University of Pennsylvania

Pathways Through the Community College of Philadelphia:

Social Capital Gains from College and Career Readiness Participation

Glen Casey

Senior Seminar

Department of Urban Studies and Sociology

December 15, 2016

Table of Content

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………   pp. 3-4

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………     pp. 5-12

Conceptual Framework/RQ………………………………………………………    pp. 12-18

Research Design…………………………………………………………………       pp. 19-21

Limitations .................................................................................................................. pp. 21

Data……………………………………………………………….............................. pp. 22-26

Discussion/Analysis……………………………………………………………........ pp. 26-30

Implications………………………………………………………………................ pp. 30-31

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….................. pp. 31

Introduction

It was November 8th 1965 in the auditorium of Texas state University where Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law promising the nation that “a high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 states and not be turned away because his family is poor” (Angelica, 2005). Since then, millions of Americans have enrolled into thousands of colleges across the nation. Indeed, just 36 percent of 23 year-olds had gone to college in 1965, while by 2005, that figure had grown to 58 percent (Dynarski, pg. 2). While the door to earn a post-secondary degree has widened, however, opportunities have been granted on a stratified basis. African Americans, for instance, are about half as likely as non-Hispanic whites to enroll in and successfully earn a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year university, and Hispanics are less than one-third as likely (Dynarski, pg. 4). Even on the two-year level low-income students are struggling to persist through the following years. For instance, in Philadelphia 40 percent of its 2012 graduates enrolled in 2-year colleges, and just 60 percent persisted through the following fall. And for minorities this statistic was even lower.

Despite low persistence rates, particularly among two-year college enrollees, the Community College of Philadelphia (CCP) continues to be the most feasible post-secondary option for students of low-income backgrounds, particularly for students graduating from Sayre and West Philadelphia High School. The obvious reason is that two-year colleges are more likely to have lower tuition rates than their four-year private and public counterparts. For instance, the net price of tuition at the Community College of Philadelphia is $6,530 per year compared to $23,054 at Temple University and $27,694 at the University of Pennsylvania (College Factual, 2015).  Many students also opt to enroll into CCP because of low academic preparedness and the feeling that they “aren’t ready” for a 4-year school. Additionally, research shows that low-income students are more likely to work full-time and/or have dependents. Given the flexibility community college provides with respect to scheduling and course completion, schools like CCP often appears to be the most viable. Therefore, it is of great importance that students are able to take full advantage of opportunities that best fit their needs, while getting support to persist through their second year of school to eventually earn a degree or transfer to a four-year institution.

In order to accomplish this, policy makers, local organizations, and colleges are assuming larger roles in helping students attain some form of post-secondary credentials. The University of Pennsylvania has taken steps most notably through the Netter Center for Community Partnerships, a university program dedicated to uplifting West Philadelphia residents as well as the larger Philadelphia community. With a program that includes a mentoring program and an annual Leaders of Change College Summer Bridge, the Netter Center has done extensive work inside West Philadelphia public schools through its year-round Career and College Readiness (CACR) programs.

Despite the vast amount of resources invested through CACR programming, however, students continue to struggle persisting through and attaining a post-secondary credential at the Community College of Philadelphia. Given such, I am interested in figuring out how can the Netter Center serve CACR students to make CCP a more viable option for those who plan to enroll there. In order to figure this out I asked: “What are the characteristics/key experiences of successful CACR students attending CCP that, through replication, can make CCP a viable post-secondary option for future CACR participants?” Drawing on Lin’s theoretical model of social Networks to understand this issue, I argue that the Netter Center acts an asset within student’s social network, and as such, students are able to build social capital through that connection to facilitate their success at the Community College of Philadelphia. Lastly, drawing on the conclusions of my research, I will form a list of actionable items for the Netter center to then integrate into their program practices

Literature review

The value of a post-secondary degree is indeed viewed as the main vehicle for social mobility and economic development throughout the United States. This was especially true during the recession when universities across the nation witnessed massive spikes in applications as the job markets weakened (Hegrenes, 2015). In 2007, nearly 15 million students enrolled in an undergraduate program at any U.S college or university, a number that has more than doubled over the past three decades. Since then, college going rates have grown even more with 2 million students opting to enroll in a post-secondary educational institution out of 3 million high school graduates in 2013. Even for low-income students, college going rates have gone up. According to Hegrenes (2013), the number of low-income students enrolling into some type of college immediately following graduation increased by over 60 percent since 1970 with almost 1.6 million enrolling for the first time in 2005.

Given the economic and non-economic benefits that come with holding a post-secondary diploma, it is reasonable why people are opting to attend college directly after high school rather than entering into the workforce. A post-secondary education can translate into a variety of benefits for an individual and society including higher earnings, lower rates of unemployment and government dependency, an increased tax base, and greater civic engagement (Long, 2014). According to the American Community Survey Brief (2011), a person with a bachelor’s degree earns over a million dollars more than high school graduate across a lifetime. Moreover, Khan and Rouse (1995) found that every year spent in school beyond high school at a 4-year university, there was a six to nine percent increase in annual earnings.

Additionally, for those attending two-year colleges there was a four to seven percent increase in annual earnings (Labor-market returns, 2014). Annette Fogg (2015) also saw that individuals are much likelier to be employed if they have earned at least an associate degree. According to her research, 81 percent of people with associate degrees were employed compared to 62 percent of their peers with high school diplomas (Fogg, 2015). And when employed, those holding associate degrees earned 35 percent more than high school graduates who did not attend college at all (Fogg, 2015). Moreover, relative to their peers holding high school diplomas, college graduates gain non-economic benefits over their lifetime (Fogg, 2015). For example, college graduates are also more likely to live healthier lives and raise their children in stable families that increase the chances of life success among their children as well.  

Despite the various benefits that stem from attaining a college degree, access to a post-secondary education has been limited for a large portion of America, particularly those of low-income and minority backgrounds. A Philadelphia based study released by The Center for Labor Markets and Policy at Drexel University examines the college enrollment rate of a 2003 cohort of public Philadelphia high school graduates. This study found substantial differences in college enrollment and completion rates among racial groups. For instance, nearly 80 percent of Asian graduates had enrolled in and completed college compared to 57 percent for African Americans (Fogg, 2015). Whites, on the other hand, had an enrollment rate of 64 percent. Lastly, Hispanic graduates were the least likely among all races to enroll in college with a below average rate of 47 percent (Fogg, 2015).

While these number may appear dismal, research has identified numerous barriers low-income minority students face along the college process. Among the biggest issues pressing this group is academic readiness. Alliance for Excellent Education (2006), for instance, reported that while 70 percent of those who entered high school in 2003 graduated, only 50 percent of students were deemed academically prepared for college.  However, it is most troublesome for low-income and minority student. For example, Greene and Foster (2003) found that the number of African American and Hispanic students deemed academically prepared was just 20 and 26 percent, respectively (Long, 2014). Most often, these numbers stem from low-academic rigor throughout high school, as low-income and minority students are least likely to enroll in AP and IB courses, and college-level preparatory programs offered during high school. As Perna (2014) concluded from her analysis, while 25 percent of students at schools offering IB programs qualified for free lunch in 2008, only 17 percent of the students participating that same year were eligible for free or reduced priced lunch.

Comparably, Solorzano and Ornelas (2004) saw wide disparities between enrollment patterns of White and Black students in AP courses at the top 50 California AP high schools (as measured by ratio of student to AP courses). Their study discovered that while White students had an overall enrollment rate of 39 percent, their enrollment rate in AP courses was 49 percent. African Americans, on the other hand, had an overall enrollment rate of 8 percent with just 5 percent of them represented in AP courses. Their study yielded similar results by income groups as well. As a result, students struggle with college level coursework, and are often required to take remedial courses where they become discouraged as their financial aid erodes for taking courses that will not count toward their degree. This not only is discouraging for students because they are told they are academically “underqualified” but also because it takes them longer to earn the degree they are working toward (Long, 2014). And for many low-income and minority students this is often the case (Long, 2014).

The second major issue research has identified as having a negative impact on low-income and minority student’s educational attainment is finances. In between 1990 and 2000 tuition at private universities rose by 70 percent, 84 percent percent at publics, and 62 percent at two-years. Those who are bear the largest burden of these cost increases, however, have been those who can least afford it (Hegrenes, 2013). For families in the lowest income quartile, tuition increased between 22 percent to 27 percent in just ten years from 1986 to 1996 (Hegrenes, 2013). Their upper income counterparts, on the other hand, saw a mere 9 percent increase. Resultantly, for each $150 increase there was a decrease in low-income student enrollment by almost 2 percent (Hegrenes, 2013). Because tuition rates are rising faster than family income, there are increasing numbers of low-income students with unmet need. In addition, while loans have been found to increase the likelihood of persistence for low-income students, scholars have also found that accumulation of debt can significantly decrease persistence among this group (Hegrenes, 2013).

Lastly, there is a lack of social integration for low-income students which poses a barrier for them to become connected to campus. Research has consistently shown that students who are more connected to their campus are more likely than their non-connected peers to be retained (Astin, 1984). This connection may be forged in variety of ways including living on campus, getting involved with student organizations, and building relationships with faculty members. According to Astin (1984), however, true involvement requires investment of a great deal of time and energy in academic relationships and involvement with on campus groups and activities. But for low-income students these type of opportunities to become connected to campus are scarce. For instance, low-income students are more likely to be enrolled in two-year colleges which rarely offer students opportunities to live on campus. Also, as I mentioned in the previous section of this paper, low-income students often have more responsibilities than their upper income peers as many of them work and care for younger siblings and/or dependents. Therefore, many students split their time between work, home, and class, leaving little room in their schedules to linger around campus. As a result, low-income students miss out on opportunities to get connected and strengthen their chances of persisting to the following year.

Initiatives

Given the growing concern over the status of low-income and minority students, local, state, and federal government, as well as universities, have made great strides in increasing college attainment rates among this group of students. In Philadelphia, for instance, where just 30 percent of its population has some form of a college degree, institutions like the University of Pennsylvania have been making continuous efforts, most notably through the Netter Center for Community Partnerships (PRC, 2015). Founded in 1992, the Barbara and Edward Netter Cent for Community Partnerships is “Penn’s primary vehicle for bringing to bear the broad range of human knowledge needed to solve the complex, comprehensive, and interconnected problems of the American city so that West Philadelphia, Philadelphia, the University itself, and society benefit.” (Netter Center, pg. 1)

 A part of their mission is to increase college going and completion rates among high school students attending their partnership schools: Sayre and West Philadelphia High. Two of the poorest and lowest performing high schools in Philadelphia, both have graduation rates around 50 percent (SDP, 2015). These schools also have enrollment populations around 600 students and are predominately low-income and African American (SDP, 2015). According to the School District of Philadelphia, African American low-income students constitute 95.3 percent and 96.7 percent of Sayre and West’s student body, respectively (SDP, 2015). Moreover, though WPH performs slightly better than Sayre on districtwide standardized test, both are well below the district average in literature and math. According to the PSD website, 2014-15 keystone exams show that 38.2 percent of students scored proficient or above in Algebra 1 compared to just 18.6 percent for West Philly high students. Sayre students, on the other hand, scored even lower with just 9.2 percent of their students scoring proficient or above (SDP, 2015). Needles to say, college going rates are extremely low with a little under 35 percent of more than 300 graduates since 2013 enrolled into some form of college and persisted beyond their first year.  

With funding from the 21st Century Grant provided by the state of Pennsylvania, the Netter Center has designed and implemented a plethora of college and career readiness programs (CACR) that seek to help students in West Philadelphia successfully prepare for and connect with postsecondary pursuits that will positively impact their lives and their community. These programs are facilitated during the academic year and summer time. Programs include Junior Jump Start, College Application Coaching, Financial aid Coaching, a Mentoring program, Cross Grade Literacy, and Leaders of change: College Bridge.

While each of these programs share a college readiness theme, they each are unique in their focus area. For instance, Junior Jump Start serve students in their Junior year and planning on attending a 2-or-4year college. They are matched with a Penn student for 8-10 weeks, learning about the college search and application process. Students also learn about college terminology, the connections between majors and careers, and financial aid. By the end of the program, students are expected to have a list of schools they want to apply to in the following academic year.

College application coaching also matches Sayre and West Philly high students with Penn student mentors, where they work with students to complete at least 4 college applications by the beginning of December. In January, students then transition to financial aid coaching where they work to build an understanding of the financial aid application process, learn how to utilize resources once on campus, and how to manage their money at college. Students also have the option of signing up for the Netter Center mentoring program which partners Penn students with students entering into their first year of college to help them with their transition by providing advice on study skills, social life management, and stress management.

During the summer, the Netter Center also holds two programs focused on connecting students with college. The first is their Cross Grade literacy program where high school students from West and Sayre create and deliver a reading comprehension lesson for middle school students once a week. The goal is to prepare both groups for better reading comprehension, which is intended to transfer to postsecondary attainment. Their second program is Leaders of Change: College Bridge. Students in this program participate in a 6-week college prep “boot camp” where students take a course on urban education; a reading and writing course to prepare for college-level academic work; and College 101 which teaches students the essentials of college including time management, accessing campus resource, etc.

Research Questions/Conceptual Framework

Given that a large portion of existing research focus solely on negative performance, I am interested in understanding groups of students who are able to excel beyond their first year despite the prevailing enrollment patterns of their peers. I plan to accomplish this by asking: “What are the characteristics/key experiences of successful CACR students attending CCP that, through replication, can make CCP a viable post-secondary option for future CACR participants?” Answering this question through my research will provide me with an in depth perspective of student experiences, which will enable me to understand what resources provided by the Netter Center are working for them and how they utilize these resources to facilitate their success. By the end, their experiences and characteristics will serve as the foundation to provide a set of programmatic recommendations for the Netter Center to integrate into their College and Career readiness programming practices.

To answer this question, it is important that we first understand the issue from a social capital framework. The term capital itself derives from Marx’s definition as “part of the surplus value captured by capitalists or the bourgeoisie, who control production means, in the circulations of commodities and monies between the production and consumption process” (Lin, 1999, pg. 28). Despite its connection to economics, Coleman, Putnam, and Bourdieu brought the term to popularity within the social sciences. In this field, social capital is defined loosely as the links upholding a particular group via shared norms, values, and institutions (Narayana, 1999). A second definition for social capital is simply the connections between and within social networks (Hegrenes, 2015).

 A classical definition of social capital, however, is given by Pierre Bourdieu who describes social capital as “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu, 1992, pg.119). A second classical definition is provided by James Coleman. Diverging from Bourdieu’s notion of social capital, Coleman (1988) sees it as a source of useful everyday information, and norms and sanctions, which can facilitate certain kinds of actions, but can also be restrictive (Coleman, 1988). Lastly, Putnam (2001), defines social capital as a product of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Together, although each of these theories differ in its own way, all three theories emphasis the importance of having access to a strong social network.

Application of social Capital Theory

Over the past two decades there has been a growing number of education research studies using social capitol theory. Many of these studies fall into one of the three schools of thought outlined in the previous subsection. For instance, Coleman’s theoretical framework has been common use, while others have used Bourdieu’s framework (Mwangi, 2015; Perna & Titus, 2005; & Lareau, 2011), and Putnam’s network social capital (Morrow, 1999). Moreover, while some studies relied heavily on quantitative methods (Perna & Titus, 2005), others have relied on qualitative approaches to use this framework (Lareau, 2011; Mwangi, 2015).

        Drawing on the work of Coleman (1988), Bourdieu (1992), and Lin (2001b), Perna and Titus (2005) employ a multinomial extension of hierarchical linear modeling evaluating parental involvement and students’ level of social capital across racial and ethnic groups. In addition to data from National Education statistics provided by the U.S department of education, this study uses data from NELS which provides student level data for students in the 8th grade, high school sophomores, and seniors. With this data, they analyzed the relationship between parental involvement, level of social capital, and the likelihood that a student enrolls in a 2-year or 4-year college in the fall after graduating high school. And for this study a parental measured by how involved a parent was such as talking to students about going to college, involved in their school, while they measured social capital gains as the likelihood a student would enroll into college. The study found that the odds of enrolling in a 2 or 4-year college relative to not enrolling at all increases as parents discuss college plans with their children more frequently.

Looking across class lines in her 2011 book Unequal Childhoods: Race, Class, and Family Life, Anent Lareau employs an ethnographic approach to understand the impact child rearing has on providing children with the necessary social capital to be successful in their school and work lives. She argues that middle-class parent approach child rearing using concerted cultivation that provides their children with logical reasoning and a sense of entitlement or what Lareau calls “middle class skills” (Lareau, 2011). As a result, she argues, these skills allow them to successfully navigate institutions across school and work life as they grow older. Poor and working class parents, on the other hand, raise their children using a natural growth approach which provide kids with the chance to freely develop themselves, but does not necessarily provide them with the ability to navigate “middle class institutions” because they lack the social capital.

Together, what is missing in these studies is the understanding of how students employ these forms of social capital in order to become successful. Instead, research has focused on how social capital is transferred and the impact it has on an individual’s life outcomes. Indeed, all three studies looked at a particular type of parental involvement as means for social capital. While other studies exist considering alternative markers for social capital like afterschool programs and teachers, they have undermined a variety of factors contributing to the amount of social capital low-income students have access to, or fail to recognize other key forms of social capital. Therefore, I will readapt Lin’s Network theory of social capital described below using a qualitative approach in order to fill this gap in the literature.

First, however, it is important to understand Lin’s theoretical model of social capital and how it will be adapted and used for the purposes of my research study. As he notes, social capital is the “investment in social relations by individuals through which they gain access to embedded resources to enhance expected returns” (Lin, 1999, pg.12). As such, a three step process arises: 1) investment in social capital, 2) access to and and mobilization of social capital, and 3) returns of social capital (Lin, 1999). In Lin’s model (1999) below, it contains three variables in causal sequences including the preconditions and precursors of social capitol, social capital elements, and possible returns for social capital (Lin, 1999).

Indeed, Lin’s model recognize the structural preconditions shaping an individual’s pathway to gaining social capital. In the first block, Lin shows that inequality exist in social structures, which either facilitate or constrain the type of social capital students have available to them (Linn,1999). Consequentially, how students capitalize on existing social assets during the capitalization phase, is dependent on the type of capital they have to begin with. This then determines the effect, which are the returns (instrumental and/or expressive) an individual sees from their investment in their social networks.

Lin’s model (1999) provides a solid foundation for me to attempt to demonstrate that CACR programming can provide avenues for social capital gains for low-income students, which in turn, will translate into post-secondary success i.e. persisting beyond the first year and attaining a college degree. In the adapted model, you will see that I have altered the definition of social capital to include Cultural capital, which research tends to distinguish from each other. Cultural capital, typically defined by research, is the access an individual has to existing language, institutional and cultural knowledge, that allows them to access social networks to advanced their own agendas. In addition, I have defined social capital as derived from Yosso’s (2005) community wealth theory, a theory citing alternative forms of capital such as persistence, aspirational capital. Together, social capital is defined as an individuals’ access to social networks that can provide them with institutional and cultural knowledge as well as enable them to tap into their inherent capital like persisting, aspirational, etc. so to successfully gain a post-secondary credential.

Moreover, I will move beyond the simple understanding that an individuals position in society is merely shaped by structural forces. Instead, we must dig deeper to understand these structural forces and how they shape and maintain access to social capital through the lens of Critical Race theory. As Billings note (1998), critical race theory begins with the notion that racism is a normal feature, not just aberrant, in American society. But because it is so enmeshed in the fabric of our social order, it appears both normal and natural to people in this culture (Billings, pg. 11). However, this is not the case, as African American students are not mostly low-income and more likely to attend poor performing high schools just by “structural forces.” These forces are products of an interlocking system of institutions that have bared certain groups from opportunities to a post-secondary education. As Harper (2015) notes, CRT scholars would argue that by the design of institutions, states, federal policies, and policymakers, they play role in who gains access to higher education as well as who is offered prime opportunities to thrive in these environments (Harper, pg. 159). Likewise, this social engineering process dictates who gains initial access to social capital as well as the type of social capital individuals are granted access to. Together, if we look at the way public education is currently configured, particularly at Sayre and West, it is possible to see the ways that CRT can be a powerful explanatory tool for the sustained inequity that people of low-income African American students experience in their initial placement within our social order (Billings, 1999).

The model above shows how how I adapted Lin’s social capital model. For this model, I have conceptualized student’s initial assets as their High school, parental and peer support, as well as support from the Netter Center given their year-round presence inside Sayre and West. For structural and positional variations, I included African American and low-income students vs. upper income white students given the inherent inequity that exist between these two groups access to social networks and assets. The middle and final phase represents how students mobilize the assets acquired through their social capital and the outcomes of how they mobilize those resources.

Research Design

This study explores the the common characteristics and dimensions of high-achieving low-income African American students who participated in the Netter Center’s college and career readiness programming and are attending the Community College of Philadelphia. Using a phenomenological multi-case study design, I conducted research at the Netter Center, Community College of Philadelphia, and Sayre and West Philadelphia high school to seek answers to the following questions:

1. To what extent did their involvement in CACR programing provide them with social capital, if any at all
2. How have students utilized the social capital embedded in their social networks to help them persist through the following year and to eventually earn an associate degree?

Moreover, this study uses a qualitative phenomenological approach in order to fill the gap in literature that lacks qualitative approaches, and to build upon the idea that The Netter Center can better facilitate student success at CCP as an asset within their social network.

Additionally, throughout the study I categorize students as “African American” and ‘low-income,” with two particular definitions in mind. African American includes students who are of African descent and identify as “black.” Low-income students are defined by those who are from low-income families eligible for free/reduced price lunch and represented by the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes (U.S Department of Education, 2005).

Design

A qualitative study was conducted in attempt to understand the pathways of college and career readiness participants who were able to persist beyond their first year and/or attain an associates degree after completing programming with the Netter center for community partnerships. Additionally, a qualitative study was used because I had a small sample of people and doing this would allow me to gain a better understanding of their lives and acquire intimate information that I would not be able to using a quantitative approach. A qualitative approach also seemed fitting given that a portion of my readapted social capital model is drawn from critical race theory which argues that voice is a powerful tool when brining additional power to discourse around opportunity and racial inequity (Billings, pg. 1998)

Furthermore, although I could have opted to do a quantitative approach to see what type of impact the Netter Centers CACR programming had on its students, such as a quasi-experimental design using using a comparison groups, it seemed of higher quality to conduct interviews and focus groups because it would produce contextual meaning rather than just a raw dataset—and Phenomenological studies accomplished just that. A phenomenological study is particularly effective at bringing to the fore the experiences and perceptions of individuals from their own perspectives, and therefore structural or normative assumptions (Lester, 1999). Lastly, this approach is useful for samples that are chosen purposefully rather than randomly.

Sample

To conduct this research, I chose to use a purposive sample.  My focus was on high achieving low-income African American students who participated in the Netter Center for Community Partnership’s college and career readiness programming, because I wanted to find out how successful students are successful, and they would provide the best information for that question

Additionally, a variety of methods were employed to evaluate the role of CACR programming and how students achieved success. This included focus groups, 1:1 interviews, and informal discussions. Together, these methods offered me an opportunity to understand this topic from a much more nuanced perspective than I could have otherwise. Moreover, given that a great majority of Philadelphia graduates opt to enroll in the Community College of Philadelphia, especially students who enroll in CACR programs, I chose to look at this group of students.

Lastly, I interviewed a group of 12 students. I also included 7 additional pre-recorded interviews conducted by a Netter Center employee. Given that varying CACR programs have different focus points, I strived to ensure that students represented all of the programs by ensuring that 2-3 students were from each of the programs. In order to be selected for this study, a student had to be low-income as defined by the U.S department of education, was a participant in one of the several CACR programs offered by the Netter center, earned an associates degree or transferred to a 4-year school, and/or persisted beyond their first year and intends on earning an associates degree by May of 2018. Students who were involved in CACR programming but did not persist beyond their first year were also selected for this study.

Data

To analyze the interview data included in the next section, I used a social network lens to help connect meaning to the findings. Specifically, I drew from Lin’s theoretical framework (1999) to analyze the challenges facing low-income students who participated in College and career readiness programming, and are attending the community college of Philadelphia. This framework argues that social capital is acquired from assets within an individual’s social network and that when students mobilize those assets to gains social capital, it results in instrumental returns i.e. the attainment of a post-secondary degree. The adapted model for this paper also uses critical race theory to understand the amount of capital low-income African American students begin with.

I started collecting data by transcribing 6 interviews conducted with students who participated in CACR programs and were enrolling in CCP in 2013, 2014, and 2015. These interviews were conducted with students one year after their matriculation with the Netter Center’s Academically based community service coordinator, Jenny Bae. Additionally, I constructed a set of interview questions and conducted half hour student interviews with 11 students. Furthermore, I collected raw quantitative student-level data retrieved from the Netter Center’s evaluation office. This data captures student’s matriculation and retention rates by program, participation year, and school type.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study mostly regarding the design and sample. The first issue is that the study may lack generalizability because the sample I chose was not randomized, but purposefully picked. I was also referred to pre-recorded interviews, which constituted a large portion of the Reponses.  Furthermore, the sample size is not large enough to imply that the findings from this study can be applied to any group of students with similar characteristics to those who participated in this study. Moreover, this study was limited to just one organization (The Netter Center for Community Partnerships), two schools (Sayre and west), and one college (The Community College of Philadelphia).  Given the great institutional diversity that exist in American higher education, findings from this study, even if it could be applied more broadly, would still be limited in that there is a small amount of community colleges that fit the exact same description of CCP. It also should not be used to generalize because this study was exploratory in nature. The sole value of this study lies in the stories of the participants, as told by them, to highlight important characteristics and experiences. This can be viewed as a limitation since the students shared their stories as only they knew it.

Results

When I first began analyzing the data, several themes emerged that were consistent with the literature.  Students who failed to earn an Associates degree or persist beyond their first year faced issues with finances, academic preparedness, and didn’t feel a connection to the campus. An important point to note, however, is that students who faced trouble with affording Community College did so not because CCP is unaffordable, but because they failed to complete forms that would have gotten them more money to cover their tuition. More importantly, as I assumed in the beginning of this project, students that were successful perceived the Netter Center as an asset in their network of institutions and people, and utilized the social capital gained to facilitate their success. And most students who failed to do such were those who did not persist beyond their first year or didn’t earn an associates degree in two years.

The first theme emerged from my interviews with 4 students’ who hadn’t persisted beyond their first year because they experienced issues with paying for college. When I asked “what was the biggest barrier they faced while they were in college” student 1 said “paying for tuition was the hardest part. I didn’t get my papers in on time…I think it was a grant or something […] but I was working at night and going to class during the day and I got really tired of barely paying for my classes.” When I asked a student what do they wish they had done differently in high school he said “I wish I would have been more on top of things because my counselor…she kept hounding [hassling] me about my financial aid stuff but my mom was taking too long with her information and I wasn’t pressing her hard enough.”

Other students struggled with academic preparedness as a large number were required to enroll in remedial courses prior to taking credit baring classes, even those who were identified as “successful.” Describing his difficulty with preparing for the placement test, student 2 stated “I didn’t really study the first time to take the test, so I did bad on my placement test” and “I had a second chance to take it, and I even studied, but I somehow still had to take classes that the lady at CCP said wouldn’t even count toward anything, so I just eventually never followed up because it didn’t make any sense to me.” Another student was telling me how she was discouraged and felt dumb when she found out she had to take remedial courses. She said “I was an A, B student in high school so I didn’t understand why I had to take remedial courses […] I felt embarrassed because I was going to community college and had to take slow classes.” She eventually didn’t finish as she continued to tell me that a close family member was sick and she didn’t have to time to go to school as long.

Although some students struggled with persisting through school, other students in the sample were doing relatively well. These students were in their second year with intentions on earning their associates degree by the following fall, or transferring to a 4-year institution. When I asked student 3 about initial barriers she faced when she got on campus she said “I had a hard time really getting to know CCP and getting to know my professors. It was really different from high school because I knew I had to reach out to them because they wouldn’t reach out to me.” Without mentioning her involvement in CACR, I asked her what helped her make it through her first year and she directly pointed to her participation in Summer Bridge and her continued connections with the Netter Center.  She said “when I was in college 101 I learned about having to reach out to professors and stuff, which is how I knew I had to reach out to them, and they showed me to how to talk to professors and write email and all that.” She also stated “After I finished the program I asked if I could have a mentor and they introduced me to this Penn student who help me all the time” “anytime I have a question about something she usually is the first person I reach out to”

A second student provided a similar account to how she was able to matriculate and persist beyond her first year. She describes her involvement in programs as helping her understand complex process involved in completing financial aid and other important forms that will get you transitioned into college. After asking her about involvement in CACR programs and how’d they help her make it to and through college, she said “I was assigned a mentor for the entire senior year of high school. Most kids chose not to keep their mentors but I knew I needed mine, especially after she finished helping me complete my college application materials […] I kept in touch with my mentor over winter break and she helped me with my financial aid application, which was really hard to complete because I didn’t even know where to get most of the information they were asking about my mom.” When I asked her what did her mentor help her with the most along the aid process and she replied, “helping me figure out what exact documents I needed to have completed in order for me to get all of my financial aid like my mom’s tax forms and things like that.” Because of this, she says, “after my first year here [at CCP], I knew exactly what I needed to complete my FAFSA, and even though I didn’t feel like I needed a mentor anymore, I kept touch with her because she helped me before and I knew I might not know it all, so she could probably help me again.”

Additionally, during a focus group conducted with a total o five students, 2 students who dropped out of CCP and 3 students who remained into their second year, several themes emerged. One of the biggest themes that emerged from the group discussion was the role of additional outreach on behalf of the Netter Center. When I asked how the netter center could better serve or have served them while at CCP, many of them that they wished the netter center reached out to them with additional resources. For instance, student 3 stated “I was able to keep using my mentor because I reached out to her by myself. They [The Netter center] did check in on me…they definitely were calling me and seeing how I was doing, but they weren’t offering additional help to me or anything.” Similarly, student 1 expressed that he wishes the Netter Center could’ve reached out because he didn’t even consider them a potential resource. He says “I didn’t even think about the Netter Center because I was in their program in high school, and I remember my high school teacher telling me no one would help me as much as people did in high school, so I had to do things myself.”

Discussion and Implications

The first story I would like to highlight is Brionna who is currently a second year student at the community college of Philadelphia studying liberal studies. Rather than earning her associates degree, Brionna intends on transferring to Mansfield University, a 4-year university a part of the Pennsylvania state college system. Brionna like the rest of the students in my sample, didn’t have parents who went to college. She described her life to me as growing up with just her mother and two younger siblings of whom she provides cares for till this very day. Most of my time with her was spent listening to her describing her triumphs throughout high school and how she has worked extremely hard to get where she is now.   What inspired me about this young women, in particularly, was her perception of her social network and how the social capital within that network could help facilitate her success despite her background. In the first 10 minutes of the interview, she was telling me how she knew she had to go to college because her mom had only earned a high school diploma and saw how much she had to work to keep up with bills and taking care of her and her siblings. From there she said “I watched my mom struggle growing up, so I knew I had to invest in myself to get an education, which is why I always asked for extra help and got involved in every program I could when I was in high school.”

What strikes me most in her response is her mobilization of capital that was made available through her investment in extracurricular programming provided by the Netter Center.  Indeed, Lin’s model stresses the mobilization phase that is said to result in instrumental and expressive returns i.e. maintaining a commitment to schooling and attaining a post-secondary credential. The second piece of her response also unveils the type of network Brionna has access to, which is highly dependent upon institutional support and parental resources. Whereas her mother had never attended college, and therefore, lacked the institutional knowledge, which serves as a critical form of social capital, Brionna saw her way of preparing herself for college not by asking her parents, but by taping into institutional resources provided by places like the netter center.  

Moreover, when I asked Tim to described his experience with the placement test for CCP, I asked him if he had considered reaching out to the Netter center for help given he had been involved with CACR at one point during his senior year. He told me he hadn’t thought about it because he didn’t have his Penn mentor anymore. Brionna on the other hand automatically asked for continued support upon her completion of CACR programs. She also continued to reach out to to acquire the knowledge needed to navigate her way through CCP. This contrast presents a distinction between how students view their social relation to institutions. Looking at their involvement with CACR program as an isolated period rather than an extension of of social network eliminates any possibility of gaining help that can potential help conquer barriers such as the ones Tim faced.

The second person’s story I would like to highlight is Michal, who graduated from Sayre in 2013 and earned an associates degree from the community college of Philadelphia in 2015. Michal has a similar background to Brionna’s, whose parents lacked a post-secondary credential. Though Michal has now earned an associates degree, he says he wasn’t always the college type student he sees himself as today. Up until his 10th grade year he was constantly involved in fights in and out of school, and was even arrested and charged with assault at a point in his life. As a result, he spent a year at an alternative school until he transferred to Sayre by his his senior year. His story is fitting because it not only emphasizes the change a person can make in their self, but the importance of a strong social network and the type of capital social networks help students like himself.  

When I asked Michal what encouraged him to make a change, he said “after leaving my old school and coming to Sayre, I realized how much better this school was than my old one. It didn’t even have a basket ball team. When I got to Sayre they had intramural basket ball [OST provided by the netter] with Penn student’s and my other school didn’t have any of this, it just was you got to school and leave.” “at that point, I got cool with a couple guys, and one guy asked me if I had wanted to go to college, and I said yeah just bull shitting him, but we met up not too longer after and he told me all the things college offered, and from there I just applied to CCP and was chilling for the rest of the year trying to stay out the way until I went.” When i asked him about his time at CCP and he told me that “it was kind of easy to be honest. I did a summer program [College Bridge] where I took classes and they helped me with my reading and writing. I also knew what I wanted already so my first year was just a matter of doing the work, staying motivated, and staying out the way.”  

Michal story is important because it demonstrates an important aspect of social capital that literature has often overlooked as form of capital, which is aspirational capital. In the adapted model used for this paper, I construct the term social capital to include aspirational capital, as derived from Yosso’s (2005) community wealth model. This form of capital allows students to preserver despite adversity and get what is needed in order to achieve a specific goal, which in this case, is attaining a post-secondary credential. Moreover, Michal’s story highlights the importance of having an established network of people and institutions ready for students to tap into. For instance, Michal’s involvement in OST intramural basketball led to him meeting a Peen student who helped motivate Michal to go to college simply by showing him what college offered whereas at his old school he was disconnected from that network. As a result, Michal was able to tap into his aspirational capital which carried him through the process of applying for college and seeking he preparation needed to be successful in college by enrolling into a summer bridge program.

Implications

This study is important because it highlights instances of successful low-income, first-generation minority students. This study was also intended to provide a better understanding of what can be done for low-income, first-generation students to succeed academically and socially through unveiling common themes for their success. After these common characteristics surrounding high-achieving first generation college students, it is my hope that this study will enable students, Netter Center administrators and staff, and policy makers the opportunity to mobilize and re-organize current social networks of first-generation students so that success in college may be achieved. Therefore, I have outlined two critical modes of intervention that can potentially help strengthen students network to facilitate their success.

1. Build a Cohort model that will facilitate a successful pathway through the Community College of Philadelphia

1. After looking over my interview data I several themes emerged that I believe should sere as the key pillars of the model. The themes are providing clear pathways, academic support, and professional/intellectual development. The goal is to strengthen student’s social networks, and therefore, build their social capital in order to facilitate their success at the community college of Philadelphia. These social networks will come in the form of professional and academic ties with individuals inside and outside of CCP, access to extra resources that can help strengthen academic readiness, and peer support.  

2. Help ease the transition from high school to the community college of Philadelphia

1. Another theme that arose from the data was the difficulty student had with understanding the expectation of applying to college including completing scholarship applications, financial aid forms, placement exams, etc. As a result, students fail to maximize their college going process by not applying for all the aid they are eligible for, sufficiently preparing for placement exams, etc. This then interferes with their ability to persist beyond their first year because they end up working longer hours during the academic year to cover tuition that could have been covered through grants or aid, getting discouraged because they have to take remedial courses that won’t count toward their degree, among a variety of other factors.

Conclusion

It is a well known phenomenon that first generations students face extreme hurdles graduating college and successfully transitioning to higher education. This study focused on the stories of a group of successful, first-generation CACR students who were beating the statistics while also looking at students who were not able to persist beyond their first year. And just by listening to their stories, I was able to gain valuable information they shared about how they overcame their trials and tribulations to reach the point they are currently at. Some important findings that emerged from this study include the fact that the vast majority of students in this study received guidance from a college preparatory program prior to enrolling in college. All but two students in granted their their success in college is to one personal characteristics – a personal drive to succeed. Instead, all of the students in the interviews believed the college and career readiness programs they participated in benefited them greatly in their pursuit of their college degree. These students want more than anything to make themselves proud as well as their mothers and fathers.

Reference List

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal                 of College Student Personnel, 25(4),        297-308.

A. Angelica, et al.(2005). Higher Education Act 40 years of Opportunity. T. G Analystics, 1(1).         Retrieved from https://www.tgslc.org/pdf/HEA_History.pdf

Bourdieu, Pierre (1986), ‘The Forms of Capital’, in Richardson, John G., ed., Handbook                 of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood.

Coleman, James S. (1988), ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal                 of Sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and         Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure, pp. S95-S120.

College Factual.(2015). Indiana income limits [Data file]. Retrieved from                                         http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-pennsylvania/paying-for-                college/net-price/#

Deming, D., & Dynarski, S. (2009). Into college, out of poverty? Policies to increase the

postsecondary attainment of the poor (No. w15387). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fogg, P. Neeta., Harrington, E. Paul. (2015). From Diplomas To Degrees: A Longitudinal Study                 of the College Enrollment and Graduation Outcomes of High School Graduates from the                 School District of Philadelphia. Drexel University Center for Labor Markets and Policy,                 1-62.https://www.pyninc.org/docs/diplomas_degrees2015.pdf

Hegrenes, S. A. (2013). Pathways to success in higher education: understanding the influence of                 mentoring programs on first-generation students (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY                 OF MINNESOTA).

Jepsen, C., Troske, K., & Coomes, P. (2014). The labor-market returns to community college                 degrees, diplomas, and certificates. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(1), 95-121.

Julian, T. (2012). Work-Life Earnings by Field of Degree and Occupation for People with a                 Bachelor's Degree: 2011. American Community Survey Briefs. ACSBR/11-04. US                 Census Bureau.

Kane, Thomas J., and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 1995. Labor Market Returns to Two-Year and                         Four-Year Schools. The American Economic Review 85(3): 600-614.

Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Univ of California Press.

Long, B. T. (2014). Proposal 6: Addressing the Academic Barriers to Higher Education. Policies                 to Address Poverty in America, 67.

PATTON, L., Harper, S. R., & Harris, J. (2015). Using Critical Race Theory to (Re) Interpret         Widely Studied Topics Related to Students in US Higher Education. Critical approaches         to the study of higher education: A practical introduction, 193.

Perna, L. W., May, H., Yee, A., Ransom, T., Rodriguez, A., & Fester, R. (2013). Unequal                         Access to Rigorous High School Curricula: An Exploration of the Opportunity to Benefit                 From the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP). Educational Policy,         0895904813492383.

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. Journal of Higher Education, 485-518.

Putnam, Robert D. (2001), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,         New York: Simon & Schuster.

S. Lester (1999). An Introduction to Phenomenological Research. Research Volumes, 1(1).                 Retrieved from https://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/F50603E0-41AF-4B15-9C84-        BA7E4DE8CB4F/0/Seaweedphenomenologyresearch.pdf

Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African                         American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. The High School                 Journal, 87(3), 15-26.

School District of Philadelphia Performance Data. (2015). [Graph illustration of school         population and standardized test performance]. School Data Access from the SDP.         Retrieved from https://webapps1.philasd.org/school_profile/ 

The Pew Research Charitable Trust (2015). Assessing Community College of Philadelphia.         Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/05/community-college-        report.pdf

Yosso*, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community         cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.