Calendar

Dr. Rebecca Callahan
University of Vermont
 
Abstract: A postsecondary credential is increasingly essential for middle-class employment in the US context (Pellegrino, et al., 2013), yet preparation for and enrollment in college remain largely stratified along demographic lines (Black et al., 2020; NCES, 2016). In the current study, we explore the postsecondary preparation and engagement of one of the fastest growing US school populations, English learner (EL) students, focusing on how their involvement with two potential levers of postsecondary access and enrollment, advanced math course taking and dual enrollment informs their postsecondary outcomes. Historically, research on EL students’ college-going has examined the experiences and outcomes of students identified as EL during high school; we use state-level administrative data to capture the broader population of all students who were identified for EL-services in Kindergarten, regardless of their placement during high school. Preliminary analyses of Texas administrative data show that nearly a quarter of Texas K-12 public school students were EL-identified for at least part of their K-12 career.. Using multilevel regression models, we find that advanced math coursework and dual-enrollment are both positively associated with initial EL students’ postsecondary outcomes, but in different, and somewhat limited ways that have implications for EL programs, policy, and practice.

Dr. Christina Ciocca Eller
Harvard University
 
In American colleges and universities, “fit”—or congruence between student and college along academic, economic, social, and/or cultural lines—is an important component of student success, especially with regards to bachelor’s degree (BA) completion. However, existing literature presents contradictory findings as to where lower-income students fit best, leaving the relationship between college fit and inequality in college outcomes incomplete. Drawing on the concept of psychological capital, higher education research on information asymmetries, and the theory of inhabited institutions, we argue that understanding fit requires elevating three key tenets: (1) the multidimensionality of student resources—above and beyond well-documented or “dominant” resources (i.e., social, cultural, economic and academic resources); (2) intra-individual heterogeneity in resource levels; and (3) the uneven valuation of particular resource types by colleges’ organizational actors. We illustrate this argument empirically using 168 longitudinal student interviews linked with administrative data, together with 30 interviews with college faculty and administrators, in three, less-selective, public colleges. Through this approach, we identify clear gaps between the promise of upward mobility central to the mission of less-selective colleges, and the actions that these colleges take to make good on that promise.