Creating Pathways to College for Migrant Students

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14: 226–237, 2009 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1082-4669 print=1532-7671 online DOI: 10.1080/10824660903375636

Creating Pathways to College for Migrant Students: Assessing a Migrant Outreach Program Anne-Marie Nun˜ez

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Texas, San Antonio Migrant students are among the most disadvantaged of any groups in the United States, yet little is understood about factors that facilitate their college access. College access outreach programs rarely collect data on whether and where their students go to college. This longitudinal study tracked the college-going behaviors of migrant students who participated in the Migrant Student Leadership Institute (MSLI), a program whose goals include increasing migrant students’ 4-year college access. The program emphasizes developing students’ capacity for critical thinking about sociopolitical conditions, as well as their academic preparation for, and knowledge about, college. Results from analyses using an equivalent comparison group suggest that the program positively affected participants’ application rates to, and enrollment rates in, more selective California public higher education institutions, including campuses of the University of California (UC) system. This article addresses factors that potentially accounted for these outcomes.

Migrant students, students from families that move around to pursue seasonal farming or fishing employment opportunities, are among the populations least likely to pursue a college degree. Migrant students have the lowest rates of high school graduation, college-preparatory coursetaking, and college enrollment rates (Garza, Reyes, & Trueba, 2004; Velazquez, 1996; Zalaquett, McHatton, & Cranston-Gingras, 2007). High poverty levels, significant levels of geographical (and school) mobility, and limited English skills are among the conditions that contribute to their higher dropout rates and lower academic achievement (Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). Most migrant students are Mexican American, and research indicates that Latinos, in general, are inclined to attend less selective colleges and are overrepresented in community college enrollments (Fry, 2002; Llagas & Snyder, 2003). Attending a college of higher selectivity or a 4-year (compared with 2-year) institution positively predicts the baccalaureate degree completion of Latino students (Alon & Tienda, 2005; Arbona & Nora, 2007). Apparently, where—in addition to whether—migrant students attend college critically determines their ultimate educational attainment. Little is known about effective strategies and programs to promote migrant students’ college access (Zalaquett et al., 2007). The University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) Migrant Request for reprint should be sent to: Anne-Marie Nun˜ez, University of Texas, San Antonio, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, UTSA College of Education and Human Development, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

MIGRANT STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PATHWAYS

227

Student Leadership Institute (MSLI) stands out as a rare program that specifically addresses the college readiness of these students. Program participants from across all regions of California are nominated by their local school officials to participate in the program on the basis of their academic and leadership potential. Ninety-seven percent of program participants, who are rising seniors in high school, are Mexican American and=or Latino. The program strives to help students develop their community leadership skills and attend college. The efficacy of programs that serve underrepresented students is coming under increasing scrutiny in an era of growing demands for accountability (Valenzuela, 2005); thus, it is critical that these programs document the extent to which they have attained their intended longer term goals. However, this is seldom undertaken, in part because of the difficulties in obtaining longitudinal data. Consequently, research on such programs rarely tracks where or whether program participants went to college, or compares participants’ college-going outcomes with those of a control group of students who did not participate in the program (Gandara, 2002a; Gandara & Bial, 2001; Tierney, 2002). To address this gap in knowledge about migrant students’ college access and college outreach programs’ longer term effectiveness, this study examines the college access (including college application, admittance, and enrollment outcomes) of migrant students who participated in such a program. Program participants’ college access outcomes are tracked and compared with those of an equivalent comparison group of nonparticipants with similar college preparation characteristics. A previous study about the program (Nun˜ez, 2009) examined a smaller sample size of students; this study draws on a larger sample size of students and has greater statistical power to speak to the program’s effectiveness in promoting enrollment in 4-year institutions within California’s public higher education system. Building on the previous study (Nun˜ez, 2009), I address the questions: 1. What are MSLI graduates’ pathways toward the California public higher education system? 2. What is the impact of program participation on MSLI graduates’ pathways toward the California public higher education system, including enrollment in four-year public institutions? LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT In addition to factors such as limited English skills, poverty, and school mobility, poor schooling also hinders college access for migrant students. Migrant and other underrepresented students are more likely than majority students to attend schools that do not offer an adequate number or quality of college preparation courses, qualified teachers, counseling resources, and encouragement to attend 4-year institutions (Oakes, Rogers, Lipton, & Morrell, 2002; Oakes et al., 2006; Orfield, 1992; Orfield & Paul, 1993). Migrant students also face unsupportive, if not hostile, policies and climates that limit access to bilingual education support and public selective research universities. Bilingual education has been banned in California schools, for example. Antiaffirmative action policies in several states, including California, Washington, and Texas, have contributed to a decline in the number of applications and admissions to selective public research universities among underrepresented students. This situation stems from differential academic preparation between majority and

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

228

˜ EZ NUN

minority students that results from inequitable schooling conditions. It also results from prevailing signals that public universities, especially flagship institutions, do not welcome underrepresented students of color (Brown & Hirschman, 2006; McDonough, 1999; Oakes et al., 2006). In fact, the MSLI was indirectly part of a policy response to a ban on the use of affirmative action policies in the selective University of California (UC) system. Although it had other goals and was funded by additional sources, the program served as part of the UC system’s effort to enhance underrepresented students’ college access by strengthening these students’ preparation for college at the K-12 level, so as to enhance their admissibility to UC campuses. Therefore, application, admission, and enrollment rates in the UC system among program participants were of particular concern. Antiimmigrant sentiments and policies, which have become particularly prevalent in the past decade, also contribute to a negative political climate for migrant students (Jonas, 2006). The problem of limited access to higher education is particularly exacerbated for undocumented students, many of whom are migrant students. Undocumented students are not eligible for federal financial aid, and current policies do not bode well for affording them some financial support for college. A federal bill aiming to expand undocumented students’ rights has not been approved, and several states are considering banning, or have already banned, undocumented students’ eligibility for in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities (Keller, 2007). Some state university systems, including those in Missouri and North Carolina, have even proposed banning undocumented students from attending their institutions (Inside Higher Education, 2008). Collectively, these forces create a climate that can discourage migrant students from pursuing higher education. The MSLI seeks to support migrant students in pursuing higher education. The program encourages migrant students to develop academic skills necessary for college, learn how to apply to college, and challenge the sociopolitical conditions that can marginalize their communities and inhibit their capacity to pursue college. Although many college outreach programs emphasize these first two dimensions of academic literacy and college-going literacy (Gildersleeve, 2006; Gutierrez, 2008), the MSLI also promotes the development of sociocritical literacy (Gutierrez, 2008). Sociocritical literacy is defined as ‘‘a syncretic literacy organized around a pedagogical approach that focuses on how individuals and their communities influence and are influenced by social, political, and cultural discourses and practices in historically specific times and locations’’ (Gutierrez, 2008, p. 150). In the context of the MSLI, pedagogical processes to promote this kind of literacy emphasize identifying and critiquing the social conditions that marginalize migrant and other underrepresented students. The program’s theory of action assumes that through building such critical thinking skills, students come to believe in their own abilities as human agents to create the kinds of lives and communities they desire (Freire, 1970; Gutierrez, 2008). This process of creation can include recasting their postsecondary educational opportunities. In the specific context regarding California’s public universities, sociocritical literacy can enhance academic and college-going literacy by encouraging students to critique antiaffirmative action, antibilingual education, and antiimmigrant policies. More broadly, cultivating sociocritical literacy can engage students in challenging the ‘‘deficit terms’’ (Boykin, 2000, p. 10) in which their academic abilities are too often characterized.

MIGRANT STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PATHWAYS

229

This study was able to take advantage of a rare opportunity to access longitudinal data from the UC Office of the President (UCOP) about the college-going patterns of these students and students from an equivalent nonparticipant comparison group. In light of the program’s goals, the study’s hypotheses were that: (a) MSLI students would be more likely than members of the comparison group to apply to the UC campuses, (b) MSLI students would be more likely than members of the comparison group to be admitted to UC campuses, and (c) MSLI students would be more likely to enroll in UC campuses.

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

METHODS The UCLA MSLI has been conducted every summer since 2000. This five-week annual residential program serves students who are nominated by school officials from all geographic regions of California. These students are rising seniors with demonstrated leadership ability, limited language skills as measured by standardized test scores, and grade point averages (GPAs) above 3.0. The program aims to build students’ learning and leadership skills in order to meet its goals of (a) increasing the number of migrant students who become community advocates, activists, and=or leaders and (b) increasing the number of migrant students applying to 4-year colleges, especially to universities in the UC system. As stated earlier, the program was instituted in part as a response to the bans of the use of affirmative action in UC admissions policies. Curricular and extracurricular program activities seek to effect improvements in students’ motivation, persistence, leadership, literacy, social science knowledge, and college participation. To supplement the limited capacities of their secondary school programs, students take a rigorous college preparatory curriculum that includes coursework in social studies and writing. The culturally relevant curriculum emphasizes the development of critical thinking skills and skills in solving community problems. For example, in a science unit, students examine ways to address Latino public health issues. Students are also encouraged to communicate in the language they feel most comfortable speaking. In addition to the coursework, students participate in workshops about the college application process and SAT test-taking strategies. Migrant students who participate in the program tend to be enrolled in secondary schools that do not prepare them well for college. Three-quarters of the 30 high schools that send the most students to the program enroll a larger proportion of English Language Learner students than the average California high school and are staffed by a proportion of underqualified teachers that exceeds California’s state average (Futernick, 2005). Data are not collected for migrant students as a distinct population, but in the majority of these schools, at least one-quarter of the Latino students who begin in the ninth grade have not graduated within 4 years. Fewer than one-third of Latino graduates from these high schools actually complete the course-taking requirements for admission to any of the 4-year state public universities in the UC and California State University (CSU) systems (California Department of Education, 2005). The data source was a database that matched student-level data on program participants between 2000 and 2005 and members of a nonparticipant comparison group with student-level data records from the UCOP on college-going behaviors and outcomes. These data on collegegoing behaviors and outcomes included measures of the application, admission, and enrollment patterns in the UC system campuses, as well as college enrollment patterns in California’s three-tier higher education system. Within the parameters of the UCOP database, participants

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

230

˜ EZ NUN

and nonparticipants whose data were matched fit at least one of the following criteria: They had (a) taken the SAT, (b) applied to at least one UC campus, or (c) enrolled in some form of California public higher education. Through the matching process, data were generated on the UC system and California public college application and enrollment patterns for 237 participants and 56 members of a nonparticipant comparison group. The comparison group consisted of students who had also been admitted to the program but were unable to attend it because of space availability or other unknown reasons. Because members of the comparison group had also been recommended for the program on the basis of their scholastic achievement (high school GPA) and leadership skills, they were similar to program participants on these important college preparation measures. They also attended similar kinds of high schools as the participants. In addition to being equivalent in terms of academic achievement and leadership skills, migrant program participants and nonparticipants were also similar with respect to SAT scores, which constitute a critical component of the application and admission process to public 4-year universities. Preliminary analyses indicated that, among those students who took the SAT, participants’ total SAT scores (combined math and verbal) averaged 932, and nonparticipants’ averaged 903. A t-test comparison yielded no statistically significant difference between the two groups, t(212) ¼ 1.03; p (two-tailed) ¼ .30. Thus, analyses comparing these groups can serve as a proxy to control for key college preparation and admissions characteristics while offering the potential to assess the effect of program participation on college-going outcomes. This study is the first to examine the postsecondary enrollment outcomes of participants in a migrant student college outreach program and to examine these outcomes of an equivalent comparison group. Yet, as with any study, this research has limitations. First, the size of the comparison group of nonparticipants was relatively small and did not provide maximal power for certain comparisons, such as those concerning admissions to individual UC campuses. Second, although the participants and members of the nonparticipant comparison group appeared to be equivalent in terms of individual and background characteristics, there may have been sources of selection bias or other confounding characteristics in the sample that could not be measured or accounted for. Third, following common limitations of state-level data sets, the UCOP does not have the capabilities to collect data on students’ private or out-of-state college admission, application, and enrollment patterns; nor does it collect data on students who never take the SAT or enroll in college. Therefore, the data on postsecondary enrollment patterns do not represent all postsecondary options that students could have followed.

RESULTS This section presents tables and analyses comparing participants’ and nonparticipants’ application and admission rates to the UC system, as well as their enrollment rates in the entire California public higher education system. Following each discussion of the general application, admittance, or enrollment rates, a brief discussion of program participants’ patterns on these measures with respect to specific UC campuses is presented in textual, but not tabular, format. The nonparticipants’ data on measures regarding specific UC campuses are not presented because, according to UCOP guidelines, the cell sizes for each UC campus were too small to report or make meaningful comparisons.

MIGRANT STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PATHWAYS

231

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

Application Rates Table 1 shows the percentages of MSLI participants and non-participants who applied to at least one campus in the UC system. These figures are calculated only among students who took the SAT, because taking the SAT is a necessary prerequisite to applying to the UC and to most 4-year colleges and universities. The findings indicate that 64% of participants, nearly double the percentage of nonparticipants (37%), applied to at least one UC campus. Results of a chi-square comparison test indicated that this difference between the groups was statistically significant, v2(1, 264) ¼ 3.74, p (two-tailed) ¼ .05. These striking findings suggest that controlling for academic achievement, leadership skills, and college admissions test scores, program participants were more likely than nonparticipants to apply to campuses within the UC system. Understanding application and admission patterns to specific UC campuses is important because, as discussed earlier, current admissions policies and the social climate may discourage migrant students from applying to the more selective universities, such as the UC Berkeley and UCLA campuses. In fact, declining application rates to more selective public universities, rather than declining admission or enrollment rates, have been found to cause the decreased enrollment of underrepresented students in state flagship institutions where affirmative action has been banned (Brown & Hirschman, 2006). Thus, the application patterns of program participants to the nine undergraduate-serving UC campuses were examined. These campuses included UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Merced (a new campus that opened in the 2005–2006 academic year). The number of nonparticipants who applied to each specific UC campus was too small to report according to UCOP institutional guidelines, so data on nonparticipants are not reported here. In terms of application rates of MSLI participants to specific UC campuses, over half (56%) of MSLI participants who took the SAT applied to UCLA, followed by 37% to UC Berkeley. These two institutions can be most closely characterized as flagship institutions of the UC system in that they demonstrate the highest selectivity and research productivity. Analyses indicated that MSLI participants were more likely to apply to these flagships than to the less selective UCs. Markedly lower proportions of MSLI participants—25% or fewer—applied to each of the other less selective campuses within the UC system besides the flagships, with the exception of the 35% of MSLI participants who applied to UC Santa Barbara. TABLE 1 Total Numbers and Percentages of 2000–2005 Migrant Student Leadership Institute (MSLI) Participants and Nonparticipants Who Took the SAT and Applied to at Least One University of California (UC) Campus Applied to UC

MSLI program participation Participants (Total N ¼ 212) Nonparticipants (Total N ¼ 52)

Admitted to UC among all SAT test takers

Admitted to UC among UC applicants only

N

%

N

%

N

%

135 19

64 37

119 13

54 25

119 13

88 68

Note. Total percentages among the two groups do not add up to 100% because the remaining students enrolled in private institutions or chose not to attend college, and the college destinations of these students are not measured by the University of California Office of the President.

232

˜ EZ NUN

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

Admission Rates As Table 1 indicates, about twice the percentage of program participants who took the SAT (54%) as nonparticipants who took this test (25%) were admitted to at least one UC campus, also a statistically significant difference, v2(1, 264) ¼ 5.52, p (two-tailed) ¼ .01. When restricting this analysis to the students who took the step of applying to any UC, almost all MSLI participants who applied to any UC campus (88%) were granted admission to at least one of the UC campuses. In comparison, about two-thirds of nonparticipants who applied to UC campuses (68%) were admitted to at least one of them. The difference between these figures was not statistically significant, perhaps in part because the sample size of nonparticipants who applied to any UC campuses was relatively small. The findings indicate that among program participants, the increased application rates to UC campuses significantly contribute to the increased admissions rates to UC campuses. Among those MSLI participants who applied to the flagship institutions, 26% were admitted to UCLA and 42% to UC Berkeley. UCLA’s admission rate for these students was the lowest among the campuses and to some degree reflects the fact that UCLA currently receives the most college applications of any school in the United States. At the less selective campuses, relatively high proportions of MSLI participants were admitted. For example, at four of the less selective campuses, at least 80% of MSLI applicants were accepted. Enrollment Rates Table 2 compares where MSLI participants and nonparticipants enrolled in California’s three tiers of public higher education: (a) the UC system (most selective 4-year), (2) CSU (less selective 4-year), and (3) California Community College (open admissions 2-year). These percentages are calculated among all students in the sample, including students who did not take the SAT. This is because the 2-year California Community College system does not require SATs for admission. According to Table 2, just over one-third (35%) of MSLI students enrolled in one of the UC campuses. Twenty-seven percent enrolled in a CSU, and 16% in a California

TABLE 2 Total Numbers and Percentages of 2000–2005 Migrant Student Leadership Institute (MSLI) Participants and Nonparticipants Who Enrolled in the Three Tiers of California Public Higher Education University of California

California State University

California Community College

MSLI program participation

N

%

N

%

N

%

Participants (N ¼ 237) Nonparticipants (N ¼ 56)

84 8

35 14

64 26

27 46

38 8

16 14

Note. Total percentages among the two groups do not add up to 100%, because the remaining students enrolled in private institutions or chose not to attend college, and the college destinations of these students are not measured by the University of California Office of the President.

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

MIGRANT STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PATHWAYS

233

Community College. Overall, then, almost two-thirds (62%) of MSLI students enrolled in a California 4-year public institution. In terms of application rates to specific UC campuses, MSLI participants enrolled in the most selective UC institutions at relatively high rates when comparing these rates with their enrollments in less selective UC institutions. Among MSLI participants who were admitted to at least one of the UC campuses, 17% (the largest proportion) enrolled in either UCLA or UC Berkeley. The next highest frequency (13%) enrolled in UC Santa Barbara, followed by fewer than 10% at each of the other seven institutions. On the other hand, about half the proportion of nonparticipants as participants (14%, compared with 35%) enrolled in a campus in the UC system. This indicates that nonparticipants, despite equivalent academic achievement, leadership skills, and college admissions test scores, were statistically less likely to enroll in UCs, v2(1, 293) ¼ 4.76, p (two-tailed) ¼ .02. On the other hand, about three times as many nonparticipants enrolled in a CSU campus (46%) as in a UC campus (14%). Nonparticipants were, therefore, far more likely to enroll in the less selective CSU system, a statistically significant difference from the MSLI participants’ rate of enrollment, v2(1, 293) ¼ 3.35, p (two-tailed) ¼ .05. Overall, equivalent proportions of participants and non-participants enrolled in any type of Californian four-year public higher education (62% and 60%, respectively). Likewise, equivalent portions of these groups enrolled in the California community college system (14% and 16%, respectively). It should be noted that among students whose college-going information could be tracked, neither the predominantly Latino participants nor the nonparticipants followed the prevalent trend among Latinos to enroll in community colleges. For example, in contrast to this study’s students’ overall rate of about 15%, one study found that 75% of Latino students in California higher education institutions were enrolled in community colleges, rather than 4-year colleges or universities (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 1999, as cited in Gandara, 2002b). Although program participants and nonparticipants were similar in their academic achievement, leadership skills, and college standardized test scores, and even in their rates of enrollment in California 4-year public higher education, these two groups differed substantially as to where they enrolled within this public 4-year system. Namely, program participants enrolled in the more selective UC system at significantly higher rates than members of the comparison group, who were more likely to enroll in the less selective CSU system. These findings indicate that when critical admissions metrics are taken into account, program participation has a positive effect on applying to and enrolling in the UC system.

DISCUSSION This study suggests that, when taking into account academic achievement, leadership skills, and college standardized test scores, MSLI program participation positively influences migrant students’ application to and enrollment rates in the most selective tier of 4-year public higher education in California—the UC system. Findings indicate that, within the UC system, these students also apply to the most selective flagship campuses at relatively high rates. These two flagship institutions, UCLA and UC Berkeley, are campuses that have been highly contested with respect to the admission of underrepresented students (Oakes et al., 2006).

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

234

˜ EZ NUN

Research suggests that declining application—rather than admission or enrollment—rates are responsible for the lower rates of underrepresented students’ enrollments in selective public higher education institutions (especially flagship institutions) in states where affirmative action has been banned (Brown & Hirschman, 2006; McDonough, 1999; Oakes et al., 2006). These scholars contend that antiaffirmative action policies send negative signals to underrepresented students that they are not welcome at or qualified for the most selective public institutions. Such signals can impede these students’ likelihood to apply to highly selective public institutions (Brown & Hirschman, 2006; McDonough, 1999; Oakes et al., 2006). Despite a seemingly hostile climate for UC system admissions, migrant program participants appear to be more encouraged (or less discouraged) than nonparticipants to apply to and enroll in this most selective tier of California public higher education (including the flagship institutions). In fact, this study indicates that it is at the application stage in which MSLI participants distinguish themselves most from nonparticipants by applying to UC campuses at almost double the rates of nonparticipants. Participants’ higher UC application rates subsequently affect their higher admission and enrollment rates in UC campuses. In fact, migrant program participants’ patterns of application and enrollment to the UCs and to the UC flagship institutions run counter to the predominant trends in states in which affirmative action policies in public higher education admissions have been banned. As part of the effort to maintain and expand college access in the wake of prohibitions of the use of affirmative action in the UC (and other public California university) admissions processes, the MSLI appears to be effective in meeting its goal of increasing UC enrollment among migrant students. This study’s primary objective was not to address why MSLI program participation may be associated with these positive longer-term outcomes. Nevertheless, given this program’s evident success, it is instructive to consider possible explanations for the program’s success. The program’s emphasis on cultivating academic and college-going literacy can help explain why the program is effective. MSLI students build relationships with teachers in a university setting and receive encouragement about applying to college that other migrant students might not receive. These students also develop their academic and test-taking skills so that they access a college preparatory education that may not be readily available at their high schools or to other migrant students. As the research literature documents (Gonzalez, Stoner, & Jovel, 2003; Oakes et al., 2006), these resources can make a critical difference in choosing to attend more selective public higher education. However, given that the rates of enrollment in 4-year public institutions are equivalent between the groups, why would program participants be more likely to enroll in UCs, and nonparticipants be more likely to enroll in CSUs? Perhaps increased exposure to a UC campus influences program participants to envision themselves in the UCs. Another explanation concerns how, in California, the banning of affirmative action has been extremely politicized, discouraging members of underrepresented groups from applying to the UC system and UC flagships in the first place (McDonough, 1999; Oakes et al., 2006). The MSLI program may counteract tendencies that discourage students from applying to UCs by fostering a sociocritical perspective and a sense of agency among students (Freire, 1970; Gutierrez, 2008). In the process of transforming their perspectives and sense of agency, students can challenge educational structures that limit their opportunities, including discouraging antiaffirmative action policy messages. In fact, a separate ethnographic study of former MSLI participants reported that program participants come to interpret college access as a politicized action,

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

MIGRANT STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PATHWAYS

235

an action through which they can support and lead their communities (Gildersleeve, 2006). Accordingly, these students may be more likely to apply to (and eventually enroll in) selective public higher education institutions because, through challenging societal inequalities and negative assumptions about their capabilities, they build the senses of entitlement and confidence needed to pursue these opportunities. It is important to consider that other factors besides those measured in the participant and comparison group could have accounted for the differences in enrollment patterns between the two groups. These factors include a student’s academic motivation levels, financial status and capability to pay for college, predisposition to attend a particular institution, undocumented immigrant status, or family responsibilities (such as the need to earn money for the family or to take care of family members). These data were not collected, so the effect of these characteristics is unknown. Thus, we cannot conclude the extent to which the differences observed in college outcomes are due to program participation itself or to unknown differences between participants and members of the comparison group. Future research ought to address the potential effects of these other factors. Qualitative research could reveal a broader range of factors influencing college-going behaviors and provide further insights about the extent to which differences in college-going outcomes were due to program participation itself or to other factors.

CONCLUSION This study uniquely tracks college attendance patterns of a population of migrant students and employs a comparison group to explore the influence of a university-sponsored program on academically talented migrant students’ college-going outcomes. Analyses indicate that program participants apply to and enroll in the selective UC system at significantly higher rates than nonparticipants, who are more likely to apply to and enroll in the less selective CSU system. These findings suggest that the MSLI program contributes positively to expanding college access for migrant students. In spite of attending underresourced schools, MSLI students apply and are admitted to UC campuses, including the most selective UC campuses, at relatively high rates. The program appears to influence these students to explore and access a wider array of postsecondary opportunities than they might otherwise consider. Four-year public colleges serve as key gateways for college access for migrant students, due in part to their capacity to provide geographic and financial accessibility for students who may not want to venture far from home or who may not be able to afford higher tuitions for college. Moreover, beginning college at more selective institutions markedly enhances students’ chances of eventually attaining a bachelor’s degree (Alon & Tienda, 2005; Arbona & Nora, 2007). By encouraging attendance at more selective 4-year public institutions, MSLI program participation appears not only to enhance college access, but eventual college success and longer term educational attainment. The MSLI, like many standard college outreach programs, promotes the cultivation of academic literacy and college-going literacy (Gutierrez, 2008). These forms of literacy include learning mainstream academic skills, gathering information about applying to college, and building relationships with people who can connect students with these resources. However, the MSLI is different from most outreach programs in that it emphasizes building sociocritical literacy, including critical thinking and community leadership skills. In building these skills,

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

236

˜ EZ NUN

students can come to see their college-going as part of a larger sociopolitical process of developing and enacting agency to shape their life opportunities (Freire, 1970; Gildersleeve, 2006; Gutierrez, 2008). The policy context that migrant and other underserved students experience does not always welcome—and, in fact, can discourage—their involvement in public higher education. This study’s results indicate that holistic program strategies that address the development of migrant students’ sociocritical thinking skills, in addition to academic skills and knowledge about the college application process, can promote migrant students’ college access, particularly to public higher education institutions. Building sociocritical thinking skills can encourage migrant students to question and challenge the exclusionary admissions climates and larger social structures that limit their access to and sense of belonging in selective public research institutions. The program’s approach of sharpening critical thinking skills, strengthening academic preparation, and building college knowledge may also be applied to creating policies and programs to promote the college access of members of other underrepresented groups who encounter antiaffirmative action policies, negative stereotyping, and deficit views of their capabilities. This research indicates that encouraging these students to apply to and enroll in selective public higher education may require addressing sociopolitical, as well as academic and informational, concerns. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center for funding this research and to Arthur Gong and Neal Finkelstein for their assistance with accessing the University of California Office of the President data. I also thank Kris Gutierrez and Nathalia Jaramillo for their support during all phases of this project. REFERENCES Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2005). Assessing the ‘‘mismatch’’ hypothesis: Differentials in college graduation rates by institutional selectivity. Sociology of Education, 78, 294–315. Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on Hispanic college degree attainment. Review of Higher Education, 30, 247–270. Boykin, A. W. (2000). The talent development model of schooling: Placing students at promise for academic success. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 3–25. Brown, S. K., & Hirschman, C. (2006). The end of affirmative action in Washington state and its impact on the transition from high school to college. Sociology of Education, 79, 106–130. California Department of Education. (2005). Educational statistics [Data file.] Retrieved on September 2, 2009, from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ California Postsecondary Education Commission. (1999). College-going rates of California public high school graduates, by racial=ethnic group, Fall 1996 to Fall 1998. Higher education performance indicator report. Sacramento, CA: Author. Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action for freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review Monographs. Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Los Angeles: Pew Hispanic Center. Futernick, K. (2005). Teacher qualification index web page [Data file]. Retrieved on September 2, 2009 from www. edfordemocracy.org Gandara, P. (2002a). Meeting common goals. In W. Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college (pp. 81–104). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Gandara, P. (2002b). A study of high school puente: What we have learned about preparing Latino youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy, 16, 474–495.

Downloaded by [UTSA Libraries] at 09:33 25 September 2015

MIGRANT STUDENTS’ COLLEGE PATHWAYS

237

Gandara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to higher education: K-12 interventions for underrepresented students. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Garza, E., Reyes, P., & Trueba, E. T. (2004). Resiliency and success: Migrant children in the U.S. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Gildersleeve, R. (2006). Toward a college-going literacy: Voices of migrant students coming to know college access. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Gonzalez, K., Stoner, C., & Jovel, J. (2003). Examining the role of social capital in access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2, 146–170. Gutierrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164. Inside Higher Education. (May 13, 2008). Admissions control. Retrieved on May 13, 2008 from http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/05/13/immigration Jonas, S. (2006). Reflections on the great immigration battle of 2006 and the future of the Americas. Social Justice, 33, 6–20. Keller, J. (2007). State legislatures debate tuition for illegal immigrants. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(32), A28. Llagas, C., & Snyder, T. D. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Lopez, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 253–288. McDonough, P. (1999). African American and Latino perceptions of college access in California after affirmative action. Oakland: University of California Office of the President. Nun˜ez, A.-M. (2009). Migrant students’ college access: Emerging evidence from the Migrant Student Leadership Institute. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8, 181–198. Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Lipton, M., & Morrell, E. (2002). The social construction of college access. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college (pp. 105–121). Albany: State University of New York Press. Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Silver, D., Valladares, S., Terriquez, V., McDonough, P., et al. (2006). Removing the roadblocks: Fair college opportunities for all California students. Los Angeles: UC All Campus Consortium for Research on Diversity and UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. Orfield, G. (1992). Money, equity, and college access. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 337–372. Orfield, G., & Paul, F. (1993). High hopes, long odds: A major report on Hoosier teens and the American dream. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Youth Institute. Tierney, W. (2002). Reflective evaluation: Improving practice in college preparation programs. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college (pp. 217–230). Albany: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A. (2005). Leaving children behind: How ‘‘Texas-style’’ accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Velazquez, L. (1996). Voices from the fields: Community-based migrant education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 70, 27–35. Zalaquett, C. P., McHatton, P. A., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (2007). Characteristics of Latina=o migrant farmworker students attending a large metropolitan university. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6, 135–156.