Issues and Barriers Facing Low-Income Students in Higher Education

Abstract

Low-income students often struggle to achieve the same levels of success as their peers in higher education. This paper looks at the background and context for low-income students and research that has showcased the utilization of student support services by low-income students in higher education. Analysis of Milem, Antonio, and Chang’s Expanded Campus Climate framework shows how external sociohistorical and governmental/political forces and the internal organizational/structural dimension has shaped student support services for low-income students within higher education. Some of the potential solutions found in the research and recommendations made in this paper include financial aid advising for low-income students before and during their time in higher education, an increased focus on academic guidance and advising, counseling, and social discussion groups through first-year initiative programs for low-income students, and making sure low-income students are aware and comfortable with the student support services that are already available to them (Engle & Tinto, 2008; George-Jackson & Gast, 2015).

Introduction

Research on low-income students enrolled in higher education institutions shows that low-income students currently make up around 20 percent of the total undergraduate population attending college in the United States (Engle & Tinto, 2008). However, despite low-income students making up a significant percentage of the undergraduate student population, they have much lower retention and degree completion rates than other socio-economic groups (Engle & Tinto, 2008). For example, only 26 percent of low-income undergraduate students earned a bachelor’s degree after six years, whereas 56 percent of high-income undergraduate students earned a bachelor’s degree after six years (Schademan & Thompson, 2016). This issue is essential for higher education institutions moving forward because as the wealth gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase, the number of students of low-income status attending higher education institutions will continue to increase (Schademan & Thompson, 2016).

If administrators in higher education do not implement measures to provide stronger financial, counseling, and academic support services dedicated to promoting personal and professional development for low-income college students, this group of students will continue to see significantly lower retention and graduation rates in comparison to the population as a whole. This paper will provide background information on the financial, cultural, and social capital of low-income students, highlight current research about low-income students and support services in higher education, and progress the population has made in higher education during recent years. Furthermore, Antonio, Milem, & Chang’s (2005) Expanded Campus Climate Framework will be utilized to analyze aspects that contribute to the lack of student support services for low-income students and how this negatively impacts these students. Additionally, this framework will examine the main accomplishments and challenges of this issue to consider what types of student support services that higher education institutions across the country can take to help low-income college students achieve success.

Background & Context

Many low-income college students experience college differently than most traditional college students. This difference in college experience is related to the lack of financial, cultural, and social capital that many college students coming from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds have before even entering higher education (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). In terms of financial capital, many students from low-income backgrounds do not have the support that many students of middle and upper SES receive (McCabe & Jackson, 2016). Parents’ SES impacts their children’s student loan debt, meaning that the lower the parents’ SES, the more money that students must then borrow to support their way to earning a degree in higher education (Houle, 2014). The reason why students of lower-income families obtain higher amounts of student debt is that their parents save less money towards paying for college. They face financial constraints that limit their opportunities to save funds toward college (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). This lack of saving opportunities negatively impacts students of low-income backgrounds because there is a strong correlation between parents’ financial contributions and academic achievement, and students who have more student debt are less likely to complete their degree program and graduate from college (Dwyer, McCloud, and Hodson, 2012).

When looking at cultural capital, sources such as parents and high school counselors play a significant role in the types of higher education institutions that many individuals attend or if these individuals decide to pursue higher education at all (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). Many parents from low-income backgrounds tend not to have the knowledge necessary to help effectively guide their children towards higher education and are less likely to advocate for their children to persist when times are difficult (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). High school counselors play a significant role in helping students apply for higher education institutions that best fit the needs and desires of the student and making them aware of financial aid options that could help make college more affordable (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). However, many low-income students attend public high schools that have a significant lack of counseling resources due to higher student-to-counselors ratios (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). As a result, these counselors have less knowledge and training and are more likely to use passive techniques such as passing out brochures rather than sitting down and going over the information with students (McCabe & Jackson, 2016). When these sources of cultural capital provide information helping low-income students learn more about higher education, these sources contain social capital (McCabe & Jackson, 2016).

When discussing social class differences, many low-income students attend high schools that do not adequately prepare them academically for college (Jack, 2016). This point is significant because when students enter college, they must often take supplemental coursework that does not count towards college credit, adding another step that these students must persist through to obtain their degree. Additionally, many of the preparatory high schools that students from low-income and SES backgrounds attend do not have the proper financial resources to provide adequate counseling and support to students who are interested in attending college (Jack, 2016). This research suggests that schools can supplement parents’ cultural capital and points to variations within and across class backgrounds (Jack, 2016).

Even though many students from low-income and SES backgrounds lack the financial, cultural, and social capital, more students from these backgrounds are attending higher education institutions than ever (Engle & Tinto, 2008). According to Fry and Cilluffo (2019), there has been a large influx of students from low-income families. In 1996, only 12 percent of students in higher education were from low-income backgrounds (Fry & Cilluffo, 2019). In 2016, 20 percent of students in higher education were from low-income backgrounds, an eight percent increase in the past 20 years (Fry & Cilluffo, 2019).

However, while low-income students represent more of the student population than they did 20 years ago, this percentage is not equally distributed across the different types of institutions within higher education. Over 20 years from 1996 to 2016, the percentage of students who attended four-year very selective higher education institutions only increased three percent, and the percentage of students who attended four-year moderately selective institutions only increased four percent (Fry & Cilluffo, 2019). However, the percentage of low-income students who attended four-year minimally selective higher education institutions rose 11 percent from 14 to 25 percent (Fry & Cilluffo, 2019). Furthermore, the percentage of low-income students who attended private, for-profit higher education institutions increased by 13 percent from 23 to 36 percent (Fry & Cilluffo, 2019). This research shows that while more low-income students are attending higher education institutions as a whole, a higher percentage of students attend for-profit and minimally selective institutions than four-year moderately and very selective institutions.

The primary source of support services for students from low-income backgrounds is the Federal TRiO Student Support Services. Created as part of the Higher Education Act of 1965, TRiO programs identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, including low-income, first-generation, and disabled students (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). TRiO Student Support Services (SSS) receives funding through a federal grant competition, and funds are awarded to higher education institutions to provide students from disadvantaged backgrounds with “opportunities of academic development, assist students with basic college requirements, and to motivate students toward the successful completion of their post-secondary education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). The ultimate goal of SSS is to increase the graduation and retention rates of its participants (U.S. Department of Education, 2019).

One research study of low-income students with SSS highlighted that 65 percent of TRiO participants at four different higher education institutions in the Northeastern United States exceeded the tutorial participation level of non-SSS students (Gibson, 2003). Additionally, Gibson (2003) found that the academic performance of SSS participants was almost identical to regularly admitted, non-SSS counterparts, while also being significantly more involved with non-academic activities on campus. Another research study by Rhodes and Dubois (2008) showcased that low-income students, as well as other minoritized student groups that actively participated in formal mentoring programs reported increased satisfaction in college services and in academic persistence. This increase in satisfaction resulted in an increase in student retention at the institution studied (Rhodes & Dubois, 2008). Last, a study by Hodge (2017) examined 840 former and present low-income undergraduate students, 210 were SSS participants and 630 were non-SSS participants eligible at a “rural Appalachian community college in Eastern Kentucky” (p. 28). The results of this study found that the fall-to-fall retention rate of low-income students who participated in the study was only 23.9 percent (Hodge, 2017). Furthermore, it showed that low-income students served in SSS programs at this institution did not perform significantly better in measures of academic success (GPA, retention rates, and graduation rates), than low-income students not participating in SSS (Hodge, 2017).

This topic is interesting to me based on my work with student support services as an undergraduate tutor and a graduate student assistant (GSA) for REACH. Throughout my time working with REACH, I have helped several students who I learned were from low-income or low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Many of the issues confronted by these students had nothing to do with their knowledge of the coursework or study strategies, but rather non-academic concerns such as feeling guilty for leaving home to pursue higher education and having an environment that allows for proper academic and non-academic growth to occur (i.e., a place to sleep and study, having enough food, etc.) (Ciscell, Foley, Luther, Howe, & Gjsedal, 2016). During my time as a GSA at REACH and in the Higher Education Administration Program I have learned about programs and services on campus that are meant to help low-income students. However, I want to learn more about how the lack of student support services for low-income student impacts their experience within higher education.

Theory, Model, and Framework

Milem, Antonio, and Chang’s (2005) Expanded Campus Climate framework will be used to analyze student support services for low-income students. The three primary goals of the Expanded Campus Climate framework are to “integrate their diversity and quality efforts, situate this work at the core of institutional functioning, and realize the educational benefits available to students and the institution when this integration is done well and is sustained over time” (Milem et al., 2005, p. iii). Furthermore, the Expanded Campus Climate framework utilizes the definition of inclusive excellence. Inclusive excellence is essential when studying this issue because it allows administrators to move towards achieving a long-term successful agenda with a meaningful investment of resources at a high degree of coordination while trying to achieve goals and objectives (Williams, 2013). The definition of inclusive excellence consists of four primary elements:

1. A focus on student intellectual and social development. Academically, it means offering the best possible course of study for the context in which the education is offered.

2. A purposeful development and utilization of organizational resources to enhance student learning. Organizationally, it means establishing an environment that challenges each student to achieve academically at high levels and each member of the campus to contribute to learning and knowledge development.

3. Attention to the cultural differences learners bring to the educational experience and that enhance the enterprise.

4. A welcoming community that engages all of its diversity in the service of student and organizational learning (Milem et al., 2005, p. vi).

Additionally, the Expanded Campus Climate not only analyzes internal factors within higher education institutions that play a role regarding the issue, they also analyze external forces outside of the institution such as sociohistorical forces and governmental/political forces that impacts the amount of student support services for low-income students. Sociohistorical forces influence the campus climate and include events or issues in the larger society that relate to how individuals experience events and issues within higher education (Milem et al., 2005). Examples of governmental/political forces include financial aid policies and programs, and state/federal policies (Milem et al., 2005). The inclusion of sociohistorical forces and governmental/political forces is necessary to truly understand the reasoning behind why there is a lack of student support services for low-income students.

Figure 1: Dimensions of influence on an institution’s campus. (Milem et al., 2005).

While Milem et al.’s original intention for their framework focused on racial diversity, I feel this framework also works for other groups of minoritized students within higher education, such as low-income students. To analyze the lack of student support services for low-income students, I will focus on the external governmental/political forces, and sociohistorical forces, and the internal organizational/structural dimension within Milem, Antonio, and Chang’s (2005) Expanded Campus Climate framework. The framework’s use of external forces, in addition to institutional context provided in the organizational/structural dimension provides the opportunity to evaluate the lack of student support services for low-income students.

Analysis

The primary sociohistorical event that played a significant role in the lack of proper student support services for low-income students attending higher education institutions is the Great Recession that occurred from 2007-2009. During the Great Recession, the economic downturn resulted in 7.8 percent decrease in average annual consumer spending and an unemployment rate that peaked at ten percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). As expected, the Great Recession negatively impacted students that wished to attend higher education institutions. Students attending colleges and universities often came from families that had members who were laid off, resulting in a reduction of overall family income (Long, 2014). Due to the loss of family income, individuals that did decide to still attend college had to find new ways to pay for their education and often took on more student debt while trying to earn their degree than in previous decades (Long, 2014).

When looking at Milem, Antonio, and Chang’s Campus Climate framework, governmental and political forces outside of higher education due to the 2007-2009 economic recession continue to play a significant role in the lack of proper student support services for low-income students attending public colleges and universities. In 2017, many state governments continued to reduce the amount of spending towards public higher education institutions to levels well-below the historical average (Mitchell, Leachman, & Masterson, 2017). Deep state funding cuts towards public higher education institutions have had significant consequences for the students who attend these colleges and universities. The most notable consequence is raised tuition costs for students (Mitchell et al., 2017). At four-year public colleges, annual published tuition has increased over 35 percent since the beginning of the 2008 academic calendar year (Mitchell et al., 2017). Despite the steep increase in tuition costs, tuition increases have only covered part of the revenue lost due to state funding cuts. To attempt to cover the remaining portion of revenue lost due to state funding cuts, many leaders within higher education attempt to create and fund programs that serve as many students as possible at their institution (Mitchell et al., 2017). As a result, the first action for many public colleges and universities is to reduce funding or completely cut student support services that serve only a small percentage of students (such as low-income students) on campus (Mitchell et al., 2017).

Budget allocations, and organizational decision making within Organizational/Structural dimension of the Expanded Campus Climate framework plays a significant role in the lack of quality student support services in higher education. Despite the decrease in spending across the board within higher education, certain areas still receive large amounts of prioritized funding. One area that has still seen plenty of development despite student funding cuts is in student housing. While proper housing for students in higher education is necessary, many institutions in the twenty-first century have focused on building “luxury-style” housing for its students (Selingo, 2017). Examples of spending on luxury-style housing within higher education include Georgia State University spending $168 million on luxury apartment-style residences and Indiana University of Pennsylvania spending $270 million to replace all student housing on campus with apartment-style suites (Selingo, 2017). However, since Indiana University of Pennsylvania completed this initiative in 2010, its undergraduate enrollment has dropped 17 percent (Selingo, 2017). Another area that has also seen luxury development despite state funding cuts is in student recreation centers (Selingo, 2017). A prime example is the University of Memphis, spending $50 million for a 169,000 square foot student recreation center that houses a state-of-the-art movie theater and food court (Biemiller, 2010).

The reasoning behind spending large amounts of money on luxury-style living areas and recreation centers is that administrators at many higher education institutions believe they are in an arms race to attract quality students to their college/university (Selingo, 2017). However, while these amenities are attracting students to certain institutions, it often does a poor job of retaining and graduating these students (Jacob, McCall, & Strange, 2018). Focusing on these types of services often puts low-income students at a disadvantage because they take funds away from student support services such as academic tutoring, counseling and advising services, and financial aid programs and services (Mitchell et al., 2017).

While institutions spend large amounts of money on housing and recreation centers, some student support services cannot cover all their bases. For example, According to Julie Hohmann at the University of Louisville, an individual at REACH left their position as a Program Coordinator for the Learning Resource Center (LRC) after the 2016-2017 academic year. However, due to the lack of financial resources available to the department, a hiring freeze was put into place, not allowing REACH to fill the position. As of November 2019, over two years later, there were still no short-term plans to fill the open position (J. Hohmann, personal communication, November 24, 2019). These open positions within student support services due to a lack of funding is putting low-income students at a disadvantage, hurting their chances of achieving success during their time within higher education. If a small portion of the residential/student life budget instead went to student support programs that benefit low-income students, it could play a significant role in allowing them to achieve success within higher education, increasing both their graduation and retention rates.

Recommendations

For administrators and higher education institutions that are looking to build new student support services for supporting low-income students or wish to build upon existing infrastructure, they should provide crucial services to help retain and graduate these students and build upon their success. One recommendation to help improve student support services that help low-income students obtain success is proper, individualized financial aid advising. While in higher education, it is important that low-income students are financially aware and prepared because tuition continues to rise faster than inflation across all types of higher education institutions (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). Furthermore, the costs of other college-related expenses such as fees, books, meals, and room/board have risen rapidly since the start of the twenty-first century (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). The proper knowledge and active transfer of financial aid information from counselors to students is important because it provides many low-income students with the opportunity to stay enrolled in classes (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). Through the utilization of diverse strategies, orientations, and knowledge of different payment methods such as scholarships, grants, and loans, counselors have the opportunity to actively and adequately inform students on the real cost of college and the most practical long-term methods to pay for college.

Additionally, due to the lack of financial, social, and cultural capital that impedes many low-income students and their families, financial aid awareness and preparedness should start well before low-income students enter college (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). Higher education institutions can deploy strategies such as introducing middle/high school students and their families with accurate information about the costs of college and create ways for families to start saving for college in advance (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). Colleges and universities should actively assist families in their pre-college financial decisions, rather than use passive techniques like displaying information online. Additionally, higher education institutions must review existing financial aid information and policies to analyze its clarity and accuracy because unclear policies can play a major role in how low-income families may perceive this information (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014). Not only can these practices help low-income students achieve success when they enter college, but it might also provide more low-income students with the opportunity to attend their first institution of choice, which is likely to include moderately and highly selective institutions (George-Jackson & Gast, 2014).

Another recommendation to improve upon student support services for low-income students is to implement a first-year initiative program, otherwise known as a structured freshman year. This initiative is important because it provides low-income students with the opportunity to have positive academic and non-academic experiences, allowing them to become more acclimated to the collegiate environment (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Features of a first-year initiative program include advisors playing a significant role in initial course selection throughout their freshman year, inclusion of academic support services such as small-group tutoring that supports the courses in which students are enrolled, and group services that build cohesion among participants (Muraskin, 1997). Additionally, it is essential to involve and prepare low-income students both socially and academically before they set foot on campus for their freshman year (Muraskin, 1997).

Through the inclusion of these program aspects, it will help ease the transition of low-income students into higher education environments. It accomplishes this task by helping low-income students integrate into both the social and academic community of their institution and acquire the skills and knowledge to develop into successful learners in these communities (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Furthermore, Engle and Tinto (2008) noted that first-year initiative programs are most likely to reach low-income students when they are offered or are mandatory for all students at an institution, meaning that all freshmen students enrolled at the institution will receive the benefits described. However, Engle and Tinto (2008) also noted that it is essential to recognize and remove the barriers that may limit low-income students from participating in a first-year initiative program before making these programs mandatory or available to all students.

For higher education institutions that already have a strong network of student support services for low-income students, a recommendation is to make sure that students are aware of the different types of student support services that exist within the institution and feel comfortable with using them. Even though institutions might have strong student support services for low-income students, these support services will not make a significant impact if they are unaware of the services provided or do not feel comfortable using them. Low-income college students often did not use student support services because they were afraid stereotype threats that face many underrepresented and minority populations within the college environment (Winograd & Rust, 2014). The worry of conforming to a negative stereotype has been shown to have detrimental effects on academic performance of minoritized groups, such as low-income students because many students felt their efforts would be discredited if they went to seek help (Ciscell et al., 2016). Furthermore, a study by Winograd and Rust (2014), showed that many low-income students cited barriers such as not knowing about services, how to access them, not acknowledging the difficulty of their academic coursework, and fear of failure even after receiving proper help.

To combat these barriers, it will take a campus-wide effort focusing on certain aspects from the organizational structural dimension from Milem, Antonio, and Chang’s (2005) Expanded Campus Climate framework. First, it is important that proper budget allocations are made and policies are created in advance by administrators to allow for the appropriate promotion of student support programs to low-income students. Through proper traditional and social media advertisement channels, low-income students are more likely to know about the student support services available to them, and how to properly utilize the services provided. Next, it is important for administrators and faculty members to create an environment that positively encourages low-income students to use the resources that are available to them. It is crucial to remind these students who using student support services does not discredit any of the work that they have accomplished in higher education. With low-income students feeling more comfortable utilizing these services through the support of faculty and staff members, it could make a significant positive impact on their academic and non-academic journey.

Conclusion

While more students from low-income backgrounds are attending higher education institutions, student support services for these individuals are not up to the standard necessary to support these individuals. Due to the lack of financial, cultural, and social capital, many low-income students who attend higher education institutions are already at a disadvantage before they step on campus. Additionally, external implications such as governmental and sociohistorical forces and institutional context at the organizational level also prohibits many low-income students from achieving success within higher education. Through the recommendations of ongoing financial aid counseling, first-year initiative programs, and making sure students are aware of all the student support services that exist while also feeling comfortable with using them, low-income students will have a stronger base of student support services. These recommendations focus on supporting students before and during their journey in higher education, a shift that is necessary if more low-income students are to achieve success in college. If low-income students have proper student support services to help them develop during their time in college, they can overcome barriers and achieve success in higher education.

---

References

Biemiller, L. (2010). Campus architecture database: University Center. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/campus-architecture-database-university-center-2/24655

Ciscell, G., Foley, L., Luther, K., Howe, R., & Gjsedal, J. (2016). Barriers to accessing tutoring services among students who received a mid-semester warning. The Learning Assistance Review, 21(2), 39-54.

Dwyer, R., McCloud, L., & Hodson, R. (2012). Debt and graduation from American universities. Social Forces, 90(4), 1133-1155.

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students (pp. 1–38). Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Fry, R., & Cilluffo, A. (2019). A rising share of undergraduates are from poor families, especially at less selective colleges (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

George-Jackson, C.E. & Gast, M.J. (2015). Addressing information gaps: Disparities in financial awareness and preparedness on the road to college. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 44(3), 202-234.

Gibson, T. J. (2003). The role of TRIO-Student support services for students who persist in college (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3124560).

Hodge, D. D. (2017, January 1). The effectiveness of the student support service program on retention at a rural appalachia community (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Houle, J.N. (2014). Disparities in debt: Parents socioeconomic resources and young adult student debt. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 53-69.

Jack, A.A. (2016) No harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 1-19.

Jacob, B., McCall, B., & Strange, K. (2018). College as country club: Do colleges cater to students’ preferences for consumption. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(2), 309-348.

Long, B.T. (2014). The financial crisis and college enrollment: How have students and their families responded. In Brown, J. & Hoxby, C. (Eds.), How the financial crisis and great recession affected higher education (pp. 209-233). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

McCabe, J. & Jackson, B. A. (2016). Pathways to financing college: Race and class in students’ narratives of paying for school. Social Currents, 3(4), 367-385.

Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and Universities.

Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterson, K. (2017). A lost decade in higher education funding (pp. 1-29). Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Muraskin, L. (1997). A structured freshman year for at-risk students. Washington, DC: National TRIO Clearinghouse.

Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 254-258.

Schademan, A. R., & Thompson, M. R. (2016). Are college faculty and first-generation, low-income students ready for each other? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(2), 194–216.

Selingo, J. (2017). Why universities are phasing out luxury dorms. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-universities-are-phasing-out-luxury-dorms/537492/

Student Support Services. (2019). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/

index.html

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). The recession of 2007-2009. Washington DC:

Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Winograd, G., & Rust, J. P. (2014). Stigma, awareness of support services, and academic help-seeking among historically underrepresented first-year college students. The Learning Assistance Review, 19(2), 19-43.