Utilizing a Cultural Wealth Framework to Examine First- Generation Resources Available at Public Universities in Texas By Kaylee Lawrence Applied Research Project Kal223@txstate.edu Submitted to the Department of Political Science Texas State University-San Marcos In Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Administration Summer 2021 Abstract In a country facing unprecedented income inequality, higher education can become an important tool for equity. Historically, postsecondary institutions are not built with the diversity of student experience in mind and therefore are not a space where all can achieve. First- generation and low-income students face unique obstacles that contribute to lower persistence rates, in part due to higher education undervaluing their social capital. The purpose of this study is twofold, first to identify best practice interventions that lead to first-generation students’ persistence in higher education and second, to compare the best practices standards to the strategies being deployed by the public, four-year universities in Texas.
The best practices identified in the literature review are organized using critical race theorist TJ Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth framework, categorizing the practice in one of six forms of capital: aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistance. The best practice rubric was used to conduct content analysis on each of the 37 public universities websites and social media accounts, when applicable. The results showed there is still ample room for improvements in the supports provided by public Texas universities, which is evident by the consistently low six-year graduation rates. There are some institutions exceeding in specific areas and overall flagship institutions of university systems typically provide stronger offerings to their first-generation students.
This research was completed in a time of turbulence, in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, where universities are deploying new and creative services to stay connected with their students. Now, more than ever, it is crucial for universities to support students in ways that feel culturally affirming. 1 About the Author Kaylee Lawrence was a first-generation college student from Battle Creek, Michigan. She attended the University of Michigan and graduated with bachelor’s degrees in economics and political science.
After graduating, Kaylee served two AmeriCorps terms Austin, Texas. Kaylee earned a Master of Public Administration degree from Texas State University in 2021. Kaylee currently works as the Director of Performance Measurement at Communities In Schools of Central Texas. 2 Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction .6 Barriers Faced by First-Generation Students .7 Cultural Capital and a New Assets-Based Approach .10 Chapter Two: Literature Review .13 Pre-College Programs .27 Reinforcing Self-Efficacy .30 3 Chapter Three: Methodology .1 Tuition, Enrollment and Six-Year Graduation Rates for Public Texas Universities, Organized by State University System .32 Website and Social Media Content Analysis .33 Operationalization of Conceptual Framework .3 Operationalization Table of Conceptual Framework .35 Considerations for Content Analysis.38 Chapter Four: Results .41 Category 1: Aspirational Capital .1 Aspirational Capital Component Score Summary .42 Pre-College Programs .43 Category 2: Linguistic Capital .2 Linguistic Capital Component Score Summary .44 Category 3: Familial Capital .3 Familial Capital Component Score Summary .45 Category 4: Social Capital.4 Social Capital Component Score Summary .47 Category 5: Navigational Capital .5 Navigational Capital Component Score Summary .49 Category 6: Resistance Capital .6 Resistance Capital Component Score Summary .50 Reinforcing Self-Efficacy .7 Comparison Heatmap of University Scores in Each Form of Capital .54 Chapter Five: Conclusion.55 Summary of Findings .1 Comparison Between Tuition Cost, Enrollment Size, Graduation Rates Amongst Top Five Universities .2 Comparison Between Tuition Cost, Enrollment Size, Graduation Rates Amongst Bottom Five Universities .58 Opportunities For Future Research .59 Appendices Appendix A: University Websites and Social Media Handles .60 5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction First-generation college students make up 56% of all undergraduate students enrolled in the United States (RTI International, 2019a).
Despite record enrollment numbers, first-generation students are not finding the same success completing their postsecondary programs. A 2019 longitudinal study from the National Center for Education Statistics found only one in five first- generation students attained a bachelor’s degree with in six years of entering college; meanwhile, one in two continuing-generation students attained a bachelor’s degree within six years (RTI International, 2019b). There are several definitions of “first-generation” commonly used in higher education research. The Center for First-Generation Student Success, a research and innovation initiative from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), notes that the most defining thing about first-generation students is the term, “first-generation”, implies “a student may lack the critical cultural capital necessary for college success because their parents did not attend college” (The Center, 2017).
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) defines a first-generation student (hereinafter referred to as “FG” or “FGS”) as “enrolled in postsecondary education and whose parents do not have any postsecondary experience” (Redford & Hoyer, 2017, p. While a continuing generation student (hereinafter referred to as “CG” or “CGS”) is an individual who is enrolled in postsecondary education who has at least one parent with a postsecondary credential (Redford & Hoyer, 2017). The federal government uses this definition to determine eligibility for established first-generation supports such as TRiO Programs and Pell Grants. For the purposes of this research, the federal definition of FGS will be utilized.
6 Barriers Faced by First-Generation Students The differences between FGS and their CG peers span beyond the differences in familial education attainment. There are notable differences in demographics and academic histories between the two groups of students that play a significant role in reinforcing systemic barriers faced by FGS. FGS are more likely to be minorities, 51% of all FGS are students of color while students of color make up only 30% of CGS. FGS are also far more likely to come from low-income families (Redford & Hoyer, 2017, p.
The median household income for a FG family is $41,000 a year, compared to $90,000 for a CG family (RTI International, 2019a). The differences in economic status are exacerbated at the lowest income levels, 27% of FG families make less than $20,000 a year, while 6% of CG families make less than $20,000 a year (Redford & Hoyer, 2017, p. FGS are often balancing education with other familial and financial obligations, leading to 60% of FGS enrolling part time. The obligations FGS face also influence how they engage with employment opportunities.
FGS are just slightly more likely to work than CGS (66% of FG, 61% of CG); however, they are working more hours per week. The median hours worked for FGS is 20 per week, compared to 12 per week for CGS (RTI International, 2019c). FGS are entering the postsecondary environment with less exposure to and preparedness for the academic rigor of higher education. Overall, FGS are more likely to graduate high school with a below average GPA.
Only 77% of FGS had a GPA greater than 2.0 (a “C” average), compared to 91% of CG. Moreover, FGS are 12% less likely to complete an advanced-level math course while enrolled in high school (RTI International, 2019b). 7 The unresolved barriers FGS face when entering higher education often compound, resulting in FGS terminating their higher education pursuit. FGS are 29% less likely to complete their postsecondary programs than their CG peers (RTI International, 2019b).
Failure to attain a postsecondary credential is detrimental to FGS’s future success. A 2019 study from E3 Alliance, a non-profit education collaborative, found that a young adult has only a 12% chance at earning a livable wage if they did not attain a postsecondary credential within six years of graduating from high school (“Pathways to Prosperity”, 2019). Low postsecondary attrition among FGS perpetuates cycles of systemic poverty many FGS have faced all their life. In 2017 NCES published a longitudinal study that assessed FG and CGS’s postsecondary aspirations versus outcomes; the results highlighted gaps between FG and CG educational aspirations.
Surprisingly, the aspirations for attaining a bachelor’s degree were consistent between FGS and CGS (both at 36%). The aspiration gap emerged from differences in FGS and CGS expectations to earn advanced degrees, 49% of CGS compared to 32% of FGS aspired to earn a master’s degree or higher (Redford & Hoyer, 2017, p. When looking at the postsecondary outcomes of this cohort, NCES found that FGS attained their planned postsecondary goals less often than their CG peers. The survey, administered in 10th grade, showed 68% of FGS and 85% of CGS aspired to attain a bachelor’s degree or higher.
After ten years, 23% of FGS and 55% of CGS attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (Redford & Hoyer, 2017, p. Cultural Capital and a New Assets-Based Approach In the educational system, FGS are often viewed through a deficits-based lens. Traditional supports deployed in the secondary and postsecondary space focus on teaching or training FGS on ideologies valued by the dominant groups in society, these ideologies are 8 considered “cultural capital”. Over the last five decades, there has been extensive research around the role of cultural capital in the success of students in the postsecondary environment.
Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu first used the term cultural capital in 1977. Bourdieu conceptualized cultural capital as “an accumulation of cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities possessed and inherited by privileged groups in society” (Yosso, 2005, p. In other words, privileged groups (generally white, educated, upper class) innately possess cultural capital, while marginalized or non-dominant groups are deficient. Bourdieu believed that individuals could only acquire cultural capital through formal education if they did not inherit capital through familial tradition.
Utilizing this concept of cultural capital, future theorists perpetuated a deficits-based approach to understanding why non-dominant groups were not achieving the same levels of success as dominant groups in the postsecondary setting (Yosso, 2005). Traditional supports are compensatory strategies, looking at skills FGS lack and providing interventions to develop these skills (Yosso, 2005). Examples of skills developed by compensatory supports include: organizational skills, study habits, financial literacy, public speaking, networking, and resume building. While these skills may have benefits, they are not adequately addressing FGS’s barriers that affect attrition rates.
Rising research suggests, FGS persistence can be improved through leveraging the assets they bring with them to the education setting. Theorist TJ Yosso critiqued Bourdieu’s work in her 2005 research. Yosso asserted that cultural capital is more aptly “cultural knowledge, skills and abilities valued by privileged groups in society” (p. Bourdieu’s understanding ignores forms of cultural capital not possessed by dominant groups, discrediting any value of the ability, skills, or cultural knowledge held by the non-dominant groups.
Yosso identified six forms of non-dominant group capital in the 9 Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) framework. CCW includes six forms of capital: (1) aspirational, the ability to create and sustain goals for the future, even when faced with adversity; (2) linguistic, the ability to speak in multiple languages or styles and the ability to switch between them depending on the audience; (3) familial, the cultural knowledge and history a student carries from their family and community; (4) social, the social networks a student possesses and can create to lean on for support; (5) navigational, the skills amassed while maneuvering through social institutions that were not designed for them; (6) resistance, knowledge and skills developed while they identify, challenge, and seek to reform oppressive structures in society (Yosso, 2005, p. For education policy makers, the CCW framework creates opportunity to identify and leverage FGS assets when implementing and evaluating targeted interventions. Research Purpose The purpose of this research is to describe the assets-based policies, programming, and supports provided to FGS by public, four-year universities in Texas targeting college persistence.
FGS persisted through high school, navigated their way through college admissions, often after completing entrance exams and financial aid documentation, to enroll in a college community where they still often encounter classism or other forms of oppression. FGS are subject to inaccurate assumptions about their postsecondary preparedness and/or commitment to their postsecondary goals (Means & Pyne, 2017, p. Programs offered by universities to support students as they navigate through higher education, such as tutoring services or career-planning, are viewed as an auxiliary resource for most students.