Hanging In,Stopping Out,Dropping Out: Community College Students in an Era of Precarity

Abstract

Background/Context

Sociologists of education have documented community college students’ high postsecondary aspirations and low persistence and college completion rates. Recent research suggests that community colleges can improve student outcomes by developing structural reforms: streamlining curricula, expanding vocational programs, and improving advising. The emphasis on structural reform overlooks the ways in which community college students—who are disproportionately disadvantaged—are constrained from benefiting from even the most progressive structural reforms. This research builds on structural models by examining both the conditions and constraints under which students endeavor to succeed in the community college.

Research Question

The research questions guiding this analysis are: (a) What keeps students from moving in smooth and uninterrupted ways through community college? (b) Do structural reform efforts alone make sense for community college students in general and a more diverse student body in particular?

Research Design

This study draws on in-depth interviews with 45 community college students at two California community colleges. Students represent a range of racial/ethnic groups, ages, and traditional and nontraditional backgrounds.

Findings/Results

The findings revealed that forms of institutional instability identified in previous research interact with unpredictability in students’ lives, leading students to engage in “security work” (Cooper, 2014) intended to accommodate their educations to precarious circumstances. Students engage in security work across two dimensions: managing income flow (including paid work and financial aid) and managing care of families, food, housing, and transportation.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Findings revealed a feedback loop between precarity in community colleges and precarity in students’ lives. This article contributes to theories of student persistence by arguing that the framework of precarity importantly complements structural explanations for student outcomes in community colleges.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

T. R.

, Jaggars

S. S.

, & Jenkins

(2015). Redesigning America's community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bozick

(2007). Making it through the first year of college: The role of students' economic resources, employment, and living arrangements. Sociology of Education, 80(3), 261—285. Retrieved from http://soe.sagepub.com/content/80/3/261.short

Brint

(2003). Few remaining dreams: Community colleges since 1985. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586(1), 16—37.

Brint

, & Karabel

(1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Burawoy

(1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4—33. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/202212

California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2015, January). California community colleges key facts. Retrieved from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/DocDownloads/Articles/California_Community_Colleges_Key_Facts_Updated_1_16_15.pdf

Choy

(2002). Findings from the condition of education 2002: Nontraditional undergraduates (NCES Publication No. 2002-012). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Clark

B. R.

(1960). The ‘cooling-out' function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 569—576. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2773649

The College Board. (2008). The effectiveness of student aid policies: What the research tells us. Retrieved from http://knowledgecenter.completionbydesign.org/sites/default/files/70%20Baum%20rethinking-effectiveness-policies%202008.pdf

10.

Cooper

(2014). Cut adrift: Families in insecure times. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

11.

Desmond

(2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

12.

Edin

, & Lein

(1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

13.

Esterberg

K. G.

(2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Gardenhire-Crooks

, Collado

, & Ray

(2006). A whole ‘nother world: Students navigating community college. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/OD_A_Whole%20_Nother_World_0.pdf

15.

Goldrick-Rab

(2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437—469.

16.

Goldrick-Rab

(2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

17.

Goldrick-Rab

, Broton

, & Eisenberg

(2015). Hungry to learn: Addressing food and housing insecurity among undergraduates. Retrieved from http://wihopelab.com/publications/Wisconsin_hope_lab_hungry_to_learn.pdf

18.

Goldrick-Rab

, Broton

, & Gates

(2013). Clearing the path to a brighter future: Addressing barriers to community college access and success. Retrieved from http://kresge.org/sites/default/files/White-paper-barriers-to-community-college%20access-success.pdf

19.

Hacker

J. S.

(2008). The great risk shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the American dream. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Hochschild

, & Machung

(1989). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

21.

Horn

L. J.

, & Skomsvold

(2011). Community college student outcomes: 1994-2009 (NCES Publication No. 2012-253). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

22.

Iloh

, & Tierney

W. G.

(2014). Understanding for-profit college and community college choice through rational choice. Teachers College Record, 116(8), 1—34.

23.

Kalleberg

A. L.

(2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1—22.

24.

Matus-Grossman

, & Gooden

(2002). Opening doors: Students' perspectives on juggling work, family, and college. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/Reports2002/opendoors_perspectives/jugglingwork.pdf

25.

Person

, Rosenbaum

, & Deil-Amen

(2006). Student planning and information problems in different college structures. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 374—396. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12329

26.

Provasnik

, & Planty

(2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the condition of education 2008 statistical analysis report (NCES Publication No. 2008-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

27.

Pugh

A. J.

(2015). The tumbleweed society: Working and caring in an age of insecurity. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

28.

Radford

A. W.

, Berkner

, Wheeless

S. C.

, & Shepherd

(2010). Persistence and attainment of 2003-04 beginning postsecondary students: After 6 years (NCES Publication No. 2011-151). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

29.

Radford

A. W.

, Cominole

, & Skomsvold

(2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates: 2011-12 (NCES Publication No. 2015-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

30.

Rosenbaum

J. E.

(2001). Beyond college for all. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

31.

Scott-Clayton

(2015). The shapeless river: Does a lack of structure inhibit students' progress at community colleges? In Castleman

B. L.

, Schwartz

, & Baum

(Eds.), Decision making for student success: Behavioral insights to improve college access and persistence (pp. 102—123). London, UK: Routledge.

32.

Small

M. L.

(2009). ‘How many cases do I need?’: On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5—38.

33.

Snyder

T. D.

, & Dillow

S. A.

(2015). Digest of education statistics 2013 (NCES Publication No. 2015-011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

34.

Spady

W. G.

(1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1(1), 64—85. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02282469

35.

Terriquez

, & Gurantz

(2014). Financial challenges in emerging adulthood and students' decisions to stop out of college. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 204—214.

36.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89—125. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170024

37.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

38.

Wallulis

(1998). The new insecurity: The end of the standard job and family. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

39.

Xia

(2016, June 20). 1 in 10 Cal State students is homeless, study finds. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cal-state-homelessness-20160620-snap-story.html

40.

, & Shanna

S. J.

(2011). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington state community and technical colleges (Publication No. 31). Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-hybrid-performance-washington.pdf