Student engagement in institutions of higher education has become a central priority for educators and administrators. What “student engagement” means for a diverse student body is an important question for public institutions with justice-related missions. As social welfare policy shifts to allow more recipients of public assistance access to higher education, research regarding their engagement experiences remains scarce. To support a socioeconomically diverse student body, consistent with the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) standards, this project explores the nature of engagement among student recipients of public assistance by asking the following research questions: what forms of engagement with students on public assistance take place? Why is engaging students on public assistance important? How can we foster greater engagement with students on public assistance? To answer these questions, student and faculty focus groups are conducted. From this analysis, we highlight normative implications of engaging a socioeconomically diverse student population and present recommendations for fostering greater engagement.
AndersonLWKrathwohlDR (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Complete Edition. New York: Longman.
2.
AstinAW (1984) Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel25(4): 297–308.
3.
BackhusD (1989Centralized intrusive advising and undergraduate retention. NACADA Journal9(1): 39–45.
4.
BonetGWaltersB (2016) High impact practices: Student retention and engagement. The College Student15(2): 224–235.
5.
BorregoEBorregoV (2015) From the Barrio to the public sector executive suite: Where are the roadblocks?Journal of Public Affairs Education21(4): 481–494.
6.
ChristopherK (2005) Welfare recipients attending college: The interplay of oppression and resistance. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare32(3): 165–186.
7.
CoxKSpriggsW (2002) Negative Effects of TANF on College Enrollment. Special Research Report No. SRR-01-2002. New York: National Urban League.
8.
CUNYEDGE (2017) CUNY EDGE Fiscal Year 2016–201717 Data Report. New York: CUNY EDGE.
9.
FreireP (1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by RamosMyra Bergman. London: Penguin Books.
10.
GittellMGrossJHoldawayJ (1993) Building Human Capital: The Impact of Post-secondary Education on AFDC Recipients in Five States. New York: City University of New York, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center.
11.
GittellMSchehlMFareriC (1990) From Welfare to Independence: The College Option. New York: City University of New York, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center.
12.
GreeneTGMartiCNMcClenneyK (2008) The effort–outcome gap: Differences for African American and Hispanic community college students in student engagement and academic achievement. The Journal of Higher Education79(5): 513–539.
13.
KahuER (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education38(5): 758–773.
14.
KingC (2012) What’s a girl like you doing in a place like this?Journal of Public Affairs Education18(1): 51–66.
15.
KruegerRACaseyMA (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Researchers. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
16.
LeachLZepkeN (2011) Engaging students in learning: A review of a conceptual organiser. Higher Education Research and Development30(2): 193–204.
17.
LiebermanNSVaughnSA (1990) Student services and retention for welfare students. Educational Resources Information Center27(4): 281–286.
18.
MinkG (1998) Welfare’s End. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
19.
MorganDL (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Bureau of Data Management and Analysis (2016) 2016 Statistical Report on the Operations of New York State Public Assistance Programs. New York: Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
24.
Norman-MajorK (2011) Balancing the four Es; or can we achieve equity for social equity in public administration?Journal of Public Affairs Education17(2): 233–252.
25.
OnwuegbuzieAJDickinsonWBLeechNLet al. (2009) A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods8(3): 1–21.
26.
PleinLCWilliamsDGHardwickDM (2000) Making engagement work: University outreach and welfare reform in West Virginia. Journal of Public Affairs Education6(4): 245–256.
27.
ShawKGoldrick-RabS (2006) Work-first federal policies: Eroding access to community colleges for Latinos and low-income populations. New Directions for Community Colleges133: 61–70.
28.
ShawKGoldrick-RabSMazzeoCet al.Putting Poor People to Work: How the Work-First Idea Eroded College Access for The Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.
29.
SimpkinsW (2016) Welfare recipients at a four-year college: Reaching for a bachelor’s degree in the “work-first” era of public policy. PhD Thesis, New York University, US.
30.
SmithCLAllenJM (2006) Essential functions of academic advising: What students want and get. NACADA Journal26(1): 56–66.
31.
StebletonMJSoriaKMHuesmanRL (2014) First-generation students sense of belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities. Journal of College Counseling17(1): 6–20.
TerenziniPTCabreraAFBernalEM (2001) Swimming Against the Tide: The Poor in American Higher Education, Report no. 2001-1. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED562879)
34.
ThorneS (2016) Interpretive Description: Qualitative Research for Applied Practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
35.
TintoV (1997) Classrooms as communities: Exploring the character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education68(6): 599–623.
36.
TrattnerWI (1999) From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America. New York: Free Press.
37.
VuoriJ (2014) Student engagement: Buzzword of fuzzword?Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management36(5): 509–519.
38.
VygotskyLS (1978) Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.
39.
WeikartLA (2005) The era of meanness: Welfare reform and barriers to a college degree. Affilia, 20(4): 416–433.
40.
Wyatt-NicholHBrownSHaynesW (2011) Social class and socioeconomic status: Relevance and inclusion in MPA-MPP programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education17(2): 187–208.
