A SURVEY OF UPWARD BOUND PROGRAMS ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

A SURVEY OF UPWARD BOUND PROGRAMS ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Over the past four decades, the Upward Bound Program, federally funded activity under the auspice of the TRIO initiative, has been evaluated by researchers for its effectiveness in enhancing the quality of life for many first generation/low-income college students (Billings, 1968; McCormick & Williams, 1974; Ekstrom, Goetz, Pollack, Rock, 1986; Law, 1999; Carson-Warner & Carol, 2003).  All of aforementioned researchers, even through their methodologies were different found that Upward Bound has a positive influence on the lives of first-generation/low-income students, especially on their academic performance.

The effectiveness of the Upward Bound Program has been measured by the number of participants who graduate from high school or by the number who enter postsecondary education institutions (Myers & Schirm, 1999; Saenz, Wyatt, & Reinard, 1998; Thayer, 2000).  Researchers have also studied the attitudes of parents of Upward Bound students regarding the programs effectiveness (Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons, 1999; Howard, 1996; and Epstein and Hollifield, 1996). Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1998) found that parents perceive the Upward Bound Program as having a significant and positive effect on their children’s lives.  Gunter (2002) found that parents felt that the Upward Bound Program had a positive influence on their children’s attitudes toward college. Finally Dennis (2005) found that parents felt that the Upward Bound Program had a significant effect on their children enrolling in postsecondary educational institutions.

Moreover, other research studies have addressed how well selective participants of various Upward Bound Programs perform when compared with non-participants in terms of their academic success or their persistence to remain in college. (Becker, 1999; Carson-Warner & Carol, 2003; Hewitt, 1998).  However, there is very little, or no quantitative research that ha examined the impact of Upward Bound Programs as perceived by their participants while enrolled in high school, especially in regard to their self-esteem and their attitudes toward post secondary success.

Research that has been done has been qualitative in nature and only dealt with aspects of the program which motivated students to succeed (Carson-Warner & Carol, 2003; and Choy, 2001).

Although college entrance and completion of a degree is critical for an individual and society, first-generation/low-income students have historically been less inclined more than their peers to complete a college degree. Suffice it to say, these students face more obstacles to pursuing a post-secondary education. Relative to the low college entrance rates for first-generation/low-income students is the impact of parental educational attainment, family socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and secondary school academic preparation (Jacobson, Olsen, Rice, Sweetland, & Ralph, 2001). Another great challenge confronted by first-generation/low-income students is that college attendance represents a departure from the routine established by family and friends, who may in turn become non-supportive or obstructive (Hsiao, 1992). These barriers can cause first-generation/low-income students to delay entry into college or suspend their hopes and dreams of ever attending college.  Surprisingly, these groups of students regard education as an integral factor in their lives, considering the environment from which they come. Since the War on Poverty in the 1960s, initiatives have been undertaken to eradicate some of the obstacles to college entrance faced by first-generation/low-income students (Adelman, 2000). Thus, federally funded TRiO – Upward Bound Programs have proven to be essential to the success of its participants.

Statement of the Problem

The problem was to determine the impact of an Upward Bound

Program on the academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes regarding post secondary educational success as perceived by high school students from first-generation/low-income families who participated in this program.  Particularly, the student’s similarities, differences, and perceptions regarding the impact of an Upward Bound Program were compared by gender, family structure and age.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the perception of first-generation/low-income African American College Students on the impact of an Upward Bound Program on their academic achievement, self-esteem and attitudes toward post-secondary educational success.  Specifically, the researcher was concerned with the influence of the variables including gender, family structure and age on the perceptions of high school students toward their academic achievement, self-esteem and attitudes pertaining to their post-secondary educational success. Answers to the following question were sought:

1. Does African American student age influence the perception of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student academic achievement?
2. Does African American student gender influence the perception of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student academic achievement?
3. Does African American student family structure influence the perception of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student academic achievement?
4. Does African American student age influence the perception of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student self-esteem?
5. Does African American student gender influence the perception of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student self-esteem?
6. Does African American student family structure influence the perception of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student self-esteem?
7. Does African American student age influence the perceptions of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student attitudes toward post-secondary success?
8. Does African American student gender influence the perceptions of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student attitudes toward post-secondary success?
9. Does African American student family structure influence the perceptions of the impact of Upward Bound Programs on student attitudes toward post-secondary success?

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is threefold:  First, a study of this nature will provide sociologist with relevant data regarding the perceptions previous African American Upward Bound students have towards the impact of the Upward Bound Program, as regards to their academic achievement, self-esteem and attitudes toward post-secondary educational success.  As college education is often viewed within the American society as a key social factor in helping to increase one’s social status, knowing the perceptions that previous African American Upward Bound students have towards the impact of the Upward Bound program is essential.  Upward Bound is designed to help prepare first-generation/low-income and minority students for college.  Knowing the perception previous African American have towards the Upward Bound Program as it relates to their academic achievement, self-esteem and attitudes towards post-secondary educational success, can go a long way in developing the necessary learning skills for future participants.  These findings will assist them in enhancing academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes towards post-secondary educational success while in high school.

Second, this study will help enhance the knowledge and understanding of program administrators and other interested professionals regarding factors that impact African American relationships with the Upward Bound Programs.  By understanding the factors that influence African American academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes toward post-secondary educational success, program administrators and other interested professionals can then collaborate on strategies which can assist in nurturing and cultivating their experiences to meet the needs of African American Upward Bound Students.

Finally, the data obtained in this study can be very useful to individuals associated with Upward Bound Programs and those who study such programs regarding African Americans.  An empirical analysis of Upward Bound Programs for African American students can provide the type of insight necessary to enable these students to be functional within a college environment.

Limitations

The following limitations will be observed in this study:

1. The study was limited to African American students who are currently enrolled in an Upward Bound Program in the state of Mississippi.
2. The study was limited to first-generation/low-income African American students who were enrolled in a TRIO Upward Bound Program during the period of 2007-2008.
3. The study was limited to the fact that the perceptions of African American high school students were measured solely through the application of a survey instrument.
4. The generalizations drawn from the findings in this study were limited to those African American high school students enrolled in an Upward Bound Program.

Definition of Terms/Variables

The following terms/variables were operationally defined for purposes of providing clarity and understanding relative to the focus of the present research study.

1. TRIO Program – refers to the name given to the three original educational opportunity programs enacted by the U.S. Congress in Title of the Higher Education Act of 1965, in an effort to bring equality of opportunities for upward mobility for all U.S. citizens.  Programs included in TRIO are as follows: Upward Bound Math/Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support Services, Educational Opportunity Center, and the Ronald McNair Post- Baccalaureate Achievement Program.
2. Upward Bound – refers to a federally funded program that helps first-generation/low-income high school students prepare for higher education.
3. Gender– refers to whether a high school student is male or female.
4. Age – refers to the chronological age of the high school student during the time of participation in the study.  For the purpose of this study, age will be measured in the following categories: “15 years, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years of age.”
5. Family Structure – refers to whether a high school student is residing in a two-parent household, with a guardian, with the grandparents, or a one-parent household.
6. Self-esteem– refers to how a high school student feels about him/herself.
7. Academic Achievement– refers to how a high school student feels about his or her academic performance the first year of college.
8. Attitudes toward Educational Success – refers to how a high school student feels about being successful as he or she progresses from high school to post-secondary institutions.
9. First-Generation – refers to students whose parents did not complete a program of study from a four year accredited institution of higher learning.
10. Federally Funded – refers to monies provided by the United States Department of Education for support service programs.
11. Post- Secondary Institution – refers to institutions of higher learning which offer a two-year or four-year academic degree.

CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature

            This chapter reviews literature associated with this research study. It begins with a review of the historical background of the Upward Bound Program and continues with specific topics on the characteristics of first-generation/low-income students, academic achievement of Upward Bound participants, self-esteem, and post-secondary success. The final topics addressed are related to the research variables including the following: first-generation college entrance rates and academic achievement, first-generation college entrance rates and self-esteem, and first-generation college entrance rates and post-secondary success.

History of TRIO Programs

In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act that gave life to Special Programs for Disadvantaged Backgrounds, a program more commonly known as TRIO (Gunter, 2002). The first TRIO initiative was Upward Bound followed closely by Talent Search, which was created by the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965. Upon reauthorization in 1968, the Student Support Services program was developed. This reauthorization prompted the transfer of all TRIO programs from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Higher Education Programs. The 1972 reauthorization brought about the fourth TRIO program, Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC). The

fifth program, Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement program were created in 1986. More recently, the Upward Bound Math/ Science Program were created by the U.S. Department of Education in 1990. Of all the reauthorizations, the one in 1980 was the most pivotal because it adapted two specific eligibility criteria of being a first-generation college student candidate and consideration of the candidate’s prior educational performance. The adoption of these two criteria changed the focus and dynamics of the program to include students who are economically disadvantaged as well as those who would otherwise be excluded from post-secondary education.  Since its inception, more than 10 million Americans (mainly from poor and working families) have benefited from TRIO pre-college and college programs (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Results indicate that when compared to all students in the low-income, first generation college student bracket TRIO students enrolled in colleges at the same rate as all-income students (Carbanaro, 2003).

TRIO Programs highlight the importance of providing access to educational opportunity to all citizens and as well as the importance of maintaining a reasonable level of social cohesion and harmony in a racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse society (Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, & Rivkin, 2005). Ferguson (2001) states that TRIO Programs have much to offer institutions of higher learning and have implemented numerous successful strategies that have been shown to work effectively with first-generation minority and lower income students. The National Coalition of Educational Opportunity Associations (NCEOA) was established in 1981 to assure presence in the national educational community by leaders of the TRIO programs. This organization later adopted the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) as their new name (Woessmann, 2004).

By 1988, these programs had provided services to 780,000 Americans nationwide, almost all of them from minority or lower income backgrounds, including 16,000 individuals with disabilities. It is estimated that nearly two million TRIO participants have graduated from college since the first Upward Bound programs were piloted in 1965 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004a). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2002), TRIO programs currently serve nearly 872,000 low income students between the ages of 11 and 27. Many of the programs focus specifically on students in grades 6-12. Contrary to prior belief that TRIO programs only service minority groups, 37 % of TRIO students are White, 35 % are African American, and the other 18 % is spread throughout other minority groups. However, nearly 20 % of all African American and Hispanic freshmen who entered college received assistance through a TRIO program. Two-thirds of the students served by these programs must come from families with incomes under $24,000, or where neither parent graduated from college. Parents of participating students are screened to ensure that they will stay engaged in their child’s academic and extracurricular activities.

Types of TRIO Programs

The U.S. Department of Education [ED] has a number of initiatives designed to help prepare first-generation/low-income and minority students for college and to strengthen the institutions that serve them (Swail, Redd &  Perna, 2003).These programs, known collectively as early intervention, early outreach, or college access, are generally funded by either state or federal agencies and are usually housed on university and community college campuses (Fashola and Slavin, 2001; Swail and Perna, 2002). University and college outreach programs usually exist to enable poor and minority students to add to their personal, social, cultural capital, and to cease the replication of social reproduction (Kemmeimeier, et al., 2003).  These programs serve as a link between poor and minority communities and the colleges and universities that serve those communities (McCants, 2004; Oakes et al. 2002). Therefore, the success of the program “hinges on the ability of a program to meet students localized needs by affirming their culture and identity, rather than ignoring or rejecting it” (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005, p.206).  Moreover, these programs usually share a common goal and purpose, which is to utilize a host of strategies and interventions to get underprivileged high school students ready for college (Loza, 2003).  Strategies within these programs typically include individual academic tutoring, college visitations, college counseling, and some parental component (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005:Gandara & Bial, 2001). Moreover, two outreach programs that have been very instrumental in paving the way for African American and other minorities to enroll in colleges and universities are the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. GEAR UP and TRIO programs support college attendance among students from disadvantaged backgrounds (ED, 2005). For GEAR UP, the focus is on providing mentors who can help middle school students begin to succeed in challenging courses that will prepare them for college (ED, 2005). Whereas, the TRIO programs identify promising high school students from disadvantaged backgrounds, encourage them to strive for college, and prepare them to succeed once they begin (Riley, 2000).

The Higher Education Act of 1965, which created the Talent Search program, has been reauthorized six times since it was first enacted (1968, 1972, 1980, 1986,1992, and 1998), with each reauthorization introducing some changes to TRIO and Talent Search (ED, 2005). The program identifies and assists individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who have the potential to succeed in higher education. The participants are middle and high school students who wish to receive assistance in successfully matriculating in secondary school an education at a post-secondary institution. The program also offers support to high school dropouts by encouraging them to complete their high school diploma and to enroll in a post-secondary institution (Corbet, Wilson, & Williams, 2002). Two-thirds of the participants in each Talent Search Project must be low- income students who are potentially first-generation college students

Another successful program under the TRIO umbrella is entitled Project L1NKS. Project LINKS was conceived after the U.S. Department of Education requested proposals for new TRIO initiatives that could serve students not in schools affiliated with TRIO. According to Mormon, this online approach was designed to expand the reach of

Educational Talent Search’s (ETS). The Educational Talent Search program has included instruction in one of the university’s computer-equipped classrooms (Baum & Payea, 2004). The primary disadvantage of the program is that it required students to provide their own transportation. Therefore, Project L1NKS was necessary. It is a web based software package that consists of custom design programming features, off-the-shelf software programs, email, and whiteboard. This software package assumes that there is no prior computer experience on the part of the student using the program.

Through Project L1NKS, the TRIO program can reach the students who are the most in need but have the fewest resources to prepare themselves for success in a competitive world (Baum & Payea, 2004). Many educators believe that Project LINKS is within the framework of what TRIO is about because it is a creative use of resources. The program targets middle school students who usually do not have much exposure to computers. The program initially began with 80 students in the Maryland area, and at the beginning of each school year 80 more students are brought into the Project L1NKS initiative. The goal of the program is to expose young children to the world of computers, so they will be able to survive in a world where technology is constantly becoming more complicated (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005). Although all of the programs are valuable, for the purpose of this paper we will focus on Upward Bound, one of the largest and oldest TRIO programs.

Upward Bound Programs

Upward Bound serves high school students from low-income families, in which neither parent holds a bachelor’s degree. In addition, Upward Bound serves families which have first-generation military veterans who are preparing to enter postsecondary education (ED, 2004a).  As a result, the eligibility criteria for participation in Upward Bound includes that the students have a family income under 150 % of the poverty level, or first generation college students, have completed the eighth grade, demonstrate a need for the program, and demonstrate the potential to complete a four year college education (Upward Bound, 2001). Moreover, Upward Bound provides fundamental support to participants in their preparation for college entrance (U.S. Department of Education [ED], 2004b). Primarily student-centered, it was initiated in 1967 to “maximize educational opportunities for low-income and first generation college students through direct services that provide access to education and encourage retention through education pipeline” (Upward Bound, 2001, p.1). Therefore, the program provides opportunities for participants to succeed in their pre-college performance and ultimately in their higher education pursuits (ED, 2004a).

The goal of Upward Bound is to increase the rate at which the participants complete secondary education and enroll in and graduate from institutions of postsecondary education (ED, 2004a). Upward Bound also stipulates specifically that one of its goals is to enhance participants’ cultural awareness, leadership, and critical thinking skills (Loza, 2003).  Therefore, the Upward Bound Program provides academic instruction in mathematics, laboratory sciences, composition, literature, and foreign languages (ED, 2004b). Tutoring, counseling, mentoring, cultural enrichment, and work-study programs are supported within the Upward Bound Program (ED, 2005).

In sum, Upward Bound programs provide instruction in reading, writing, study skills, and other subjects necessary for success in education beyond high school; academic, financial, or personal counseling; exposure to academic programs and cultural events; tutorial services; mentoring programs; information on postsecondary education opportunities; assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid applications; assistance in preparing for college entrance exams; and work study positions to expose participants to careers requiring a postsecondary degree (ED, 2005).

First-generation students, historically, are in need of encouragement from family, teachers, peers, and also available resources from outreach programs. Because of the difference in enrollment rates, students whose parents did not go to college are one of the most frequently targeted groups for outreach programs designed to raise the level of student preparations and readiness (Allison, 2002).

Outreach programs can play a vital role in working with schools to increase the limited number of successful students into a real systemic change; that benefits all students in need through the mission of preparing all students for success (McCants, 2004). Gandara and Bial (2001) explain that students and families report that these programs open both their eyes and doors to possibilities and appear to be the most effective when working with the following elements in common: providing a key person who monitors and guides the student over a long period of time, providing high quality instruction through access to the most challenging courses, making long-term investments in students rather than short-term interventions, paying attention to cultural backgrounds of students, providing a peer group that supports students’ academic aspirations as well as giving them social and emotional support, and providing financial assistance and incentives. While the provision of education is a state responsibility, the role of the federal government has increasingly become one that equalizes the opportunity across the states by providing information to students and assistance to schools in accommodating students with special needs (Stinebrickner, 2002).

The current Upward Bound Program at many notable institutions consists of a variety of services including work-study programs at the campus and a summer residency academy. While at this academy, students live, study, and attend classes and lectures organized by high school teachers and college or university faculty members aimed to help prepare them for college entrance exams. The program includes a yearly field trip which is meant to be both educational and entertaining. The Upward Bound Bridge Program allows high school seniors to take college courses and receive credit for them.  The Bridge Program is designed to prepare them for success in college by honing their skills in college writing, note-taking, time management, money management, speed reading, and dealing with roommates. The program is also an avenue to expose students to universities other than their home institution.  Therefore, the directors schedule campus tours to most in-state public and private universities. When funding permits, they often travel outside of their home state to visit other prestigious institutions. Usually, if students begin the program during freshman year of high school and continue it through their senior year, they will have visited at least 20 institutions (McCants, 2006).

Arizona State University’s Upward Bound college preparatory program is the oldest of its kind in Arizona, funded since its inception by the U.S. Department of Education as part of the federal TRIO programs. The Arizona State Upward Bound Program receives numerous applications but only has 50 available spots per year. Approximately three-fourths of the students go on to attend Arizona State, and nearly 20 % enroll at other state universities and community colleges in the state of Arizona. At ASU, the program is credited with increasing student’s academic achievement levels. Coincidentally, 100 % of the students who have gone through the program in the last 5 years have graduated from high school, and 70 % are either currently enrolled in college or have already graduated (Van Houtte, 2004).

Students who completed the program at ASU attended the academic preparation and personal development classes for twenty-six Saturdays during their junior and senior years of high school. During the summer they lived on campus and attended various courses during a six to eight week stint. ASU’s Upward Bound Director stays in touch with many of their program graduates and is able to monitor their success and assist them in planning their future career and academic goals. However, due to rising costs, increasing regulations, and the idea of federal funding cuts, the university has undertaken fund-raising efforts in order to continually support its highly successful program. All student services are free federal grants, and fundraising is necessary (Van Houtte, 2004).

At universities like UC Riverside, the Upward Bound Program is fairly new, yet it also boasts an impressive increase and growth in its participants. The University of California system has been in the forefront of finding new ways to solicit monies to help continue the growth of their program. Currently in its eighth year, their enrollment has gone from 50 to 170 area students. A new $220,000 outreach grant from the US Department of Education allowed the university to expand its Upward Bound program.

TRIO grants are distributed through competitive grants, according to the U.S. Department of Education (Byrd and MacDonald, 2005).

Academic Achievement

Recent studies projecting the future demographic characteristics of the nation indicate that the nature of the at-risk population is growing and rapidly changing. Byrd and MacDonald (2005) state that there are five indicators associated with the educationally disadvantaged. They include being a member of a minority racial/ethnic group, socioeconomic status, single parent families, poorly educated mothers, and coming from a non-English speaking backgrounds.

On the basis of these criteria, Byrd and MacDonald (2005) further noted that the single most important factor in the school age population of the future is the expected increase in both the number and proportion of traditionally disadvantaged people. These findings are similar to those found by Choy (2001). The Texas educational system is at least near the national average in many key statistics and above average in others. Yet there is a growing concern over the state’s ability to adequately prepare its children for the next century. While much of the anxiety reflects qualitative rather than quantitative dimensions of education, the issue will not disappear soon.

Although statistics on dropouts are collected under inconsistent conditions, and not in accordance with a standardized definition, some guidelines seem applicable to understanding the general problem of this population across the county (Gandara & Bial, 2001). Hispanic American students are members of the fastest growing minority group in America and have the highest dropout rate followed by all males and Anglo Americans. African American males have actually shown improvement over the years in their propensity to finish high school, but because the African American portion of the overall population is increasing, their national dropout rate continues to rise as well (Gordon, Young, & Carlyle, 2001). Furthermore, the number of African Americans applying, attending, and completing higher education has actually declined over the last several years (Myers, Olsen, Seftor, Young Tuttle, 2004).

A study by Ogbu (1978, 2003) sought to explain why effort varies across various curricular tracks. Oppositional cultures have formed and are sustained by cultural differences across racial/ethnic and class boundaries. Anti-school norms that are fostered by these subcultures deter students from the learning process, thus sapping their desire to strive for academic success and could possibly undermine their levels of academic achievement (Thayer, 2007).

There is another group that leaves school without a critical analysis of schooling or economic benefits and with no immediate crisis. Adolescents in this group leave school because they live in conditions of unemployment and poverty, have experienced failure in school, have been held back at least once, and have had feelings of desolation and despair. Most of their friends are out of school also without diplomas. They express disappointment of the unfulfilled promises of schooling and believe education, being the key to success, is unattainable (Nadal, 2000).

A study focusing on retention and its application to ethnicity Riehl conducted (1994). He finds that the major factors causing students to drop out are confrontations, accelerated role taking, school factors, and background. However, the major predictors for students dropping out are participation in extracurricular activities, academic performance, and placement in an academic track.

According to Stokes and Hodge (2000), age proves to be an important predictor of dropping out for students; however, the cost of older students staying in school is higher because these students lose at least one additional year of income by doing so than students who are on schedule. Thayer (2000) concurs with these finding by stating that age and reading scores are the best predictors of students who would drop out of high school.

According to Swail and Perna (2000), language of instruction is positively related to at-risk characteristics because academic achievement in elementary and secondary school hinges on reading ability and on the results of standardized tests.

First-generation beginning students differ from non-first-generation students in age and family background.  They are generally older. Thirty-one percent of first-generation students were 24 or older, compared to 13 % and 5 %, respectively, of students whose parents had some college experience or a bachelor’s degree. They also have lower incomes: 42 % of those who were dependent were from the lowest family income quartile (less than $25,000/year), compared to 22 % and 18 %, respectively, of the other 2 groups (Choy, 2001).       This finding parallels that of Baum and Payea (2004) who found that over their working lives, typical college graduates earn about 73% more than typical high school graduates, and those with advanced college degrees earn two or three times as much as high school graduates. Annual average earnings in 1999 for those age 18 and over who had completed high school was only $24,572; for those with a bachelor’s degree it was$45,678 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).

A review of the statistical data obtained recently from a university Upward Bound Grant Proposal (2006) indicates that 13,581 (90.4 %) of adults residing in an urban area in southeast Texas, have educational attainment levels below a baccalaureate degree.  High school graduation rates among the adult population range from a low of 21.1 % to a high of 40.8 %.  Adults with no degree and some college range from a low of 12.7 % to a high of 23.2 %; while 1.6 % to 3 % has an Associates degree.  Further, some 5,345 (36 %) of the target area adults did not earn a high school diploma.  According to Jones & Watson, (1990); Mitchell, (1997); and Pardon (1992), first- generation college students often are members of ethnic minorities; moreover, they come from poor working class families.  These students overcome the cultural disadvantage of having very few, if any, mentors at home and the academic disadvantage of having skills.  Research from Forester (2006) indicates that there are few students able to attend college; yet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2005, there were slightly more than four million young people who were the right age to be starting college for the first time.  The US Department of Education (2002) reports that only 1.4 million students entered four-year colleges for the first time that year, a roughly 35 % rate of attendance.

Beginning students who are first-generation students are more likely than their non first-generation counterparts to be female 57 % versus 51 % of non-first-generation male students (Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).  Between 1967 and 2000, the college participation rate for males was 18 to 24 % in the civilian and non-institutional population decreased from 33.1 to 32.6 %. The corresponding rate for females increased from 19.2 to 38.4 % during this same period. The increased rate for women occurred steadily throughout the 34 years between 1967 and 2000, although the growth appears to have stagnated since 1997.

First-generation/low-income students are often reared in poverty-stricken areas, and they feel that if they attempt college, they will no longer fit in the surroundings of their upbringings. However, the most important support system for the student is the parent. While parents of first-generation/low-income college students may not have knowledge or college experience, their support for college entrance is important to their child’s success (Dennis, 2005).  Mitchell (1997) asserts that all students make adjustments when they enter college, but first-generation/low-income students face greater academic and social demands.

In a study by Carbonaro (2003), results show that there is correlation of academic achievement and higher track levels. Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005) found these level of track were reported by students and were not subject specific. The higher the track levels the greater the level of achievement. Another finding from this study is that students who were enrolled in vocational classes had the lowest achievement from all the track level students. According to Thayer (2007), students who are more engaged learn more in school. Further, time spent on homework has been commonly used to measure effort. As a result, effort has been positively related to achievement. The findings of this study were consistent with Carbonaro and Gamoran, (2002-03) where students who were in the college track spent more time on homework than students who were not on college track. Ogbu (2003) found that engagement measured by attendance, preparedness, and time spent on homework was positively related to track placement.

            Carbanaro (2005) identifies three types of effort as rule oriented, procedural, and intellectual. Rule oriented effort is defined as students who comply with the school’s norms of being in class on time and maintaining the school’s code of conduct. Procedural effort requires the student to meet the specific demands of the teacher in a particular class, such as turning in assignments on time. Finally, intellectual effort requires the student to use cognitive skills to think through and understand the challenges that are presented by the curriculum.

Findings of the study “High School and Beyond”, a national longitudinal study, reported higher dropout rates for students with mild to borderline handicaps than for non-handicapped students (19 % vs. 14 %, respectively) (Levacic & Vignoles, 2002).  “High School and Beyond” dropout rates must be considered conservative estimates due to the timing of the survey.  The dropout rate for specific handicapping conditions ranges from a low of approximately 19 % for students with orthopedic impairments to a high of 37 % for students with learning disabilities (The Teaching Commission, 2004).  Kilpatrick-Johnson, Oesterle, and Mortimer (2001) report that 28 % of a random sample of high school special education students left school before age 18, and an additional 13 % left after age 18 without their diploma.  In addition, Correll (2001) found that the dropout rate for students in Pittsburgh with learning disabilities approached 51 %, which far exceeded the 36 % reported for the general population during this period.  The New Hampshire Special Education Information System (SPEDIS) revealed a differentiated pattern of attrition among students aged 15-21 with specific handicaps (Jaschik, 2005).  Students identified as having an emotional handicap dropped out at a rate of 57 %, while students classified as learning disabled left at a rate of 40 %.  Students with hearing and speech impairments had an attrition rate of 38.5 % and 36.4 %, respectively.  Among all students with handicaps, the rate was reported at 40 %.  A study conducted recently in California (Thayer, 2007) found a wide variation in dropout rates for different disability groups, and according to the severity of a student’s disability within the group.

Dennis (2005) conducted a study where the findings indicated that younger students were more open to support services while their older counterparts are more focused on peer approval and their need for independence.  Researchers have identified three main risk factors that are associated with dropout to include poor academic performance, low-income, and deviant behavior. Regardless of the source of risk factors, it is noteworthy that multiple risk factors contribute to and accelerate the risk of dropping out of school (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005).

Self-Esteem

Viewing retention as a causative agent on the at risk student in a study by Rice, Tolls, and Schuly (1989), found that being overage upon entry into high school was associated with dropout rates that were 25 to 30 percentage points higher than students who entered high school at a normal age. Researchers concluded that school districts should avoid retaining students because this practice increases the likelihood of students dropping out of school. A third source identified being overage as the number one characteristic of the potential dropout. The at-risk student seems to view it as an insurmountable problem which does as little for a child’s self-esteem as it does for his academic development. Dropout rates were directly related to student to student test scores on their Iowa Test of Basic Skills. More than two-thirds of those students scoring in the lowest quartile dropped out; only 18.8 % of those scoring in the high average or above average ranges dropped out. Two-thirds of the 12,804 students who eventually dropped out entered high school reading at below normal levels or lower.

The majority of research on gender, ethnicity, and family income as they influence student motivation to achieve academically found that there were differences in student motivation as it relates to gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as measured by annual family income. However, the literature does show that students who complete Upward Bound are more motivated to complete high school and have higher graduation rates and college entrance rates than peers who did not complete Upward Bound. Although Upward Bound programs influence participants’ motivation to matriculate to college, such influences are dependent upon specific program interventions. Those programs that have a parental component have higher high school graduation rates as well as college matriculation and retention rates than those without a parent involvement component (Nadal, 2000).

Early prevention is one of the most cited strategies for school completion. For example, child behavior researchers observed that early school age children with early assault conduct problems are at high risk for school dropout as well as substance abuse, violence, and delinquency in their later years. Consequently, developing strategies to reduce conduct problems when aggression is in its more malleable form prior to age 8, and thus interrupting its progression is of considerable benefit to both families and society (Crocker, et al., 2003).

Edmundson and White (1998) conducted a study in which the findings indicate that younger students were more open to support services while their older counterparts are more focused on peer approval and their need for independence.  Researchers have identified three main risk factors associated with dropouts to include poor academic performance, low-income, and deviant behavior. Regardless of the source of risk factors, it is noteworthy that multiple risk factors contribute to and accelerate the risk of dropping out of school (Ekstrom, Goetz, Pollack, Rock, 1986).

Previous research has shown that self-esteem rises when people succeeds, are praised, or experiences another’s love, making self-esteem dependent on not only one’s perceptions of him or herself but also other’s perceptions of them.  It seems logical that adolescents who experience greater family challenge might also have higher levels of self-esteem. In fact, early studies by Coopersmith (1967) and Rosenberg (1965) showed that parental involvement and willingness to give adolescents autonomy and freedom are positively correlated to high self-esteem in adolescents. Rathunde, et al. (2000) also found that adolescents who saw their families as challenging had significantly higher self-esteem than teenagers with less challenging home environments. Such parental behavior conveys to the adolescent information about their self-worth, that his parent trusts them and has high expectations of them, which is likely to have positive consequences for an adolescent’s self-esteem.

For many years, self-esteem has received a great deal of attention in research and theory. In the first psychology textbook, James spoke about the inherent desire to feel good about oneself as an important aspect of human nature. Indeed, the writings of James are often held up as exemplary of the first writings on positive psychology (Rathunde, 2001; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Taylor, 2001). James wrote that a person with high self-esteem has either accomplished a lot or expected very little from himself. In high school, accomplishment can be measured not only by academic grades, but also by more social, athletic, or interest-related pursuits. For this reason we follow the lead of other researchers to examine extracurricular participation as a nonacademic indicator of adolescents’ accomplishments (Csikszentmihalyi & Schneider, 2000; Linton & Marriott, 1996; Marsh, 1992;). Towns (1996) found that self-esteem was associated with both academic achievement and extracurricular involvement. More recently, however, Linton and Marriott examined self-esteem and extracurricular participation using Rosenberg’s self-esteem measure and found no significant association between self-esteem and extracurricular participation.

With respect to self-esteem, most of these studies suggest that adverse effects are associated with being in a lower track. Lower track students seem to have more negative attitudes toward themselves than students in higher tracks (Cheung & Rudowicz, 2003). According to Oakes (1985), the self-concept of low track pupils becomes more negative as years go by. Only rarely does research maintain a contrary conclusion: Steitz and Owen (1992), for example, recorded that girls in vocational schools have a higher self-esteem than girls in general schools, and a few researchers reported that tracking causes no discernible effect on the students’ general self-concept (Brutsaert, 2001).

The same reasoning that may elucidate the poor achievement of pupils in lower tracks may apply to presume an effect of tracking on self-esteem. This reasoning goes back to the work of Hargreaves at the end of the 1960s and is generally known as the differentiation-polarization theory (Ball, 1981; Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1970). This theory states that the differentiation of pupils into different tracks or streams leads to a polarization of their school attitudes, such that one can speak of an anti-school culture with respect to lower track pupils and a pro-school culture with respect to higher track students. An explanation for this finding is that, for students in higher tracks, school is a positive experience because belonging to a higher track gives them some status. For students in lower tracks, it is the other way around; they lose status because their lack of ability pushes them into a lower track. So, it is not surprising that lower track students react against this system and the values it upholds, namely ability and hard work. As a consequence, an anti-school culture emerges in lower tracks. The lower track students oppose the system that makes them failures and look for an alternative basis for status (Gandara & Bial, 2001). The idea that lower track pupils suffer from status loss and feel like failures paves the way to the hypothesis that these pupils may also manifest a lower self-esteem. An impaired self-view may result from the frustration or embarrassment that follows the experienced failure (Swail & Perna, 2000).

The relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement has been well documented in the literature. While self-esteem is powerfully influenced by results achieved and appreciation shown by others from primary school on, it is also a good predictor of academic success. Adequate self-esteem is related to the capacity to cope with academic tasks by employing effective study methods and actively participating in the learning process, both of which are involved in achieving set goals (Adelman, 2000; Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003).

An adolescent’s environment, especially school, can have a significant influence on self-esteem development, with junior and senior high being critical years (Marcotte, Fortin, Potvin, & Papillon, 2002; Crocker, et al; Taylor, 2001). Junior high school has shown to be an important transition time for an adolescent in terms of healthy self-esteem development (Begman & Scott, 2001). In a relevant longitudinal study, it was found that adolescent self-esteem development may be disrupted by transition to a new school (junior high or high school) (Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling & Potter, 2002). This finding could be related to the interruption of students’ social networks at a time when friends and peers are important to adolescent development. Another study found that adolescents who remained in a stable school environment had a greater increase in level of self-esteem over an 18-month period than did adolescents who changed school environments (Choy, 2001). Findings on age as a predictor of self-esteem have been inconsistent. Several longitudinal studies (Bergman & Scott, 2001) and a cross-sectional study (Mullis & Chapman, 2000) found that self-esteem levels remained constant with increased age, and, therefore, increased age was not a significant predictor of self-esteem. Other longitudinal research indicated a gradual increase in self-esteem across adolescence (Correll, 2001). Conversely, other studies have shown that self-esteem decreased over time during adolescence (Robins, et al.).  Robins et al. reported that self-esteem is highest during childhood, drops significantly during adolescence, and then increases again into adulthood.

Most of the research on the relation between ethnicity and self-esteem has found that African Americans report a higher level of self-esteem than do other ethnicities. Because African Americans have consistently been shown to report the highest levels of self-esteem, Wade (1996) conducted a study to determine whether light or dark skin color among African Americans made a difference in their self-esteem. He hypothesized that females with light skin would report higher self-esteem but found that light or dark skin color did not relate to self-esteem scores. He proposed that these findings could be a clue to participants’ sense of black consciousness or ethnic identity.

A few studies conflict with the majority of findings in terms of ethnicity and self-esteem (Robins et al., 2002). Thus, ethnicity may not be a significant predictor of self-esteem level in all cases. Wade et al. (1989), for instance, found that overall self-esteem remained fairly consistent between African Americans and European Americans; however, there were ethnic differences in social attitudes and behavior, which in turn may have influenced self-esteem. It may be that the sources of self-esteem are different for African Americans, and European Americans. For instance, for European Americans physical attractiveness is determined to be more important than self-esteem, while for African Americans, relationship with peers tends to be more important (Robins et al.).

Post-Secondary Success

The Education Department funded study said that the federal TRIO program raises retention rates, grade-point averages, and credit hours earned by disadvantaged students. Retention rates increased 7-9 % through participation in the Student Support Services program. Grade point averages increased about .15 in the student’s freshman year of high school, for an average GPA of 2.29. Also, students in a TRIO program earned about 2 additional credit hours per school year than those who did not participate in the program. While peer tutoring seemed to be the service with the greatest effect, students also showed benefits from the cultural events, workshops, and special instructional courses (Dervarics, 1997). They believe that with more intensive student services, the improvement levels in student progress will greatly increase. Recent studies also show that students in TRIO programs are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than those students from similar backgrounds who do not participate in TRIO (NCES, 1998).

Dohm and White (2002) agree by stating on average, college graduates enjoy advantages ranging from more job opportunities to better salaries over their non-college educated counterparts. Further, students working towards a college degree also have long term benefits which consist of better promotion opportunities and lower unemployment rates (Dohm & Wyatt, 2002). Yet, as statistical data indicates, a college or university education is not easily accessible to all, especially to poor and minority students (Loza, 2003).

Minorities represent only 4,889,705 of the United States college population, whereas there are nearly 10,641,522 white students amongst the entire college population (Cuyjet, 2006). Likewise, between 1991 and 2001, 40 % of African Americans and 34 % of Hispanics attended college, compared with 45 % of Whites. Moreover, regarding African Americans, a substantial gap in college and university enrollment exists when compared to their white counterparts. For instance, as of 2000, among high school graduates aged 25 to 29, 68.2 % of whites compared to 60.8 % of blacks had completed some college (Mau & Kapischke, 2001). In addition, 47.3 % of white high school graduates ages 18 to 24 attend college, versus 41.1 % of black in 2003 (Pascerella & Terenzini, 2005). Further, as of 2005, 34.1 % of all whites completed four or more years of college, while only 17.3 % of blacks did the same. Nevertheless, while there still remains a disparity among African Americans and an attainment of a college education; as of late, when viewed against their fellow counterparts, some improvements have been shown. In the last 20 years, the increases in college participation rates among African Americans have steadily increased to the point in which they now surpass their white counterparts. Between 1993-95 and 2003-05, the black participation rate increased from 35 % to 41 % (Pascerella & Terenzini, 2005). During this same period, college participation rates for whites increased from 43 % to 48 % (Zhang, 2005). Furthermore, African American students have grown from 5 % of the freshman class at four-year colleges 40 years ago to more than 11 % today (Zhang, 2005). Also, it is indicated that from 2004 to 2015, enrollment in degree-granting institutions is expected to grow from 27 % for black, non-Hispanic students.  Several past researchers have suggested that these increases in African American achievement can be attributed outreach programs designed to increase the enrollment of under-represented groups, such as African Americans.

These findings support Forster’s (2006) position that there is almost no gap between the number of college-ready high-school graduates and the number of students starting college. Virtually everyone who is academically qualified to go to college actually goes to college.  Moreover, Forster (2006) noted, college access is one of the most serious issues we face in reforming the transition from high school to college.  Researchers agree that a college education leads to better life outcomes and that college access must be part of any serious approach to redressing social inequalities.

Academic support services such as Upward Bound, Educational Talent Search and Student Support Services (SSS) help participants both with specific courses and with their general academic progress (Student Support Services Report, 1999). These federally funded programs actually work together to help first-generation/low income student transition successfully.  Student Support Services Programs are viewed as the college version of the Upward Bound and Educational Talent Search Programs.  As stated, some Student Support Services Programs are implementing “learning community” type strategies. These learning communities help students form supportive peer groups that extend beyond the classroom (Thayer, 2000).  Thus, the TRIO program is essential in the development of first-generation/low-income students. Additionally, staff from the other federally funded programs such as Upward Bound and Educational Talent Search helps to foster and environment that is conducive to the success factor of the first-generation/low income student.  Student Support Services offers supplemental grants in addition to regular student financial aid offered through the Federal Aid and Grant Programs. Additionally, the program staff fosters an on-going relationship with each student as part of its intervention and retention methods. Striplin (1999) suggests it is clear that first-generation students run a high risk of not transferring to a four-year institution. Community colleges have a responsibility to respond to those students needs. First-generation students’ are over-represented in these institutions. In order for this group of students to reap the benefits of higher education, the community college systems should devise a tracking system whereby students are following an outlined degree plan for upward mobility.

Studies conducted by Carson-Warner and Carol (2003) found that students benefit more from the summer residential portion of the Upward Bound Program than the tutorial portion that happens six weeks during the academic year. Thayer’s (2007) study found that Upward Bound students entering colleges and universities have higher retention rates. Research also supports that Upward Bound Programs are academically preparing students for college.

Another study found a positive relationship between Upward Bound participation and students academic performance at the secondary and post-secondary educational levels. These findings were further supported by Morgan and Hertzog (2001) who found that high school dropout rates were significantly lower in schools with Upward Bound. Academic preparation has been a strong predictor of academic success in college as was found by Adelman (2006). Tinto (1993) stated that students who find at least one adult on campus and develop a positive relationship with this individual are more likely to find academic achievement and retention.

Guidance and counseling have been at the core of student services since the earliest years. The contention has been that students need help in moving into the college and out again into careers and other schools and that individual instruction through counseling and other non-classroom based activities is essential (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).

Academic guidance has always been intended to match students with the programs best suited to their own goals and abilities and to help students recognize their academic abilities and limitations in a caring and organized manner (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Student personnel workers also plan and operate student orientation programs designed to help students move more easily from old environments to their new environment and to guide them toward successful college careers.

Research on positive outcomes of college and on the diverse needs of students making up today’s student population suggests that a new look at advising is needed. Findings link academic advising directly and indirectly to contact between faculty and students and persistence in college. For example, involvement influences learning and defines effective institutions as those having the capacity to involve students (Oaks, Quartz, Ryan, and Lipton, 2000). Research also indicates that frequent and meaningful contact with faculty members, especially contact focusing on intellectual or career-related issues, seems to increase students’ involvement and motivation (Oaks, et al.)  These results can be important to advisers, for the advisors to have the capacity to increase meaningful contact with students and to encourage them to persist in college. Advisors can also respond to students who are in stages of transition. Regardless of age or personal situation, some students do not “fit” easily into college life–freshmen, students with undecided majors, transfer students, and adult students, for example.          Advising freshmen is especially important. Academic integration seems to influence freshmen’s development of academic skills (Tinto, 1987). Advisors who facilitate assimilation to college understand factors affecting freshmen’s fit and persistence. They share responsibility for advising with students and begin educational and career planning. Perceptive advisors encourage all students in transition to focus first on exploring life, career, and educational goals. These students in transition seem better equipped to select educational programs, choose courses, and schedule classes (Tinto, 1987). Ideally, advising is first a means of exploring careers and majors and then a method for selecting courses and arranging schedules. As partners in the process, students can learn to discover options, frame questions, gather information, and make decisions, all of which can increase their involvement in college and encourage them to persist to graduation.

Institutions as well as individuals benefit from the efforts of administrators, coordinators, advisors, and support personnel working together to construct an advising system. When representatives from these groups plan, train for, implement, and evaluate advising, they can create a network of cooperation that can be transferred to other aspects of the college. These higher educational groups also model collaborative behavior for students. Program planning centered on the institution’s mission and all students’ needs can result in a dynamic advising system with the capacity to adapt to internal and external change (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).

Financial aid for students has become a large and ever-increasing feature in higher education. Federal and state funds administered through Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Guaranteed Student Loans, College Work-Study Aid, and State Student Incentive Grants, represent only a few of the current financial aid programs that have grown to the extent that any shift in their availability has an immediately discernible impact on enrollments. Federal financial aid to students began with the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill) in 1944 and was expanded with the National Defense Education Act in 1958, but the community colleges were slow to seek these funds (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Not until passage of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (now called Pell Grants) program in 1972 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) did the majority of community colleges organize financial aid offices. One reason for the slow start was the misperception that because of the comparatively low cost of community college education, students did not need financial assistance. However, students still had to spend money to live, commute to classes, and, by attending school, were foregoing income that they could otherwise have earned. Furthermore, because community college students were typically from lower-income groups, their needs were greater, even though the cost of attending the community college was generally less than attending a four-year college or university.

The Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/Development Programs (Baum & Payea, 2004) advanced principles which specified that institutions of higher education were responsible for providing educational opportunities that challenged students to learn and develop while at the same time providing support to nurture the student’s development. The higher education institutions also presupposed that students would search out relevant educational resources that were available, accessible, and relevant to their educational and developmental needs. Institutions of higher education have asserted that they make many provisions to provide the resources for student support and development.

In recent years, student satisfaction, especially its relation to student retention, has been of concern in colleges and universities across the nation. Once the student has been admitted, the next challenge for the college or university is to ensure student satisfaction, which plays an important role in student retention. Although there is not an extensive amount of research on student satisfaction with student services and its impact on retention, a few studies do discuss this issue. Astin (1993) found a positive correlation between satisfaction with student support services and persistence. He also found a direct positive correlation between student satisfaction and monies spent on student support services. Astin’s findings further illustrated that students using support services, such as advisement and tutoring, reported satisfaction. However, students might not seek out such services if the services were perceived as being inadequate. His findings also emphasized and strengthened The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education’s assertion that students would search out educational resources if they are truly relevant to students’ educational and developmental needs. Similarly, Becker (1999) found that students who were satisfied with student services and academic areas on campus were retained at higher levels than those who were dissatisfied.

Even so, several of the students participating in these studies also indicated that they felt discouraged with student services. Many theories and models exist either to describe the out-of-classroom factors’ impact on learning or strategies to remedy the negative influences. To review a few of these studies, Pascarella and Terenzini’s Student Learning Model (1991) identified the importance of both classroom experience and out-of-class experiences. Edmondson & White (1998) in their study of the United States Coast Guard Academy found that the lack of “fit” between the individual and his socializing environment was the major determinant in withdrawal from the Academy. Jones and Watson’s model (1990) of undergraduate socialization demonstrated the impact of the college environment on students’ growth while Morgan & Hertzog (2001) argued that lower attrition rates reported by prestigious private universities and state-supported universities with national reputations could be attributed to student self-selection. This self-selection increased the compatibility or “fit” between the students’ interests and needs with those of the institution’s environment. In another study, Stokes & Hodge (2000) found student dissatisfaction with academic life and dissatisfaction with student services a significant variable for a freshman leaving college. Levitz, Noel, and Richter (1999) found that student persistence was a key indicator of student satisfaction and success.

Tinto (1987) also asserted that admissions materials, personal contacts, and the expectations they build could play a major role in a student’s adjustment to the institution. Information provided to students must be realistic; otherwise, students are going to be frustrated by the lack of congruence between themselves and the institution. This outcome is also supported by Marmon (2002), who stated that colleges should have outreach programs for both parents and students. These programs should make parents and students aware of college programs and services. The outreach programs should also serve to provide a supportive environment for students who are concerned about whether or not they made the right choice in coming to the college in the first place. If a prospective student’s characteristics (aptitude, interests, expectations, and other characteristics) are recognized by the institution of interest, the student will have greater satisfaction with the institution. Admissions officers should be educators in providing institutional information to prospective students to help ensure “best fit” (Carter, 2005). DiMaggio and Mohr (1985) said that matching students’ needs with the institution’s needs would lead to greater student satisfaction and success. There is a well-established empirical relationship between students’ level of satisfaction with the postsecondary institution they are attending and their rate of retention at that institution (Carter).  In other words, college satisfaction is a “primary predictor” of student persistence (Tinto, 1983). Furthermore, college satisfaction is an assessment outcome that has been found to be the least influenced or confounded by students’ college-entry characteristics e.g., academic preparedness, educational aspirations, gender, and socioeconomic status (Astin, 1993).  It seems clear that the greater the congruence between the student’s values, goals, and attitudes and those of the college, the more likely the student will persist at the college (Astin, 1993; Carter, Forester, 2006; Morgan & Hertzog, 2001)

REFERENCES

A Profile of the Talent Search Program: 1999-2000. Washington, D.C.

Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, p. 663-676.

Adelman, C. (2000, January). Participation in outreach programs prior to high school graduation: socioeconomic status by race. Paper presented at the ConnectED Conference, San Diego, CA.

Allison, P. (2002). Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Astin, A. W. 1993. An Empirical Typology of College Students.  Journal of College Student Development, 34(1), 36-46.

Auffret, S. (1996). Student success: Measuring success thirty years later; ASU Upward Bound celebrates three decades of achievement. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 7(5), 14.

Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2004). The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Retrieved January 13, 2006 from College Board web site: http://www.collegeboard.com

Becker, J. (1999). Partnerships with families promote TRIO student achievement. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 432197).

Bergman, M. M., & Scott, J. (2001). Young adolescents’ well-being and health-risk behaviors: Gender and socioeconomic differences. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 183-197.

Billings, T. (1968). Upward Bound Accomplishments. Phi Delta Kappan, L(2), 95-98.

Bonner, F. A., II, & Bailey, K. W. (2006). Enhancing the academic climate for African American men. In M. J. Cuyjet (Ed.), African American men in college (pp. 24-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bureau reports. Available: http://www.census.gov/Press-

Release/wwwreleases/archives/education/004214.html

Byrd, K., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First-generation college student perspectives [Electronic Version]. Community College Review, 33(1), 22+. Retrieved January 13, 2006 from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5011049609

Carbonaro, W. (2003). Teacher, peer, and parental social capital: Influences on student effort and academic outcomes. Paper presented at the Creation and Returns Social Capital, Colloquium, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam. The Netherlands.

Carson-Warner, C., & Carol, O. (2003). Aspects of the Upward Bound program which motivate students to matriculate, persist in, and graduate from postsecondary institutions. Roosevelt University Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved July15, 2006 from http://proquest.umi.com/pdqweb?did=765790771&sid=1fmt-2&clientld=19295&rqt=309&vname=pqd

Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond Black and White. New York: Oxford University Press.

Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment (NCES 2001-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Coles, A. (1998). TRiO Achievers: The Promise of the Future. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 432-443.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. Freeman, San Francisco.

Corbit, D., Wilson, B., & Williams, B. (2002). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms: Expecting – and getting – success with all students. New York: Teachers College Press.

Correll, S. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691-1730.

Croker, J., Luhtanen, R., Cooper, M., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2001). Conditions for optimal development in adolescence: An experiential approach. Applied Developmental Sciences,

5(3) pages 122 – 124.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success and Failure. Cambridge University Press, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dalpes, P. (2001). Reflections of first generation, low income, Puerto Rican college students on the impact of a high school Upward Bound program on their ability to succeed in postsecondary education. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.umi.com/pdqweb?index.

Dennis, J. (2005). Role of Motivation, Parental Support, and Peer Support in the Academic Success of Ethnic Minority First-Generation College Students. Journal of College Student Development, 223-236.

DiPaula, A., & Campbell, J. (2002). Self-esteem and persistence in face of failure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 711-724.

Edmondson, J., & White, J. (1998).  A tutorial and counseling program : Helping students

at risk of dropping out of school. Professional School of Counseling, 1, 43-47.

Ekstrom, R., Goetz, M., Pollack, J., & Rock, D. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 356-373.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22.

Farrow, E. (1977). A longitudinal study: the long term impact of the Rutgers Upward Bound Program on its participants. New Brunswick, NJ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 144 982).

Fashola O., & Slavin R. (2001). Effective programs for Latino students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferguson, R. (2001). A diagnostic analysis of Black-White GPA disparities in Shaker Heights, Ohio. In D. Ravitch’s (Ed.) Brookings Papers on Education Policy:2001, Washington, DC: Brookings Institutional Press.

Forester, G. (2006) The Embarrassing Good News on College Access 

            Funded Education Programs:  A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree at The University of Tennessee.

Gandara, P. & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K-12

intervention programs for underrepresented youth.  U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Access Working Group.  Washington, DC. (NCES 2001-205)

Gordon, T., Young, J., & Carlye, A. (2001). Connecting the Freshman Year Experience through Learning Communities: Practical Implications for Academic and Student Affairs Units. College Student Affairs Journal, 20(2), 37-40.

Gunter, R., (2002). The influence of student perceptions on academic performance in Upward Bound Programs.  Journal of Educational Opportunity, 20(1), 53-68.

Hanushek, E., Kain, J., O’Brien, D., & Rivkin, S. (2005). The market for teacher

 quality. Working paper, National Bureau of Economical Research, Cambridge, MA.

Haskell, R. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction and reasoning. San Diego Academic Press.

Hess, F. (1987). A comprehensive analysis of the dropout phenomenon in an urban an urban school setting.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987{Ed287202}.

Hewitt, C.  (1998). A brief developmental history of the TRIO programs and the

Historically Underrepresented Minority Students in Higher Education California State University, Fullerton.

Holmstrom, L., Karp, D., & Gray, P. (2002). Why laundry, not Hegal? Social class,

transition to college, and pathways to adulthood. Symbolic Interaction, 25, 437-462.

Hsiao, K. P. (1992).  First-generation college students.  ERIC Digest. Los Angeles,

California: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 351079).  http://chronicle.com Section: School & College, 52(27), B50.         http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/lisy/ope/trihistory.html

Hull, C. & Nie, N. (1981). SPSS Updates: New Procedures and Facilities for Releases 7, 8 and 9. New York: SPSS.

Ingels, S., Curtin, T., Owings, J., Kaufman, P., Alt, M., & Chen, X. (2002). Coming of age in the 1990s: The eighth grade class of 1988 12 years later. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Jacobson, J., Olsen, C., Rice, J. K., Sweetland, S., & Ralph, J. (2001). Educational Achievement and Black-White Inequality. Statistical Analysis Report 2001-(July). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Jang, S. J., & Thornberry, T. P. (1998). Self-esteem, delinquent peers, and delinquency: A test of the self-enhancement thesis. American Sociological Review, 63, 586-598.

Jaschik, S. (2005, August). First generation challenges. Retrieved on January 14, 2006 from http://wwwinsidehighered.com/news/2005/08/10/first

Jones, D., & Watson, B. (1990). “High risk” students and higher education; Future

trends. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. ED 325 033). ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC.

Keating, L., Tomishima, M., Foster, S., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The effects of a mentoring program on at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37, 717-734.

Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumkov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C., Hirsberg, M., Erb, H., Weiczorkowska, G., & Noels, K. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and authorization in seven societies. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 304-322.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Keup, J., & Barefoot, B. (2005). Learning how to be successful college student: Exploring the impact of first year seminars on student outcomes. Journal of First-Year and Students in Transition, 17, 11-47.

Kilpatrick-Johnson, M., Oesterle, S., and Mortimer, J. (2001). Adolescents’ anticipations of work-family conflict in a changing societal context. In S. Hofferth and T. Ownens (Eds.) Children at the millennium: Where have we come from, where are we going? New York: Elsevier Science.

Kobal, D., & Musek, J. (2001). Self-concept and academic achievement: Slovenia and France. Personal Individual Differences, 30(5): 887-899.

Laar, C. V. (2000). The paradox of low academic achievement but high self-esteem in African American students: An attribution account. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1): 33-59.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.

Levacic, R., & Vignoles, A. (2002). Researching the links between school resources and student outcomes in the UK: A review of issues and evidence. Education Economics, 10, 313-331.

Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and success. In Upcraft, J.L., Gardner, J.N., & Associates (eds.), The freshman year experience (pp. 65-79). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Levitz, R., Noel, L., & Richter, B. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success. In Promising practices in recruitment, remediation, and retention (G. H. Gaither, Ed.). New Directions for Higher Education, 108, 31–50.

Linton, K. E., & Marriott, R. G. (1996). Self-esteem in adolescents: Validation of the state self-esteem scale. Personality of Individual Differences, 21(1), 85-90.

Loza, P. (2003). A system at risk: College outreach programs and the educational neglect of underachieving Latino high school students. The Urban Review, 35, 43-57.

Marcotte, D., Fortin, L., Potvin, P., & Papillon, M. (2002). Gender differences in depressive symptoms during adolescence: Role of gender-typed characteristics, self-esteem, body image, stressful life events, and pubertal status. Journal of Behavioral and Emotional Disorders, 10, 29-42. Margaret W. Cahalan, Washington, DC.

Marmon, D. (2002). Core Competencies of Professional Service Providers in Federally Funded Education Programs: A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy at University of Tennessee.

Marsh, H. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 553-562.

Mason, A. (2001). Self-esteem and delinquency revisited (again): A test of Kaplan’s Self-Derogation Theory of delinquency using latent growth curve modeling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from http://www.questia.com/read/.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (1997). The national evaluation of Upward Bound, summary of first year impacts and program operations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Mau, W., & Kopischke, A. (2001). Job search methods, job search outcomes, and job satisfaction of college graduates: A comparison of race and sex. Journal of Employment Counseling, 38, 141-149.

McCants, J. (2004, January).  How can pre-college outreach programs work with schools?  Pathways to Improving Practice. [On-line]. Available: http://www.pathwaystocollege.net.

Mitchell, K. (1997) Making the grade: Help and hope for the first-generation college student.  ERIC Review on the Path to College.

Morgan, L., & Hertzog, C. (2001). Designing comprehensive transition plans. Principal Leadership, 1(7), 10-18.

Mullis, R. L., & Chapman, P. (2000). Age, gender, and self-esteem differences in adolescent coping styles. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 539-541.

Myers, D., & Schirm, A. (1999). The Impacts of regular Upward Bound: Results from the Impacts of Upward Bound: Final Report for Phase I of the National Evaluation Final Report. April 1999 MPR Reference No:  8046-515.

Myers, D., Olsen, R., Seftor, N., Young, J., & Tuttle, C. (2004). The Impacts of regular Upward Bound: Results from the third follow-up data collection MPR Reference No: 8464-600.

Nadal, K. (2000). Ethnic minority student’s stressors: Their impact on campus climate perceptions and academic achievement.  Retrieved July 13, 2006 from Questia Online website: http://www.questia.com/read

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). The condition of education 1998.

Nuñez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-Generation Students: Undergraduates

Oaks, J., Quartz, K., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M.  (2000). Becoming Good American Schools: The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pardon, E. (1992). The challenge of first-generation college students:  A Miami-Dade Perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20(4), 71-80.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20(4), 71-80.

Peterson, J. (2000). A follow-up study of one group f achievers and underachievers four years after high school graduation. Roeper Review, 22, 217-225.

Populos, N. (1982). Evaluations of the Horizons Upward Bound Program. Detroit Public Schools, Michigan Department of Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document No. 236 157).

Rathunde, K., Carroll, M. E., & Huang, M. P. (2000). Families and the forming of children’s occupational future. In Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Schneider, B. (eds.), Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work. Basic Books, New York.

Rice, W., Tolls, R.,, Schuly, E. (1989). Study on high school graduation: Continuous study of factors leading to terminal decisions.   San Francisco, Ca: Basic Books.

Riehl, R. (1994).  The academic preparation, aspirations, and first year performance of

first-generation students. College and University, 70(1), 14-19.

Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., &  Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 423-434.

Rooney, M. (2002, November 1). A surge of students: Enrollments soar at colleges of all types. For some of them that’s a mixed blessing [Electronic Version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A33.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141-156.

Ross, C. E., & Broh, B. A. (2000). The roles of self-esteem and the sense of personal control in the academic achievement process. Social. Education, 73(4): 270-284.

Saenz, T., Wyatt, T., & Reinard, J. (1998) Increasing the recruitment and retention of historically under represented minority students in higher education.  California State University:  Fulton.

Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L., & Cook, S. (1976). Research Methods in Social Relations,   3rd ed., New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (2001). One million children: Success for all. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Smith, J. (2005). The affects of student receptivity on college achievement and retention

and experiences. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 144-157.

Snyder, T. (2003). Digest of education statistics 2002. (NCES Report No. 2003-060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Southeastern Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel.  Journal of Education Opportunity. 17(1), 67-77.

Stinebrickner, T. (2002). An analysis of occupational change and department from the

labor force. Journal of Human Resources, 37, 192-216.

Stokes, L., & Hodge, M. (2000). An exploratory study of engagement in risky behavior

among Upward Bound participants.  Journal of Educational Opportunity, 18(2),

75-79.

Striplin, J. (1999). Facilitating transfer for first-generation community college students.

ERIC Digest, ED430627. student. ERIC Review on the Path to College.

Swail, W., & Perna, L. (2000).  Students whose parents did not go to college.  U. S.

Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2000), Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC

Swail, W., & Perna, L. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national perspective.

In W.G. Tierney and L.S. Hagedorn (Eds.) Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities to all students. New York: Sunny Siries, Frontiers in Education.

Swail, W., Redd, K., & Perna, L. (2003). Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education: A Framework for Success. Stafford, VA: Educational Policy Institute.

Tatum, B. (2004). Family life and school experience: Factors in the racial identity development of Black youth in White communities. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 117-135.

Taylor, E. (2001). Positive psychology and humanistic psychology: A reply to Seligman. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 13-29.

Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A., Colbeck, C. Bjorklund, S., & Parente, J. (2001). Race and

ethnic diversity in the classroom. Journal of Higher Education, 72. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from Questia Online website: http://www.questia.com/read/.

Texas Southern University. (2006). Upward Bound Grant Proposal. Texas: Texas

Southern University Press.

Thayer, P. (2000). Retaining first generation and low income students. Opportunity

            Outlook, 2-8.

Thayer, S. (2007). The impact of a TRIO Upward Bound Program on the academic

achievement of African American male students. University of Southern California. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from http://proquest.umi.com

The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at Risk: A call to action. New York, NY:

The Teaching Commission.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993).  Leaving college (2^nd ed.).  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Towns, W.C. (1996). The Reconciliation of W. Edwards Deming and John Dewey: An Exploration of Similarities in Motivational Theory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. EJ 530 128).

4214. S. Census Bureau. (2005). College degree nearly doubles annual earnings: Census Bureau reports. Available: http://census.gov/Press-Release/wwreleases/archives/education/004214.html.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2004a). A Profile of the Upward Bound Math-Science Program: 2000-2001, by Thomas R. Curtin and Margaret W. Cahalan, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2004b). A Profile of the Student Support Services Program: 1997-98 and 1998-99, with Select Data from 1999-2000. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2002).

U.S. Department of Education. (1997, February). President Clinton’s Call to Action for American Education in the 21^st Century. Retrieved June 16, 2005 from the U.S. Department of Education website http://www.ed.gov/updates/presEDpln/.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). History of the federal TRIO programs. Retrieved July, 2005.

U.S. Federal News Source. (2007). TRIO Upward Bound helps incoming freshmen prepare for college success. U.S. State News. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from ProQuest website: http://www.proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&sid.

Upward Bound Programs, Journal of Educational Opportunity, 20 (1), 53-68.

Upward Bound:  Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection MPR

Reference No.:  8464-600.

Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects in school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of

            Education, 110, 354-388.

Wade, T. J. (1996). The relationships between skin color and self-perceived global, physical, and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem for African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 358-373.Washington: GPO.

Whose Parents Never Enrolled in Postsecondary Education (NCES 98082). U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Woessmann, L. (2004). Educational production in Europe. Paper resented at the 40^th Meeting of Economic Policy in Amsterdam Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Wyo, L. (2002). TRIO Programs helping reservation residents. Wind River News,   25(10, 4.

Young, E. (1980). A longitudinal study on the academic development of selected participants in a mid-western Upwards Bound project. Ed. S Thesis, University of Iowa. (ERIC Document No. 193 402).

Zhang, L. (2005). Advance to graduate education: The effect of college quality and undergraduate majors. The Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 313-338.

Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1999). Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, p.663-676.

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO DIRECTORS OF UPWARD BOUND

March 19, 2008

Lucille Donaldson, Director

Upward Bound Program

1000 ASU Drive 240

Alcorn State, MS 39096

Dear Mrs. Donaldson,

I am currently enrolled in the Community College Leadership Doctoral Program at Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi.  In my dissertation, I plan to examine the student perception of an Upward Bound Program on their academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes toward post-secondary educational success.  In order to complete my research, I need your permission to conduct a survey involving the Upward Bound students at Copiah-Lincoln Community College.

This letter is to request permission to conduct my research.  I will need a confirmation letter from you giving me permission to survey the Upward Bound students.  You can email or mail the confirmation letter back to me.  I assure you that the responses of the participants will remain anonymous and that their names will not be mentioned through general conversation or in print.

Should you have any questions concerning this research study, please call me at 601-849-0126 (office) or 601-382-0694 (cell) or by email at dewayne.middleton@colin.edu .

Sincerely,

Dewayne Middleton

Director of Student Services

151 Co-Lin Drive

Mendenhall, Ms 39114

Phone: 601-849-0126

Fax:     601-849-0694

APPENDIX B

PARENT PERMISSION LETTER

Dear Parents,

My name is Dewayne Middleton; I am a Doctoral student at Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi.  I would like your child to take part in a research study.  During the first of June, I will be surveying all Upward Students at Copiah-Lincoln Community College.  If you and your child agree that your child may participate in the study I will ask your child to complete a questionnaire about his/her perceptions of the Upward Bound Program on their academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes toward post-secondary education.  Completion of this survey should take no more than fifteen to twenty minute.

All of the information I obtain from your child will be kept confidential.  The students name will not be used on any of the forms.  The survey that your child completes will be marked with a number I select, but no one who will know this number or the responses of your child.

The information collected from this study will be complied into a report that will be available for everyone to see at Mississippi State University Instructional Systems Office.  The report will not contain any INDIVIDUAL information about the students.  It will describe the answers to the survey but it will not use any names.  I will use the information from this study to show the importance of the Upward Bound program and the impact it has on young students.  Again, I will never report individual information.

The Director of the Upward Bound Program has approved the survey.  However, the student does not have to participate in the survey.  As the investigator I will be present during the survey.  The Upward Bound staff will be present during the survey.  However, they will not be involved in the student survey process.  There are no benefits to you or your child for participating in this study.  The information from the survey should help us learn more about the effectiveness of the program regarding academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitudes toward post-secondary education.  There are no known risks associated with participation in this study, and most students enjoy the opportunity to express their opinions.

Mississippi State University appreciates the participation of people who help it carry out its function of developing knowledge through research.  If you have any questions about the research, you may call me at 601-849-0126 (office), 601-382-0694 (cell) or by email at dewayne.middleton@colin.edu.

If you and your child agree that your child may take part in the research please return a signed copy of this form to me in the enclosed envelope.  You may keep the other copy for future reference.   You have read the permission form and agree to have your child take part in the research.

Name of Student: ________________________________________________________

Printed Name of Parent: ___________________________________________________

Signature of Parent: ________________________________    Date: ________________

APPENDIX C

STUDENT ASSENT LETTER

Upward Bound

  Minor Assent Form

Your parent knows we are going to ask you to participate in this survey.  We want to know what impact you believe Upward Bound program has on your academic achievement, self-esteem, and attitude toward post-secondary education.  It will take about fifteen minutes of your time to complete the task. Your name will not be written anywhere on the research instrument.  No one will know these answers came from you personally.

If you do not want to participate, you can stop at any time.  You can ask questions if you do not understand any part of the study.

Do you understand?  Is this OK?

Name (Please print): ___________________________________________________

Signature: ___________________________________________________________

Date: _______________________________________________________________

Investigator’s Signature: ____________________________ Date: _______________

APPENDIX D

IRB CERTIFICATION LETTER

APPENDIX E

SURVEY

APPENDIX F

VITA

Vita

1975……………………………………………………………………………….. Born-Natchez, Mississippi

1996 ………………………………………………………… A.A., Copiah-Lincoln Community College

• Wesson, Mississippi

2000 ……………………………………………………………  B.S., University of Southern Mississippi

• ……………….. Hattiesburg, Mississippi

2003 ………………………………………………………………………….  M.S., Alcorn State University

• ……………….. Lorman, Mississippi

2000 – 2005  ………………………………………………………………..  Upward Bound Coordinator

• ……………….. Copiah-Lincoln Community Center
• ……………                                             Wesson, Mississippi

2005 – 2006  ……………………………………………………………….  Academic Advisor/Instructor

• ……………….. Copiah-Lincoln Community College
• …………… Mendenhall, Mississippi

2007 – Present ……………………………………………………………….  Director – Student Services

• ……………….. Copiah-Lincoln Community College
• ……………….. Mendenhall, Mississippi

Major Field ……………………………………………………………..  Community College Leadership