequality, and
what to do about it. Rewarding strivers: Helping low-income students succeed in college,
71-183.
Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J., & Smith, N. (2009). Help wanted: Postsecondary education and
training required. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(146), 21-31.
Chang, M., Denson, N., Sáenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of sustaining
cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77,
430–455.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 113

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of
sociology, S95-S120.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F.D., &
York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
College Board (1999). Trends in College Pricing. Washington, DC: The College Board.
College Board (2013). Trends in College Pricing. Retrieved from:
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2013-full-report.pdf
College Board Advocacy and Policy Center (2010). The college completion agenda 2010
progress report. Executive summary. Retrieved from
http://helmut.knaust.info/resource/2010CBAPC.pdf.
College Board Advocacy and Policy Center (2012). The college completion agenda 2012
progress report. Executive summary. Retrieved from
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/advocacy/cca/12b
6368_CCAProgressReport_WR.pdf.
Collins, G. A. (2003). Rethinking retirement in the context of an aging workforce. Journal of
career development, 30(2), 145-157.
Community College Research Center (CCRC) (2014). Community college enrollment and
completion. Community College FAQs. Retrieved from
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html
Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the
recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(s1), 93-112.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 114

Corak, M. (2013). Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 79-102.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Daniel, B. V., Evans, S. G., & Scott, B. R. (2001). Understanding family involvement in the
college experience today. In B. V. Daniel and B. R. Scott (Eds.), Consumers, adversaries,
and partners: Working with the families of undergraduates. New Directions for Student
Services, no. 94 (pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dawson, A. S. (2012). Histories and Memories of the Indian Boarding Schools in Mexico,
Canada, and the United States. Latin American Perspectives, 0094582X12447274.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Spanish-speaking families involvement in schools. In C. L. Fagnano
& B. Z. Werber (Eds.). School, family, and community interaction: A view from the firing
lines (pp. 85-96). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2008). Income, poverty, and health insurance
coverage in the United States 2007. U.S. Census Bureau Current population reports,
P60-235. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2013). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2012. September 2013.
DeParle, J. (2012). Harder for Americans to rise from lower rungs. New York Times, 1(4), 12.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of educational research, 72(1), 31-60.
Dodd, A. W., & Konzal, J. L. (1999). Making our high schools better: How parents and teachers
can work together. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 115

Donovan, J., & McKelfresh, D. (2008). In community with students’ parents and families.
NASPA Journal, 45(3), 384-405.
Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures
of the community college. SUNY Press.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the
access" saga" toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-419.
Dutchess Community College (2014). A parent’s guide to DCC. Dutchess Community College.
Retrieved from: https://www.sunydutchess.edu/parents/.
Dwyer, R. E., Hodson, R., & McCloud, L. (2013). Gender, debt, and dropping out of college.
Gender & Society, 27(1), 30-55.
Ellwood, D. T., & Kane, T. J. (2000). Who is getting a college education? Family
background and the growing gaps in enrollment.” Securing the Future, 283-324. Russell
Sage Foundation.
Engberg, M. E., & Allen, D. J. (2011). Uncontrolled Destinies: Improving Opportunity for Low-
Income Students in American Higher Education. Research In Higher Education, 52(8),
786-807.
Engle, J., Yeado, J., Brusi, R., & Cruz, J. L. (2012). Replenishing Opportunity in America: The
2012 Midterm Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success
Initiative. Education Trust.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education
Urban Soc, 19(2), 119–136.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Aiken (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
educational research (6th ed.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 1139–1151.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 116

Epstein, J. L. (1994). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family,
and community partnerships. Paper presented at the National Symposium, Family-School
Links: How Do They Affect Educational Outcomes? Pennsylvania State University,
October 31–November 1, 1994.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Schlossberg’s transition theory. Student
Development in College. 107-126. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Federal Reserve Board (2009). 2007 Survey of Consumer Finance.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Francis, D. (2012). Where do you fall in the American economic class system? U.S. News and
World Report. Retrieved from http://money.usnews.com/money/personal
finance/articles/2012/09/13/where-do-you-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system.
Fry, R. (2012). A record one-in-five households now owe student loan debt. Pew Research
Center, September, 26.
Gándara, P., Alvarado, E., Driscoll, A., & Orfield, G. (2012). Building Pathways to Transfer:
Community Colleges That Break the Chain of Failure for Students of Color. Civil Rights
Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 8: Crafting your story: Writing up qualitative data. In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.) (pp. 218-240). Boston: Pearson.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 117

Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student
success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437-469.
Griffith, A. L. (2011). Keeping up with the Joneses: Institutional changes following the adoption
of a merit aid policy. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1022-1033.
Grubb, W. N., Badway, N., Bell, D., Bragg, D., & Russman, M. (1997). Workforce, economic,
and community development. The changing landscape of the entrepreneurial community
college. Washington, DC: League for Innovation in the Community College, National
Center for Research in Vocational Education, and National Council on Occupational
Education.
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? Iowa City,
IA: ACT, Inc.
Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. (1977). The Process of Stratification: Trends and
Analyses. Academic Press.
Heckman, J. J., & Honore´, B. E. (1990). The empirical content of the Roy model. Econometrica
58:1121–49.
Heller, D. E. (2001). “Trends in the Affordability of Public Colleges and Universities: The
Contradiction of Increasing Prices and Increasing Enrollment.” In The States and Public
Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability, ed. Donald E. Heller.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 11–38.
Heller, D. E. (2006, March). Merit aid and college access. In Symposium on the Consequences of
merit-based student aid for the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary
Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 118

Hellenbrand, H. (2011). The California master plan: from icon to ipad. Retrieved March, 4,
2012.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s
education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Rec. 97: 310–331.
Horvat, E. M. (2001). Understanding equity and access in higher education: The potential
contribution of Pierre Bourdieu. Higher Education-New York-Agathon Press
Incorporated 16, 195-238.
Hoxby, C. M. (2004). College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to
Pay for It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Humphreys, D. (2012). What’s wrong with the completion agenda -- and what we can do about
it. Liberal Education, 98(1). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le
wi12/humphreys.cfm.
Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2011). Projections of Education Statistics to 2019. NCES 2011-
017. National Center for Education Statistics.
Indian Hills Community College (2014). Parents. Indian Hills Community College. Retrieved
from: http://www.indianhills.edu/parents/.
Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) (2014). Low-Income Young Adults in Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/lowincomeyoungadults.cfm.
Jain, D., Herrera, A., Bernal, S., & Solorzano, D. (2011). Critical race theory and the transfer
function: Introducing a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 35(3), 252-266.
Jenkins, P. D., & Cho, S. W. (2012). Get with the program: accelerating community college
students' entry into and completion of programs of study.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 119

Johnson-Ahorlu, R. N., Alvarez, C. L., & Hurtado, S. (2013). Undermining the Master Plan:
Divestment in Higher Education and Student Experiences. Journal of College Admission,
218, 22-35.
Kane, T. J. (2004). College-going and inequality. Social Inequality, 319-354. Russell Sage
Foundation.
Kane, T. J., & Rouse, C. E. (1999). The community college: Educating students at the margin
between college and work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 63-84.
Kezar, A. (2011). Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education (Vol. 1, No.
1, p. 1). Routledge, New York.
Kirst, M. (2007, Winter). Who needs it?: Identifying the proportion of students who require
postsecondary remedial education is virtually impossible. National CrossTalk, 15, 11-12.
Kochan, T. A., & Osterman, P. (1994). The mutual gains enterprise: Forging a winning
partnership among labor, management, and government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
López, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement:
Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 38, 253–288.
Luna, M. D. (2006). Is Opportunity Knocking? American Behavioral Scientist 49(12): 1670–86.
Manski, C. F. (1990). Adolescent econometricians: How do youth infer the returns to schooling?
Pp. 43–60 in Studies of Supply and Demand in Higher Education, edited by C. T.
Clotfetter and M. Rothschild. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marx, Karl . 1933 (1849). Wage-Labour and Capital. New York: International Publishers Co.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 120

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
McIntosh, M. F., & Rouse, C. E. (2009). The other college: Retention and completion rates
among two-year college students.
McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on
science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-144.
McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). The student aid game: Meeting need and
rewarding talent in American higher education. Princeton University Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, Experience, and Earnings. New York: Columbia University Press
Mullin, C. M. (2012). Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body. AACC
Policy Brief 2012-01PBL. American Association of Community Colleges (NJ1).
Mumper, M. (2003). “The Future of College Access: The Declining Role of Public Higher
Education in Promoting Equal Opportunity. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 585(1): 97–117.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
Nam, Y., & Huang, J. (2009). Equal opportunity for all? Parental economic resources and
children's educational achievement. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(6),
625–634.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 121

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2011). Integrated postsecondary education
data system. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). Beginning postsecondary students in
2003-04, followed through 2009. NCES Quick Stats. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). Condition of education 2012.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). Enrollment rates of 18- to 24-year-olds
in degree-granting institutions, by level of institution and sex and race/ethnicity of
student: 1967 through 2012. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_302.60.asp.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing
student learning and success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Northeastern University (2014). Welcome! Northeastern University, Office of Parent Programs
and Services. Retrieved from: http://www.northeastern.edu/parents/.
Obama, B. H. (2010). “Transcript from the President’s speech in Austin, TX in August, 2010,”
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/09/remarks
president-higher-education-and-economy-university-texas-austin.
Pak, J., Bensimon, E. M., Malcom, L., Marquez, A., & Park, D. (2006). The life histories of ten
individuals who crossed the border between community colleges and selective four-year
colleges. Retrieved from www.jackkentcookefoundation.org.
Park, J. J., & Denson, N. (2013). When race and class both matter: The relationship between
socioeconomic diversity, racial diversity, and student reports of cross–class interaction.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 122

Research in Higher Education, 54(7), 725-745. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-
013-9289-4
Park, V., Cerven, C., Nations, J., & Nielsen, K. (2013). What matters for community college
success? UC All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity.
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions in Fall 2000 (No. NCES 2004-010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. Volume 2. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social
capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The
journal of higher education, 76(5), 485-518.
Porchea, S. F., Allen, J., Robbins, S., & Phelps, R. P. (2010). Predictors of long-term enrollment
and degree outcomes for community college students: Integrating academic,
psychosocial, socio-demographic, and situational factors. The Journal of higher
education, 81(6), 750-778.
Postsecondary Education Commission (2015). Transfer pathway charts. Retrieved from:
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/TransferPathwayChart.asp?Inst=195346
Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community Colleges: Special Supplement to The Condition
of Education 2008. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2008-033. National Center for
Education Statistics.
Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor:
New evidence and possible explanations. Whither opportunity, 91-116.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 123

Reason, R. D. (2014). Generation on a Tightrope: A Portrait of Today's College Student by
Arthur Levine, Diane R. Dean (review). Journal of College Student Development, 55(3),
335-336.
Rhoades, G. (2012). Closing the door, increasing the gap: Who’s not going to (community)
college? University of Arizona, Center for the Future of Higher Education, Policy Report
#1
Robbins, S., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the differential
effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures
from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(3), 598–616.
Rothstein, J., & Rouse, C. E. (2011). Constrained after college: Student loans and early-career
occupational choices. Journal of Public Economics, 95(1), 149-163.
Rumann, C., Rivera, M., & Hernandez, I. (2011). Student veterans and community colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(155), 51-58.
Ryan, J. F. (2004). The Relationship Between Institutional Expenditures and Degree Attainment
at Baccalaureate Colleges. Research in Higher Education 45(2): 97–114.
Savage, M. (2005). Parent involvement: Tips and techniques for a new trend. PowerPoint
document presented at the Magna Audio Conference. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from
http://www.magnapubs.com/images/050120AC.pdf.
Savage, M. (2007). National Survey of College and University Parent Programs. Retrieved
December 27, 2007, from http://www.parent.umn.edu/ParentSurvey07.pdf.
Schneider, M., & Yin, L. M. (2012). Completion matters: The high cost of low community
college graduation rates. AEI Education Outlook.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 124

Sengupta, R., & Jepsen, C. (2006). California’s community college students. San Francisco:
Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/cc_1106rscc.pdf
Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Chen, J., Ziskin, M., Park, E., Torres, V., & Chiang, Y. C. (2012).
Completing college: A national view of student attainment rates.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national
study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75, 103-111.
St. John, E. P. (2006). Education and the Public Interest: School Reform, Public Finance, and
Access to Higher Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Stout, M. (2012). Native American Boarding Schools. ABC-CLIO.
Swap, S. M. (1993). Developing Home-School Partnerships: From Concepts to Practice.
Teachers' College Press, Columbia University, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY
10027 (cloth--ISBN-0-8077-3231-1)..
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., & Bernal, E. M. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The poor in
American higher education. Report No. 2001–1. New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board.
The Executive Office of the President (2014). Increasing college opportunity for low-income
students. Promising Models and a Call to Action. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/white_house_report_on_increasing_c
llege_opportunity_for_lowincome_students_1-16-2014_final.pdf
The University of Alabama (2014). Parents and families. Parent Programs, Division of Student
Affairs. Retrieved from: http://parents.ua.edu/.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 125

The University of California (2014). Minimum admission requirements. Retrieved from
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/counselors/transfer/minimum
requirements/index.html.
The University of Chicago (2014). The parents program. Parents & Families. Retrieved from:
http://parents.uchicago.edu/program.
The University of Southern California (2014). USC student affairs. Office for Parent Programs.
Retrieved from: http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/parents/.
The White House. (2009a). Excerpts of the president’s remarks in Warren, Michigan today and a
fact sheet on the American graduation initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Excerpts-of-the-Presidents-remarks-in
Warren-Michigan-and-fact-sheet-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative
The White House. (2009b). Investing in education: The American Graduation Initiative. The
White House Blog. Retrieved from http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/Investing-in-Education
The-American-Graduation-Initiative.
The White House. (2009c). Remarks of president Barack Obama—As prepared for delivery
address to joint session of congress. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of
Congress
Tierney, W. G., & Auerbach, S. (2005). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of
families in college preparation. Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective
outreach, 29-48.
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 126

Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2009). Finding Money on the Table: Information,
Financial Aid, and Access to College. The Journal of Higher Education 80(4): 363–88.
Titus, M. A. (2006). No College Student Left Behind: The Influence of Financial Aspects of
a State's Higher Education Policy on College Completion. The Review of Higher
Education 29(3): 293–317.
Toutkoushian, R., & Shafiq, M. (2010). A Conceptual Analysis of State Support for Higher
Education: Appropriations Versus Need-Based Financial Aid. Research in Higher
Education 51(1): 40–64.
Ullman, E. (2012). Working with Industry. Community College Journal, 82(6), 18-23.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Earnings Gap Highlighted by Census Bureau Data on Educational
Attainment. U.S. Census Bureau News, March 15, Press Release.
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). The Hispanic population: 2010. United States Census Bureau.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (2014a). California. State & County QuickFacts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html.
U.S. Census Bureau (2014b). How census measures poverty. Measuring America. Retrieved
from https://www.census.gov/how/infographics/poverty_measure-how.html.
U.S. Department of Education (2014). Federal TRIO programs – home page. United States
Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 127

Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Ash, E. D. (2008). An introduction to the higher education
industry In Mission and money: Understanding the university. Chapters 1-3. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Interviewing and issues in interviewing. Learning from Strangers: The art
and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The Free Press.
Willis, R. J. & Rosen, S. (1979). Education and self-selection. Journal of Political Economy
87:S7–36.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory,
research, and policy. The world bank research observer, 15(2), 225-249.
Yarnall, L. (2014). Meeting 2020 Workforce Goals: The Role of Industry–College Collaboration
and Goals for Instructional Design. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 38(2-3), 250-260.
Yeung, J., & Conley, D. (2008). Black–white achievement gap and family wealth. Child
Development, 79(2), 303–324.
Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M. (2011). Assets and liabilities, race/ethnicity, and children's college
education. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2168-2175.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 128

APPENDIX A
Solicitation Email
Greetings,
My name is Jennifer Craig and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California
(USC). I am currently conducting a study on how the student-parent relationship impacts
persistence for low-income students at community colleges. The purpose of this study is to help
increase persistence and transfer rates for low-income community college students.
I am looking for volunteers to participate in either a focus group or a one-on-one interview. To
participate, you must be a low-income student who plans to complete an associate’s degree, or
transfer to a four-year college or university.
If selected, each participant will receive a $10 Amazon gift card at the end of the focus group or
interview.
If interested, please email me at: craigjl@usc.edu. I will contact you to schedule a convenient
time and location to meet for the focus group or interview.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.
Thank you!
Jennie

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 129

APPENDIX B
Scheduling Email – Focus Group
Hello (STUDENT NAME),
Thank you for your email. You have been selected to participate in a focus group regarding low-
income students at community colleges, and how the student-parent relationship impacts
persistence and the decision to transfer.
Kindly respond to this email with your availability on (DATE GOES HERE). A location on the
CC campus will be reserved for your convenience, and the duration of the focus group will be
60-90 minutes.
You will receive a $10 Amazon gift card at the end of the focus group for your participation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.
I look forward to working with you!
Jennie

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 130

APPENDIX C
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE FOR LOW-SES STUDENTS AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES:
THE IMPACT OF STUDENT-PARENT RELATIONSHIPS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Jennifer Craig under the
supervision of Tracy Tambascia, Ph.D. at the University of Southern California because you are
a low-income student at California College aged 18 or over participating in low-income support
or transfer services, with at least one living parent, who plans to complete an associate’s degree,
or transfer to a four-year college or university. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to study the impact student-parent relationships on persistence for
low-income community college students. According to Bailey and Dynarski (2011), persistence
is determined by the percentage of college completers divided by the size of the same cohort
upon entry. This study will also add to the existing literature on low-income students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in either a 90-minute
audio-recorded focus group or a one-hour audio-recorded in-person interview. Participants will
be asked about their educational aspirations, their socioeconomic status, as well as how the
relationship with their parents has impacted their persistence in higher education. Participants
are encouraged to be honest, given that rich insight into their personal experiences will help
inform this study. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want
to be taped, you cannot participate in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $10 Amazon gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all of the
questions in order to receive the card. The care will be given to you when you complete either
the interview or the focus group.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 131

CONFIDENTIALITY
Due to the nature of the focus group, the confidentiality of the group cannot be guaranteed. In
order to maintain confidentiality as much as possible, you are asked not to discuss the content of
the focus group with anyone.

Any identifiable information obtained from interviews or document analysis will remain
confidential.

Identifiable data will be kept in a password-protected computer until data analysis is complete
(approximately 2015). Transcripts of focus group conversations and interviews will be available
upon request. After the data analysis is complete, all identifiable information, such as emails,
will be destroyed. Pseudonyms will be used in place of your real name to ensure privacy.

Anonymous data will be retained by the investigator and may be used in future research studies.
If you do not want your data used in other studies, you should not participate.

Findings for this study may be shared with California College, though pseudonyms will be used
in place of identifiers. The institution will not be given access to focus group or interview
transcripts.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Jennifer L. Craig at craigjl@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complains about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB) 3720 South Flower Street, #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272
or upirb@usc.edu.

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 132

APPENDIX D
Focus Group Questions
Interviewer: Before we begin, I feel that it is important to let you all know that I come from a
low-income family. I would be happy to answer any questions regarding my background at the
end of the focus group. It is also important to let you all know that pseudonyms will be used.
The purpose of this study is to understand how student-parent relationships impact persistence
for low-income students. Please feel free to be as honest as you are comfortable, and ask any
questions during the focus group. Are you all comfortable with me audio recording this
interview? Do you have any questions before we start?
1) What has your experience been like at California College (CC)?
Families are designated as “low-income” when their taxable earnings are 1.5 times the poverty
level or lower. In the United States, for a family of 4, the average low-income level for the 48
contiguous states is $35,775.
2) What has your experience been like as a low-income student at CC?
a. What do you feel when you hear the word, “low-income?”
3) Why have you decided to complete a degree at CC or transfer to a four-year institution?
4) Do your parents have any thoughts about your attending CC?
a. Can you give me an example of how your parents have expressed their feelings
about your education?
b. How have your parents encouraged or discouraged you from staying in school or
transferring?
5) How has your relationship with your parents impacted your education?
a. Can you give an example?
6) What, if any, educational opportunities have you received because of your parents?
a. Can you give an example?
7) What is the highest degree your parents have earned?
8) What, if any, ways have your parents helped you with your classes?
9) What is your community like outside of CC?
a. How has your community impacted your education?
b. Are you parents a part of your community outside of CC?
c. What are your parents’ friends like?
d. Have your parents’ friends helped you with school? If so, how?
10) What, if any, support have you received to help with the transfer process?
a. Has California College (CC) been helpful? Why or why not?
b. Has your community outside of CC been helpful? Why or why not?
c. Have your parents been helpful? Why or why not?
11) What do you all think about parent involvement with school?
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 133

a. Do you want more involvement or less involvement? Why?
b. Do you think parental involvement is a good or bad thing? Why?
12) Are there resources for parents at CC? If so, what is your opinion of the resources?
a. Do you think there should be more resources? Why or why not?
b. What kind of relationship do your parents have with CC?
13) Overall, can you explain to me how the relationship you have with your parents has
impacted your college experience?
a. How has the relationship effected your decision to obtain a degree at CC?
b. How has the relationship effected your decision to transfer to a 4-year college or
university?
14) In a perfect world, how would students and parents work together to promote success in
education?

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 134

APPENDIX E
Scheduling Email – Interview
Hello (STUDENT NAME),
Thank you for completing the survey. You have been selected for an interview regarding low-
income students at community colleges, and how the student-parent relationship impacts
persistence and the decision to transfer.
Kindly respond to this email with your availability for the one-on-one interview during the week
of (DATE GOES HERE). A location on the CC campus will be reserved for your convenience,
and the duration of the interview will be from 30-60 minutes.
You will receive a $10 Amazon gift card at the end of the interview.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.
I look forward to working with you!
Jennie

ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 135

APPENDIX F
Interview Questions
Interviewer: Before we begin, I feel that it is important to let you know that I come from a low-
income family. I would be happy to answer any questions regarding my background at the end
of the interview. It is also important to let you know that pseudonyms will be used for any of
your identifiable characteristics (i.e. name). The purpose of this study is to understand how
student-parent relationships impact persistence for low-income students. Please feel free to be as
honest as you are comfortable, and ask any questions during the interview. Are you comfortable
with me audio recording this interview? Do you have any questions before we start?
1) How are you today?
2) Tell me a little bit about yourself.
a. Probe when/if participant mentions “parent”
3) What’s your major?
4) Where are you from?
5) Why did you decide to go to college?
6) Why did you decide to pursue and complete a degree at California College (CC)?
7) Why did you decide to transfer to a 4-year college or university?
8) What is it like at your house?
a. Do you live at home?
b. What is your family like?
9) Tell me about your parents.
a. Can you describe for me the relationship between you and your parent(s)?
10) Do you believe your parents have influenced your college education? If so, how?
11) What, if any, educational opportunities have you received because of your parents?
a. Can you give an example?
12) Did your parents attend college?
a. If no, why not?
b. If yes, what is the highest degree your parents have earned?
13) Do you believe your parent’s educational level has impacted your choice to pursue a
college degree?
14) What is your parent(s)’ opinion of college?
15) How, if at all, have your parents been supportive through college?
a. Can you give me an example?
b. How, if at all, have your parents encouraged you to stay in school or transfer to a
4-year institution?
16) What, if any, are the things your parents have done to encourage you to complete a
degree or transfer?
17) Did your parents help you with the admissions CC processes?
a. How so?
ASSESSING PERSISTENCE 136

18) In what ways, if any, do your parents help you with school now?
a. Can you give me an example?
19) How, if at all, have your parents helped you with the transfer process?
a. How so?
20) How would you describe your community within CC?
21) Tell me about your community outside of CC.
a. Are your parents involved with the community where you live? How so?
b. How, if at all, has your community helped you with your education?
22) Can you tell me about your parents’ community?
23) What are your parents’ friends like?
a. What do you think is the educational level of your parents’ friends?
b. Have your parents’ friends ever helped you with school? Why or why not?
24) What do you think about parental involvement with education?
a. Do you think there should be more or less? Why?
25) Overall, what do you think are the main reasons you stayed in school?
a. Probe when/if participant mentions “parent”
26) Looking towards the future, are there any reasons why you wouldn’t continue with
college?
a. Are they any reason why you wouldn’t graduate?
b. Are they any reasons why you wouldn’t transfer?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation assesses the impact of student-parent relationships on low-income students attending community colleges, as understood through the theoretical framework of Social Capital. Low-income students have been identified by the American Graduation Initiative as an at-risk population, and a current research gap exists regarding parental influence on low-income community college student persistence. Using data collected from a focus group and interviews with 10 low-income students attending a community college in southern California, findings suggest that tangible or intangible parental involvement or support is a source of capital that, when perceived as beneficial, can have a positive impact on postsecondary success. This study recommends that: (1) the American Graduation Initiative should mandate postsecondary institutions to establish programs, with the purpose of targeting and educating low-income communities about college opportunities via local churches, youth groups, businesses, and secondary schools, (2) parents of students should engage in conversations regarding education within households, ideally starting at the K-12 level, to establish a positive culture of education, which leads to increased educational capital, and (3) community colleges should partner with K-12 institutions to create opportunities for low-income students to develop educational role models outside of the student-parent relationship.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

Latino male community college students' persistence to transfer

PDF

Factors impacting four-year postsecondary matriculation at a college-preparatory, Catholic high school: an innovation study

PDF

Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students

PDF

My college coach: An online college admission counseling program for high school students

PDF

The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach

PDF

Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

College readiness: terms and conditions may apply

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

PDF

Internal affairs: understanding challenges low-income college students face in unpaid entertainment industry internships

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

First-year persistence of rural high school graduates at four-year, urban colleges and universities

Asset Metadata

Creator Craig, Jennifer Lynn (author)

Core Title Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/04/2015

Defense Date 08/28/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Community Colleges,educational capital,low-income,low-SES,networks,OAI-PMH Harvest,Parents,social capital

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy (committee chair), Maciel, Anthony (committee member), Merriman, Lynette (committee member)

Creator Email craigj@uci.edu,craigjl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-174986

Unique identifier UC11274333

Identifier etd-CraigJenni-3881.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-174986 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CraigJenni-3881.pdf

Dmrecord 174986

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Craig, Jennifer Lynn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA