Running Head: PREDICTIVE FACTORS in POST-SECONDARY

Predictive Factors, p. 1

Running Head: PREDICTIVE FACTORS IN POST-SECONDARY

Predictive Factors in Post-Secondary Educational Attainment aAmong Latinos

Daniel T. Sciarra Melissa L. Whitson

Hofstra University Teachers College, Columbia University

Daniel T. Sciarra Melissa L. Whitson 160 Hagedorn Hall Teachers College, Columbia University Hofstra University Counseling Psychology Program Hempstead, NY 11549 525 W. 120 th St., Box 64 516-463-5759 New York, NY 10027 516-463-6184 (Fax) 646-765-3745 [email protected] [email protected] Predictive Factors, p. 2

Abstract

The The present study investigated factors that distinguish the increasing number of

Latino students who continue their education beyond high school from the small and stable number who complete a Baccalaureate degree. The sample included a cohort of

866 Latino men and women who participated in the National Educational Longitudinal

Study (NELS) (1988-2000) and had varying amounts of post-secondary education (PSE) by the year 2000. The study employed educational, psychological, and familial predictor variables from 1990 when participants were sophomores in high school. Data were analyzed using a multinomial logistic regression and results indicated that several factors were significant in distinguishing those with some PSE no degree and Bachelor completers. Pparent support and locus of control were the two most significant predictors.factors in distinguishing those with some PSE no degree and Bachelor completers. Implications for school counselors are discussed. Predictive Factors, p. 3

Predictive Factors in Post-Secondary Educational Attainment Among Latinos

In July of 2002, the Census Bureau announced that Latinos had become the nation’s largest non-dominantminority group with a population of 38.8 million, surpassing the African American population now numbered at 38.3 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002a). With a high birthrate, their numbers are expected to continue to grow rapidly. Latinos are over-represented among the poor with about a third of families living below the poverty line. They are a relatively young group with 35% under the age of 18 compared to less than 25% of non Latino Whites. Because of their low-income status and the high school-aged population, the education of Latinos has become a major concern in this country (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). This concern was manifested most notably in the creation on October 12, 2001 of the President’s Advisory Commission on

Educational Excellence for Latino Americans.

Educational Attainment among Latino Americans

Educational attainment data for Latinos beyond high school reveal two very different scenarios. LOn the one hand, large numbers of Latinos are enrolled in postsecondary education; yeton the other hand, the majority are either older than the 18- to -24- year old cohort, enrolled in community colleges, or attending part time (Fry,

2002). There is a substantial enrollment gap between Latinos and all other groups among

18- 24-year olds—the traditional age group for college attendance and the cohort that reaps the greatest economic benefit from a college degree. Only 35% of Latino high school graduates in that age group are enrolled in college compared to 46% of Whites.

Latinos are far more likely to be enrolled in two-year colleges than any other group.

About 40% of Latino 18- 24year old college students attend two-year institutions Predictive Factors, p. 4 compared to about 25% of White and Black student’s in that age group. Latinos are more likely to be part-time students. Nearly 85% of White 18- to 24-year old college students are enrolled full-time compared to 75% of Latino students in that age group (Fry, 2002).

Similar to high school graduation, college enrollment is more likely among U.S. born

Latinos, especially the second generation, yet their attainment of a baccalaureate degree still ranks far below that of Whites. Of every 100 Latino kindergartners, 116 will obtain at least bachelor’s degree compared to 330 for every 100 White kindergartners (U.S.

Bureau of the Census, 2002b0).

Factors in Latino Educational Attainment

Explanations of Previous research on Latino educational achievement and attainment have focused ons investigated familial, societal, and educational, and psychological factors. The level of family involvement has been shown to be a significant factor in the high school achievement of Latino students (Bamaca-Gomez & Plunkett,

2003; Diaz, Quezada, & Sanchez, 2003). Latino parents have consistently emphasized the importance of education in the lives of their children and cite education as an important reason for immigration to the United States (Behnke, Diversi, & Peircy, 2004).

While a number of studies have examined parental influence and high school completiondrop out prevention among Latinos, few studies have examined such influence in on post-secondary educational attainment.

Latino academic underachievement has also been also linked to social influences and lack of community support. Certain negative stereotypes and biases can play a role in lowering academic expectations for Latinos (Aviles, Guerrero, Howarth, & Thomas,

1999; McWhirter, 2004). The absence of positive role models within the community has Predictive Factors, p. 5 also been linked to higher school drop out rates (Aviles et al, 1999). Too few positive role models prevent Latino students from obtaining the necessary motivation and information on how, for example, to apply to college (Immerwahr, 2003). High delinquency rates in poor Latino neighborhoods also make it difficult for students and their families to rely on resources within their neighborhoods to further their education

(Pabon, 1998). While SES is presumed to be a significant factor in distinguishing those who attend four-year colleges, few studies have examined this variable in conjunction with others to differentiate the levels of post-secondary educational attainment among

Latinos.

Regarding educational factors, previous research has examined the high school curriculum effects upon post-secondary educational attainment. When Latino students follow a rigorous math curriculum and enroll in college prep courses, their reading and math scores improve to the degree that the achievement gap is significantly narrowed

(Adelman, 1999; National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994; Trusty & Niles, 2003).

This improvement is unrelated to previous educational background. In other words, when students are held to higher standards, their scores improve in spite of not necessarily having prior preparation to meet those standards. Gamoran and Hannigan

(2000) found that all students who take algebra score higher, yet Latinos are often excluded from such courses.

In general, Latino high school students are less likely to be enrolled in a college preparatory track, only 47% compared to 54% of Whites (National Center for

Educational Statistics, 2004; Gonzalez, 2002). Latino students are overrepresented in special education and very underrepresented in Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Of Predictive Factors, p. 6 the students in 2000 who took AP exams, only 9% were Latino (Presidents Advisory

Commission, 2003). Besides following a less rigorous curriculum, the second major variable contributing to low achievement among Latinos is quality of instruction.

Underqualified teachers (i.e. teachers who lack a major or minor in the field they are teaching) more often teach classes in high poverty schools (National Commission on

Teaching and America’s Future, 1996Ingersoll, 2003). In schools with a high (i.e. top quartile) population of non-White students, 41% of math courses are taught by teachers lacking a major in the field compared to 21% of math courses in schools with a low (i.e. bottom quartile) population of non-White students (Ingersoll, 2003).Non-certified teachers more often teach math and science classes of mostly minority students. In schools that were 90 to 100% non-White, 54% of math and science teachers were certified compared to 86% of teachers in schools that were 90 to 100% White (Oakes,

1990).

These data about curricula and quality of instruction raise questions about a school’s support for Latino students going to college. Because many Latinos students are unaware and uniformed about the processes involved in pursuing a college education, it is easy for school personnel to assume that such students are not interested and do not want to go to college (Martinez, 2003). Counselors may assume they need not meet to talk with these students about college planning nor encourage enrollment in more college- prep courses and reserve their time only for students who are very decided about going to college (Falbo & Romo, 1996; Gonzalez & Ortiz, 2000). Like parental influence, few studies, to date, have examined the influence of school personnel (e.g. teachers, counselors, etc) upon Latino students and their post-secondary education status. Predictive Factors, p. 7

Finally, in regards to psychological variables, the cultural characteristic of fatalismo (being resigned to one’s fate) has been thought to play a significant role in preventing Latinos from overcoming obstacles to development (Sue & Sue, 2003) and from establishing a more internal locus of control. Fighting for educational opportunity and advancement may require a more internal locus of control. Thus, it would seem important to consider psychological variables such as locus of control and self-efficacy when investigating post-secondary education among Latinos. In addition, the construct of self-esteem has been considered to play an important role in school bonding and educational advancement especially among ethnic/racial minorities (Way & Robinson,

2003; Erkrut & Tracy, 2002). Whether these psychological variables are significant predictors for post-secondary educational attainment among Latinos has yet to be investigated.

Purpose of this StudyThe Present Study

Given the increasing number of Latino students who go on to post-secondary education (PSE) but who fail to achieve a baccalaureate degree, it is vitallywould seem important, especially in the absence of previous research, to study factors that distinguish levels of PSE among Latinos. Toward this purpose, the present study employed a PSE outcome variable with four categories of students: some PSE no degree, certificate or license, Associate’s degree, and Bachelor’s degree or higher by the year 2000. For investigating factors in PSE status, this study utilized a combination of family, societal, educational, and psychological variables derived from previous literature on Latino educational attainment. Figure 1 represents the independent variables and the four levels of the dependent variable. Predictive Factors, p. 8

______

Insert Figure 1 about here

______

Our data came from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS): 1988-

2000. NELS began with eighth graders in 1988 and collected subsequently four waves of data in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 2000. For the independent variables, data came from the

1990 wave of the NELS when students were in their sophomore year of high school.

This decision was based on the critical nature of sophomore year in the determination of future educational achievement since those doing poorly in sophomore year are at greater risk for dropping out at the end of that year (Clarke, Haney, & Madaus, 2000; Egemba &

Crawford, 2003). Chronologically, sophomore year is also crucial for making decisions about courses in view of post-secondary educational plans as students are given more opportunities and choices to plan their curriculum (Savickas, 1999). For the dependent variable (PSE status), this study utilized the fourth wave 2000 data, 12 years after the base year data and eight years after the students were scheduled to graduate from high school.

This study sought to answer the following question: what are the significant factors that distinguish the ever-increasing number of Latino students who go to post- secondary education and do not complete a degree from the much smaller percentage who complete a bachelor’s degree?

Method Predictive Factors, p. 9

Our data came from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS): 1988-

2000. NELS began with eighth graders in 1988 and collected subsequently four waves of data in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 2000. For the independent variables, data came from the

1990 wave of the NELS when students were in their sophomore year of high school.

This decision was based on the critical nature of sophomore year in the determination of future educational achievement since those doing poorly in sophomore year are at greater risk for dropping out at the end of that year (Clarke, Haney, & Madaus, 2000; Egemba &

Crawford, 2003). Chronologically, sophomore year is also crucial for making decisions about courses in view of post-secondary educational plans as students are given more opportunities and choices to plan their curriculum (Savickas, 1999). For the dependent variable (PSE status), this study utilized the fourth wave 2000 data, 12 years after the base year data and eight years after the students were scheduled to graduate from high school.

ParticipantsParticipants

Participants were 866 Latino young people who by the year 2000 had attended a post-secondary institution and were part of the 1988-2000 National Education

Longitudinal Study (NELS). Data came from two waves of the study: 1990 when participants were sophomores in high school and 2000, eight years after scheduled graduation from high school. Data were weighted accordingly (see Curtin, Ingels, Wu, &

Heuer, 2002). Of the participants, 51% had some PSE with no degree, 11% had a certificate or license, 12% had an Associate’s degree, and 26% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Males comprised 45% of the sample; females 55%. Sixty-three percent Predictive Factors, p. 10 identified themselves as Mexican or Chicano, 5% as Cuban, 9% as Puerto Rican, and

23% as other Hispanic. The majority wereas born in the United States (87%).

Variables

Background variables. Background variables included gender, SES, language minority status, and cognitive ability (reading and math). SES is a composite variable derived from father’s education level, mother’s education level, father’s occupation, mother’s occupation, and family income. Language minority status is defined as coming from a home in which a language other than English (in this case, Spanish) is typically spoken. In the sample for this study, 58% of students were classified as language minority. The National Center for Educational Statistics measured cognitive ability through the use of reading and math standardized tests with item response theory (IRT) scores. IRT scores use a pattern of right, wrong, and omitted responses to account for the difficulty, discriminating ability, and guess-ability of each item (Ingels et al., 1994). This study made use of reading and math scores obtained in the sophomore year.

Parent support. The parent support variable was derived from a mean of 11

Likert-scaled items that included: how often parent(s) checked homework, helped with homework, attended school meetings, called teachers or counselors, and attended a school event along with how often the student discussed with parent(s) school courses, school activities, grades, things studied in class, preparation for ACT/SAT, and going to college. Higher scores indicate a higher degree of parental support. Cronbach’s alpha for the parent support composite variable was .81.

Teacher support. The teacher support variable was derived from a mean of six

Likert-scaled items according to whether the student agreed or disagreed to the following Predictive Factors, p. 11 statements: teachers are interested in students, teachers praise effort when the student works hard, most teachers listen to the student, students in school get along well with teachers, in general the teaching is good, and student feels put down by teachers (this last item was reverse scored). Higher scores indicate a higher degree of teacher support.

Cronbach’s alpha for the teacher support composite variable was .73.

Psychological variables. The two psychological variables included in the model were locus of control and self-esteem, both derived from a mean of Likert-scaled items.

For locus of control, students were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement to the following items: does not have enough control over life; good luck is more important than hard work; when getting ahead someone/thing stops student; feels plans hardly ever work out; when makes plans, student is certain they will work; chance, luck is very important is student’s life. Higher scores indicate a higher sense of control over one’s future. Cronbach’s alpha for the composite locus of control variable was .72.

For self-esteem, students were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement to the following items: feels good about him/herself; is a person of worth; is able to do things as well as others; on the whole, is satisfied with self; feels useless at times; at times, thinks he/she is no good at all; does not have much to be proud of. Higher scores indicate a higher degree of positive self-esteem. Cronbach’s alpha for the self-esteem composite variable was .82.

Data Analysis

The dependent variable in this analysis was post-secondary education (PSE) status, which is a categorical variable with four levels: some PSE no degree, certificate or license, Associate’s degree, and Bachelor’s degree or higher by the year 2000. In order Predictive Factors, p. 12 to model the relationship between a categorical dependent variable with more than two possible values and a set of independent or predictor variables, a multinomial logistic regression was used (Norusis, 2004). Logistic regression models produce odds ratios for the independent variables. These odds reflect the increase or decrease in the likelihood of an outcome (e.g., PSE status) for every one-unit increase in the independent variables.

Since our dependent variable has four possible values, three nonredundant logits are formed. For each group of the dependent variable, the log of the ratio of the probability of being in that group is compared to being in the baseline group. For this analysis, the first category (“Some PSE no degree”) was the baseline or reference group to which the other 3 groups were compared based on the independent variables.

Results

The original multinomial logistic regression model had nine predictor variables

(gender, SES, language minority status, parent support, teacher support, locus of control, self-esteem, reading ability, and math ability). Likelihood ratio tests indicated reading ability [χ2 (3, n = 868) = 12.0804, p = .7856] and self-esteem [χ2 (3, n = 868) = .602.25, p

= .9052] were not significant in the overall model and therefore were dropped form subsequent analyses. The revised model included the seven remaining variables: SES, parent support, teacher support, math ability, locus of control, gender and language minority status. Correlations for the variables used in the principal analysis are reported may be found in Table 1. Predictive Factors, p. 13

For the multinomial logistic regression examining the effects of all thethe seven predictor variables except reading ability and self-esteem, the likelihood ratio test for the overall model revealed that the overall model was significantly better than the intercept- only model [χ2 (21, n = 868) = 303297.0446, p < .01]. In other words, the null hypothesis

(that the regression coefficients of the independent variables are zero) was rejected. In addition, the likelihood ratio test for individual effects reveals that all of the independent variables are significantly related to the categories of the dependent variable [SES: χ2 (3)

= 38.7075, p < .001; Parent support: χ2 (3) = 27.8018.46, p < .001; Teacher support: χ2 (3)

= 10.279.83, p < .05; Math ability: χ2 (3) = 49.3244, p < .001; Locus of control: χ2 (3) =

57.4451.86, p < .001; Gender: χ2 (3) = 41.6238.82, p < .001; Language minority status: χ2

(3) = 10.8712.65, p < .0501]. Said another way, the change in –2 log likelihood is significant if any of the independent variables is removed from the model containing the intercept and all other independent variables. [MELLISSA: Dr. G. wants some explanation of meaning for this last sentence.]

Table 2 reportsprovides the parameter estimates from the logistic regression model examining the effects of the independent variables on PSE status. Estimates of the predictor variables are provided for the three different comparisonslevels compared to

Some PSE no degree: 1) Certificate or license compared to Some PSE no degree, 2)

Associate’s degree compared to Some PSE no degree, and 3) Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to Some PSE no degree. According to these results, the parameter estimates for gender (β = 1.1512, p < .001) and locus of control (β = .7166, p < .05) are significantly different from zero for the first logit (Certificate or licensure compared to Predictive Factors, p. 14

Some PSE no degree). In other words, gender and locus of control are significantly and positively related to the this distinction between separation of the Certificate or licensure and Some PSE no degree groups. For gender, men were coded the value 1 and women were coded the value 2. Therefore, because the logistic regression coefficient is positive, women were more likely to complete a certificate or licensure than men. Likewise, students who reported a more internal locus of control were more likely to complete a certificate or licensure than those with an external locus of control.

Table 2 also reportsreveals that as the “Some PSE no degree group” is compared to higher and higher levels of educational attainment, more predictor variables appeared to come into play and be significantly related to whether or not these students pursued post-secondary education. For example, for the second logit (Associates degree compared to Some PSE no degree), the parameter estimate for gender is not significantly related to the separation of these groups as it was for the first logit (β = .2519, nsp = .

2942). However, locus of control (β = 1.2931, p < .001) is significantly related, as is parent support (β = .9071, p = = .00101) and, teacher support (β = -.9089, p < .01), and language minority status (β = -.50, p = .05). Therefore, the parameter estimates for parent support and, teacher support, and language minority status are not significantly different for the first logit (Certificate licensure) but are for the second logit (Associates degree). Importantly, the logistic regression coefficients for locus of control and parent support are positive, indicating that students who reported a more internal locus of control and higher levels of parent support and a more internal locus of control in their sophomore year of high school were more likely to complete an Associates degree compared to students in the Some PSE no degree group. However, the logistic regression Predictive Factors, p. 15 coefficients for teacher support and language minority status werewas negative, indicating that students who reported higher levels of teacher support were less likely to complete and Associates degree.

, as were students who were not considered a language minority (i.e., students who did not come a home where Spanish was the predominant language).

Finally, the third logit compares students who completed a Bachelors degree or higher to those who completed Some PSE no degree ten years after the predictor variables were examined (sophomore year of high school). AgainIn the third logit, even more variables had a strong positive effect on whether students completed a bachelor’s degree than for the previous two logits (Certificate or licensure and Associates degree).

Parent support (β = 1.07.90, p < .001) and, Locus locus of control (β = 1.8046, p < .001), and Language Minority status (β = .41, p < .05) continue to have strong effects on post- secondary education, as they were significantly related to the separation between the bachelors degree group and the Some PSE no degree group. In addition, SES (β = .7271, p < .001), math ability (β = .0706, p < .001), and gender (β = 1.04.99, p < .001), and language minority status (β = .53, p < .05) were also significantly different from zero for this logit, indicating that they are also significantly related to the this separationseparation between Bachelors degree or higher and Some PSE no degree.

An Interpreting interpretation of the odds ratio in the overall model reveals that, students with a more internal locus of control were five three times more likely (a

507332% increase) to complete a bachelors degree compared to students with a more external locus of control (odds = 6.074.32) to complete a bachelors degree, while Predictive Factors, p. 16 controlling for all other variables in the model. SES (odds = 2.0603) and parent support

(odds = 2.9046) also had a strong positive effect on whether the students completed a bachelor’s degree or not. With all other variables controlled, a one-unit increase in each of these variables increased the odds of degree completing completion by 106103% and

190146% respectively. In addition, the positive regression coefficient for gender indicates that women were over one and a half times more likely (a 183168% increase) to complete a bachelors degree than men (odds = 2.8368))., while students Students with higher math ability were 86 times% more likely than those with lower math ability (odds

= 1.0806) to complete a bachelor’s degree, while controlling for all other variables in the model. Finally, while not being a language minority increased the likelihood that a student would obtain an Associate’s degree, the reverse effect is found for a bachelor’s degree. Sstudents who were considered a language minority (i.e., came from a home where Spanish was the predominant language) were 5170%70% more likely to complete a bachelor’s compared to students who spoke Spanish English predominantly (odds =

1.5170).

Regarding effect sizes, the Nagelkerke R2 (Norusis, 2004) in the overall model was .3332. Therefore, the independent variables included in the model (gender, SES, language minority, math ability, parent support, teacher support, and locus of control) explained 3332% of the variability in post-secondary educational attainment. Of the 866

Latino young people included in the analysis, 26% completed a bachelor’s degree or higher by the year 2000. The full logistic regression model correctly classified 57.65% of the students who completed a bachelor’s degree. In addition, 87.76% of students who were in the some PSE no degree group were correctly classified by the model. However, Predictive Factors, p. 17 the model did a poor job of identifying the people Latino youth who completed a certificate or licensure (none were classified correctly) or an Associate’s degree (10.34% were classified correctly). Overall, the model correctly classified 63.4% of the participants. [MELISSA: Dr. G is suggesting that this highlighted part be deleted. What do you think? – I went by what the Trusty article included, and he included this, so I thought it might be important]

Discussion

The above analysis indicates that the overall model significantly predicted Latino students’ post-secondary education attainmentstatus. Moreover, as Latino students increasedmproved their PSE status, more factors from the proposed model came to play a significant role. Two of the predictor variables (locus of control and gender) were significant in differentiating between students who had a certificate or license and those who had some PSE but no degree. For the students who received an associate’s degree, four three variables (parent support, teacher support, and locus of control, and language minority status) were significant predictors. Finally, six predictor variables (SES, parent support, math ability, locus of control, gender, and language minority status) differentiated between students who completed a bachelor’s degree or higher from those who had some PSE but no degree. Predictive Factors, p. 18

The results from this study also revealed the relative strength of the predictor variables, with locus of control as the strongest predictor for all three categories. In other words, the students with a more internal locus of control were five three times more likely to get a bachelor’s degree or higher, 2.6 7 times more likely to get an associates degree, and 1.04.92 times more likely to get a certificate or license. Gender was also a strong predictor for certificate or licensure and bachelor’s degree or higher, with Latinas being more likely to achieve a higher PSE status than their male counterparts. Parent support and language minority status were also strong predictors for associate’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees or higher. Those students who reported higher levels of parent support were one and a half1.03 times more likely to get an associate’s degree and almost onetwo and a half times more likely to get a bachelor’s degree or higher. Latino students who came from homes where Spanish was typically spoken were almost one time

(.5070)% more likely than those who came from homes where English was typically spoken to complete a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Dropped from the original model were reading ability and self-esteem because likelihood ratio tests indicated that these two factors did not play a significant role in post-secondary educational status of Latino students. The result of the reading factor is consistent with other studies that show math more than reading ability and achievement is significant in succeeding academically in college, especially at the baccalaureate level

(Adelman, 1999; Trusty, 2002; Trusty & Niles, 2003). The results of the present study show that math ability was a significant factor at the Bachelor’s degree or higher categories category of PSE but not at the Certificate/License or Associate’s degree levels. For Latino high school students who plan to graduate from a four-year college, Predictive Factors, p. 19 their math ability and achievement needs to be carefully considered. Any weaknesses in this area should be addressed with the appropriate supports and resources. School counselors can help these students receive extra instruction, ideally from the more effective and experienced teachers in the school, and encourage them to persevere in higher level math courses in spite of challenges.

Also dropped from the original model was the self-esteem factor. This result may be somewhat surprising but should be considered in light of the significance of another factor, locus of control. Locus of control was the most significant factor at both the

Associate’s and Bachelor’s (or higher) degree levels. The results of this study show that, for Latino students, having a greater sense of control over their future is more important for PSE attainment than how much they like themselves. This finding is interesting from both a cultural and career development perspective. There is some evidence to suggest that Latinos as a group have a more external locus of control (typically referred to as

“fatalismo”) when compared to the White Euro-centric population (Sue & Sue, 2003).

Educational attainment and the tasks involved (e.g. studying) may favor a more internal locus of control that allows one to perceive higher education as a contributor to an even greater sense of control over one's life. The acquisition of a more internal locus of control by their sophomore year of high school appears, based on the results of this study, to have a played a very significant role in enhancing Latino students’their PSE status.

More recent career development theory such as Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent,

Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 1996) has emphasized the role self-efficacy plays in career development. While the two constructs of internal locus of control and self-efficacy are not to be equated, there is a relationship. Specifically, those who believe in their ability Predictive Factors, p. 20 and expect positive outcomes will also possess a greater sense of control over their lives.

In regards to the present study, this belief about oneself and one’s efforts (i.e., locus of control) was related to higher educational outcomes much more so than how participants felt about themselves (i.e. self-esteem).

Another very significant factor in the overall model was that of parent support.

Parent support was a significant factor for the attainment of an Associate’s and

Bachelor’s or higher degree. It should be noted that the parent support variable did not include financial support. Six of the eleven items used in the parent support composite variable dealt with communication between participants and their parents in regards to school-related matters; two dealt with homework (checking and helping); and three dealt with parent involvement in the school. While some Latino parents might find it difficult to deal with homework either because of language issues or poor educational background and to become involved in school because of demanding and inflexible work schedules

(especially if they are from low a SES backgroundstrata), communication between parents and children in regards to academic matters is always possible. The results of the present study suggest that such communication as a part of overall parent support enhances postsecondary educational attainment.

SES status, often thought to be a significant factor in PSE attainment, was, in the present study, significant only at the Bachelor’s or higher degree category. This finding is not surprising since it costs a good deal of money to graduate from a four-year institution. More surprising is that locus of control and parent support had a more significant share of the variance than did SES. While no one can minimize the importance of needing a good deal of financial support to attain a Bachelor’s degree, the Predictive Factors, p. 21 results of this study indicate that other variables may be just as, if not more important, than the SES status of one’s family in distinguishing a Latino student with a Bachelor’s degree from one with some PSE and no degree.

Teacher support was not a significant variable in the overall model except at the

Associate’s degree level, where it was a negative predictor and contributed negatively.

Statistically speaking, those Latino students with more teacher support had less of a chance to complete an Associate’s degree. One explanation for this finding perhaps has to do with the construct itself. The items used from the NELS:88 database may not be valid items for constructing a teacher support variable. Most of the items were relational in nature and on the face level were not related to support for higher educational attainment. Another explanation could be that Latino students at the Bachelor’s or higher level have succeeded without teacher support, at least as understood or perceived in their sophomore year of high school. Since Latino students are concentrated in low-income schools that tend to have a greater share of less qualified teachers, it may be that Latino students who achieve higher levels of PSE attainment are doing so in the absence of teacher support in high school. One study (Sciarra, 2004) found that Latino students garnered teacher support only after the teachers discovered they were good students.

Future research will need to examine further teacher support as a factor in Latino educational attainment after high school.

Implications for School Counseling Predictive Factors, p. 22

According to the results of the present study, the two most significant variables among Latino high school sophomores in differentiating those who had some PSE and no degree from those who went on to receive a Bachelor’s or higher were parent support and an internal locus of control. This finding suggests a strategic role for school counselors who work with Latino students at the elementary, middle and high school levels. In terms of parent support, the need for communication and information-sharing between parents and their children in is crucial. While some Latino parents may have difficulty

(perhaps because of language difficulties and loss of income from missing work) establishing a physical presence in the school, counselors should not take this as sign of disinterest. Rather, they should take every opportunity to meet withencourage Latino parents outside of the school setting (e.g., in neighborhood community rooms, local churches, etc) to explain, via an interpreter if need be, the post-secondary preparation process, the various possibilities that exist for their children, and encourage parents to talk with their children about school in spite of perhaps not speaking English or having an impoverished educational background. School counselors can encourage parents to check on homework even if they do not fully understand all that’s being done.

We know from recent research that the quality and intensity of the high school curriculum play an important role in determining the quality of post-secondary life

(Adelman, 1999; Education Trust, 2005). School counselors need to emphasize this to

Latino parents whose children may want to avoid the more challenging and demanding courses. Many Latino parents will not understand the consequences of certain curriculum choices and may easily succumb to their children’s avoidance of failure. On the other hand, negative stereotypes of Latino students may give way to subtle racism in the form Predictive Factors, p. 23 of not encouraging these students to pursue higher level courses. School counselors, by working collaboratively with Latino parents in helping them understand and talk with their children about the effects of course-taking variables upon post-secondary achievement, will be operationalizing their roles as advocates and systemic change agents—roles specified by the ASCA National Model.In addition, informal discussions with their children about courses, grades, and preparation for life after high school are also important. Many times, parents will ask school counselors: “What can I do to help my child?” School counselors can help them to understand that the answer may be less about money and more about showing a willingness to communicate with their children about school-related matters.

In the same vein, school counselors must encourage their Latino students to communicate with their parents about school. A Latino student might often resist saying: “My parents don’t speak English”; “My parents grew up in another country and don’t understand much about school here.” School counselors should not capitulate to such resistance but help to process what can be a student’s frustration in communicating with his/her parents especially if they are immigrants with little knowledge of how the school system functions. Given the results of this study that indicate language minority students were no less likely to achieve a Bachelor’s degree or higher, school counselors can persevere in helping Latino students initiate conversations with their parents about school. They can help Latino students realize that it is less important for their parents to be completely knowledgeable about the school system and more important that a process be established that can lead to greater parent support and encouragement for achieving Predictive Factors, p. 24 high levels of PSE. While communication between adolescents and their parents can often be difficult, school counselors can take advantage of the culturally characteristic closeness and loyalty that exists in the Latino family to promote this communication.

Leaving home after high school to go to college, for example, may be more difficult emotionally for Latino adolescents and their parents than for a White family. The local community college may appear a more attractive alternative. Rather than dismiss their reluctance about leaving home, school counselors can facilitate a discussion about the pros and cons of attending the local college.

In regards to locus of control, the implications for school counseling are enormous. Counseling has had a long history of helping people move from an external to an internal locus of control through various methods of empowerment. For example, a collaborative approach where counselor and client work together in generating strategies to achieve particular goals avoids a dependent relationship on the counselor and helps the client take more control of his/her life, build a positive self-identity, and increase self- efficacy. The results of the present study show that those Latino sophomores who possessed an internal locus of control had a much greater chance of attaining a PSE degree, especially a Bachelor’s degree. While the cultural challenges in helping Latino students achieve a more internal locus of control may be formidable (e.g. low SES background, ethnic/racial non-dominant minority status), school counselors need to realize the importance of doing so. School counselors can be more proactive in sharing information with Latino students who are often uninformed about the processes involved in preparing for life after high school. The sharing of information and resources is often Predictive Factors, p. 25 the first step in gaining a sense of control over one’s life and future. In addition, school counselors can maintain the goal of increasing Latino students’ sense of self-efficacy.

Beginning in the elementary schools, they can collaborate with teachers and help to provide Latino students with experiences that are the antithesis to learned helplessness.

—experiences, however small in significance, that Such experiences can greatly help

Latino students see positive results from their efforts.

Limitations and Future Research

Because the present study is data-based, the analyst is confined to the pre-existent variables—in this case, those from the NELS: 88 conducted by NCES. The analyses conducted in this study are limited to the data contained in NELS: 88. This limitation is perhaps most evident in the items used to construct the teacher support composite variable. For example, Mmany of the teacher support items were general in nature and related to the school environment, but none dealt specifically with support for post- secondary education that would have been more relevant to this study. Future research will have to examine more carefully teacher support for Latino students especially as it relates to motivation for PSE. Reading and Math math ability were determined solely through the use of standardized tests and therefore suffer from the limitation of all standardized tests. Future studies will need to include items assessing support for educational attainment and other criteria such as Reading reading and Math math GPA along with course-taking variables, i.e. remedial versus grade-equivalent versus Predictive Factors, p. 26 advanced. Trusty and Niles (2003) found course-taking behavior to be the most significant contributor in differentiating Bachelor completers from non-completers.

The significance of parent support, language minority status and internal locus of control in the present study suggests that future research should examine this these variables in more depth.more profoundly. This study, for example, did not differentiate parent support according to SES status or family composition. Is parent support greater in families with higher incomes or in those with two-parent versus mother- only families?

If parent support was such a significant contributor in explaining the difference in PSE levels among Latinos, future research needs to examine other forms of support that may play an important role, e.g. extended family, peers, etc. The fact that language minority students (defined asstudents coming from predominantly Spanish-speaking families) had a slightly greater chance of completing a bachelor’s degree raises the research question as to whether more traditional Latino families have more forms of support available to them.

Perhaps, there is a relationship with ethnic identity. Are language minority students more identified with Latino culture and therefore have a positive ethnic identity that helps to contribute to their self-efficacy in relation to higher PSE attainment? Future research needs to explore this.

Finally, Ssince internal locus of control was a very significant contributor to differentiating levels of PSE status, future research should examine its relationship to other motivating variables such as self-efficacy. Contemporary career development theory has emphasized the role of self-efficacy as more important than ability alone in determining career outcomes (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, 1996). For example, Predictive Factors, p. 27

Rrather than examining if a student wants to go to college and graduate, future research might examine whether Latino students believe they have the ability to go to college and succeed. The present study suggests there may be a significant link.

Conclusion

This study has sought to examine factors that distinguish the large number of

Latino students who have some post-secondary education PSE from the relatively small number who complete a degree. Our sample was representative of this discrepancy: of the 866 Latinos who had PSE in their background in the sample, 51 % had no degree versus 26 % with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The multinomial logistic regression used for data analysis resulted in parent support and locus of control as the two most significant factors in found that parent support and locus of control were the strongestmost common significant factors in differentiating those Latino students with some PSE and no degree from those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher.

Latinos are the largest non-dominantminority group in the United States and growing rapidly. They are also a very young population. While being ethnically and racially diverse, Latinosthey are concentrated in lower-SES situationstrata. Theis country’s ability of the United States to draw in the future from a talented pool of young workers will depend, in part, on the higher educational attainment of Latinos. School counselors, whose training requires multicultural sensitivity and a commitment to social justice, are in an excellent position to be proactive with Latino students and their parents to initiate a process that can lead to greater PSE success. By enhancing parent support Predictive Factors, p. 28 especially in terms of communication around school-related matters and Latino students’ self-efficacy along with the consequential internal locus of control that it fosters, school counselors can contribute significantly to increasing the future pool of highly qualified

Latino workers in this country. Predictive Factors, p. 29

References

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,

and bachelor’s degree attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education

American Institutes for Research (2003). AM statistical software. Retrieved May 3,

2005 from http://am.air.org

Aviles, R. M., Guerrero, M.P., & Howarth, H.B.(1999). Perceptions of Chicano/Latino

students who have dropped out of school. Journal of Counseling and Development,

77, 465-473.

Bamaca-Gomez, M., & Plunkett, S. (2003). The relationships between parenting,

acculturation, and adolescent academics in Mexican-Origin immigrant families in

Los Angeles. Hispanicipsanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 222-239.

Behnke, A., Diversi, M., & Piercy, K. (2004). Educational and occupational aspirations

of Latino youth and their parents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26,

16-35.

Clarke, M., Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school

completion. National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy, 1(3), pp. 1-

Curtain, T.R., Ingels, S.J., Wu, S., Heuer, R. (2002). National education longitudinal

study of 1988: Base year to fourth follow-up data file user’s manual (NCES 2002-

323). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement.

Education Trust (2005). Achievement in America. Retrieved July 10 th , 2005 from

http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/PowerPoint.htm Predictive Factors, p. 30

Egemba, M.O., & Crawford, J.R. (2003, April). An analysis of Hispanic students drop-

out rates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Erkrut, S., & Tracy, A. J. (2002). Predicting adolescent self=esteem from participation in

school ports among Latino subgroups. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,

24, 409-429.

Falbo, T., & Romo, H.D. (1996). Latino high school graduation. Austin, TX: University

of Texas Press.

Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Washington,

D.C.: Pew Latino Center.

Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E.C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-

preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary

school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241-254.

Gonzalez, R. (July, 2002). The No-Child Left Behind Act: Implications for local

educators and advocates for Latino students, families, and communities. National

Council of La Raza: Issue Brief (pp. 2-14).

Gonzalez, R., & Ortiz, F. (2000). Latino high school students’ pursuit of higher

education. Aztlan, 25, 67-107.

Immerwahr, J. (2003). With diploma in hand: Hispanic high school seniors talk about

their future. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher

Education, and Public Agenda.

Ingels, S.J., Dowd, K.L., Baldridge, J.D., Stipe, J.L., Bartot, V.H., & Frankel, M.R.

(1994). National educational longitudinal study of 1988, second follow-up: Student Predictive Factors, p. 31

component data file fuser’s manual (NCES 1994-374). Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2003). Education Trust of 1999-2000 school and staffing survey.

Unpublished data, University of Pennsylvania.

Llagas, C., & Snyder, T.D. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational

Statistics.

Martinez, M. (2003). Missing in action: Reconstructing hope and possibility among

Latino students placed at risk. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 13-21.

McWhirter, M.J. (2004). School dropouts. In J.J. McWhirter, B.T. McWhirter, E.H.

McWhirter, & R.J. McWhirter (Eds.), At-risk youth (3rd. ed.) (pp. 95-113). Pacific

Grove, CA: Thomson/Brook-Cole.

National Center for Educational Statistics (1994). National Assessment of Educational

Progress 1992 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Education.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2004). Educational longitudinal study: 2002

data files and electronic codebook system. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most:

Teaching for America’s future. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988-2000 Data Files and Electronic Codebook

system, Base Year through Fourth Follow-up (2002). (NCES 2002-322).

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational research

and Improvement. Predictive Factors, p. 32

Norusis, M.J. (2004). SPSS 13.0 Advanced statistical procedures companion. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking

on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand

Pabon, E. (1998). Hispanic adolescent delinquency and the family. A discussion of

sociocultural influences. Adolescence, 33, 941-956.

President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Latino Americans

(2002). Road to a college diploma: The complex reality of raising educational

achievement for Latinos in the Unites States (Interim Report). Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office.

Savickas, M.L. (1999). The transition from school to work: A developmental

perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 326-336.

Sciarra, D.T. (in press2004). ). A qualitative investigation into Latino academic resiliency.

Manuscript submitted for publication.Race, Class, and Gender.

Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high-school course-taking and other variables on choice of

science and mathematics majors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 464-

Trusty, J., & Niles, S.G. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the

Bachelor’s degree. Professional School Counseling, 7, 99-107.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). Educational attainment in the United States. Current

population reports, March 2000, detailed tables No.2. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002a). Current population reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office. Predictive Factors, p. 33

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002b). The condition of education, 2002. March current

population survey, 1971-2000. Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002b). The big payoff: Educational attainment and

synthetic estimates of work-life earnings (P23-210). Washington, D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). Dropout rates in the United States. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Way, N., & Robinson, M.G. (2003). A longitudinal study of the effects of family,

friends, and school experiences on the psychological adjustment of ethnic minority,

low-SES adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 324-346. Predictive Factors, p. 34 Predictive Factors, p. 35

Table 1

Correlations for SES, parent support, teacher support, math ability, locus of control, gender and language minority status.

SES Parent Teacher Math Locus Gender Language Support Support Ability of Minority Control Status

SES 1.00

Parent .18** 1.00 Support

Teacher -.20** .28** 1.00 Support

Math .35** .07* .02 1.00 Ability . . Locus of . 1122* . 1530* 1.00 Control 2825** * 2940** *

Gender .03 -.04 -.00 .09* .0106 1.00

Language Minority -.37** -.00 .15** -.20** .0804* -.17** 1.00 Status Note. n = 866; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01. Predictive Factors, p. 36

Table 2

Parameter estimates from the logistic regression model examining the effects of the

predictor variables on post-secondary education status.

POST SECONDARY EDUCATION STATUS

Certificate/License Associates Degree Bachelor’s or Higher

Variable β Odds β Odds β Odds

SES -.2830 .7674 -.0709 .9491 .7271*** 2.0603

Parent .4537 1.5645 .9071*** 2.4503 1.07.90** 2.9046 Support *

Teacher .0609 1.0610 -.8990** .41 -.4236 .6670 Support

Math -.0203 .9896 -.0203 .9897 .0706*** 1.0806 Ability

Locus of .7166* 2.041.93 1.2931*** 3.6371 1.8046*** 6.074.32 Control

Gender 1.1512*** 3.1607 .251920 1.2821 1.04.99** 2.8368 * Language -.0704 .9396 -.5041* .6167 .4253* 1.5070 Minority Note. The reference category is PSE no degree. Standard errors for sampling design effects calculated with the use of AM software (American

Institutes for Research, 2003) were adjusted. Nagelkerke R2 = .330. n = 1,660; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001. Predictive Factors, p. 37

Figure Caption

Figure 1. Proposed factors in Latino post-secondary educational attainment and four levels of the dependent variable. Predictive Factors, p. 38

Gender

Language Minority Status Some PSE, No Degree

Parent Certificate/License Support PSE Teacher STATUS Associate Degree Support Bachelor Degree Locus of Control; Self- Efficacy

Self - Esteem

Reading/Math Ability