The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from k-12 to college and beyond

The_Magic_Key_The_Educational_Journey_of_Mexican_A..._----_Part_IV._Implications_for_Educational_Policy_and_Future_Practices_in_P...1.pdf

Home >Education homework help >The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from k-12 to college and beyond

PA RT I V

I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R E D U C AT I O N A L P O L I C Y A N D F U T U R E P R A C T I C E S I N P– 1 6 PAT H WAY S A N D B E Y O N D

The Magic Key : The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from K-12 to College and Beyond, edited by Ruth Enid Zambrana, and Sylvia Hurtado, University of Texas Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csupomona/detail.action?docID=3443788. Created from csupomona on 2020-02-26 11:20:56.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

CHAPTER 9

Mexican American Males’ Pathways to Higher Education: Awareness to Achievement

lu Is ponJuá n a n D v ICt or b. sá enz

The future of our nation’s Latino male student population is in peril. Education stakeholders must develop effective policies and employ promising practices to encourage Latino males’ successful academic transitions into postsecondary institutions, followed by increased degree completion rates and promising workforce outcomes. vICtor sáenz anD luIs ponJuán, “the vanIshIng latIno male In hIgher eDuCatIon”

There is a growing concern among educational shareholders that Latino1 males, the fastest- growing racial/ethnic group, are not enrolling and par- ticipating in American higher education at rates comparable to their Latino female peers and other racial/ethnic male ethnic groups. While the number of Latinos attending college2 and attaining degrees has increased steadily over the last few decades, the proportional representation of Latino males continues to decline relative to their female peers (Fry and Taylor 2013; Sáenz and Ponjuán 2009). Steady gains in college enrollment and degree completion have not been uniform for every Latino male ethnic subgroup.3 For instance, among twenty- five- year- old Latino males, 21.4 percent of those of Cuban descent (highest among all male ethnic subgroups) earned a bachelor’s degree compared to only 6.5 percent of males of Mexican de- scent (lowest among all male subgroups) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b).

Mexican American males compared to their Latino male peers have not kept pace in key educational milestones (e.g., high school graduation rates) (Brown and Patten 2013; U.S. Census Bureau 2012b). The large disparity in postsecondary participation and degree attainment among Latino male subgroups warrants a critical examination of the educational outcomes for Mexican American males. The college participation and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

194 The Magic Key

degree completion gaps for Mexican American males can be described from a variety of sobering perspectives. The purposes of this chapter are to: highlight key differences between Latino subgroups—with particu- lar focus on Mexican American males—at critical life course educational junctures in primary and secondary school experiences, which may ac- count for differences in Latino males’ educational achievement; examine the alternative pathways that college- age Latino males take, which divert them from higher education into low- salaried or low- skilled occupations; present some promising outreach programs that target Latino males to provide strategies for increasing their educational success; and present a set of research and policy recommendations to shape future progress on the growing gender gap in educational attainment and improve the educa- tional experiences and outcomes of Mexican American males at the high school and postsecondary levels.

This chapter draws from multiple national data sources. However, we encountered limitations in obtaining data on Mexican American males. When organizations report Latinos as a racial/ethnic group, subgroup differences based on country of origin are often not reported. When data sets are disaggregated by gender and Latino subgroup, we highlight how Mexican American males face unique challenges in college participation and degree completion.

Mexican American Males: The Intersection of Ethnicity, Nationality, and Gender

The challenges confronted by Mexican American males warrant an ac- knowledgment of the complexity of Mexican American identity. Mexican American male identity is shaped by the intersection of race, ethnicity, nativity, gender, SES, and other socially and coconstituted identities (see chapter 4). Zambrana (2011) suggests that an intersectional lens high- lights how power- based relations, Mexican American historical incorpo- ration, and the social construction of Latinos in American society inhibit and distort how we understand their plight. Using this intersectional lens provides insight on how Mexican American males may experience unique challenges to successfully navigating their educational pathway, beginning in the K– 12 system and continuing through postsecondary institutions. Several important factors are associated with the lived experiences of Mexican Americans, including residence in low- income segregated neigh- borhoods, parents with low levels of education, and attendance at low–

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 195

resource schools with underprepared teachers. Latino males and other boys of color are more likely than their female peers to experience stereo- typing and detrimental consequences of zero- tolerance policies (Sáenz and Ponjuán 2009).

Furthermore, for many low- income native- born and foreign- born Mexican immigrants, expectations that they will work, contribute to the family, and assume traditional gender roles often supersede their opportu- nity to attain a higher education. Moreover, foreign- born males may be at an additional disadvantage, depending on their age of arrival in the United States. Fry (2005a) notes that school dropout rates of the foreign- born are strongly linked to the age of migration. Foreign- born teens that arrive in the United States in early childhood have a better chance of matriculat- ing in school. Those who arrive in late adolescence or who had education difficulties before immigrating have a high school dropout rate greater than 70 percent and are more likely to be labor migrants. In effect, they come to the United States to work and not to attend college (Fry 2005a). Ultimately, the social, familial, and socioeconomic expectations faced by young low- income Latino males (foreign- born or native- born) may mani- fest themselves in the decision to join the workforce earlier than their peers, indefinitely passing up the opportunity to seek a postsecondary education.

A guiding framework for understanding the educational trajectory of Mexican American males draws from the Multicontextual Model for Di- verse Learning Environments (MMDLE) to illustrate the different con- texts that affect student learning outcomes (Hurtado, Alvarez, et al. 2012) (see chapter 4). The application of the MMDLE model jointly with an intersectional lens acknowledges that the intersection of different do- mains (e.g., community context, material conditions of the family, insti- tutional context, educational policy context, and sociohistorical context) influences the life course of Mexican American males, which in turn has an impact on their educational experiences. In addition, language barriers, and oftentimes being the first in their family to attend college, coupled with inadequate information- sharing by high schools and colleges, are common challenges facing Mexican American males and other Latino male students and their families (Gándara and Contreras 2009; Zambrana 2011). What follows is a discussion of the unique challenges that Hispanic students, especially Mexican American males, face in earning educational credentials in high school and college.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

196 The Magic Key

The Educational Context: A Growing Concern for Hispanic Males’ Academic Achievement

The broader discourse about Latino males and the gender gap in edu- cational achievement informs the educational experiences of Mexican American males (Sáenz and Ponjuán 2009). Still, the public discussion of a growing gender gap is sometimes met with skepticism, particularly around reframing the gender equity debate within education. Historically, gender inequity was addressed through policy initiatives, such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Equal Opportunity in Education Act.

These pioneering social policies led the way in increasing the success of women at all levels of education while also providing for more nurtur- ing environments for women in schools, workplaces, and cultural arenas. Today, girls outperform boys on almost every academic indicator in ele- mentary and secondary schools (Crosnoe, Riegle- Crumb, Field, Frank, and Muller 2008; DiPrete and Buchmann 2013). Still, some deem it un- constructive at best or cynical at worst to engage in a discussion of the schooling challenges facing our young boys. Many worry that too much attention to these challenges may detract from the advances made by girls within our educational systems (Crosnoe et al. 2008), or may distract us from the progress that remains to be made on multiple fronts (such as the persistent wage gap) (Corbett and Hill 2012). Nonetheless, when we conjoin the growing gender gap with the persistent educational attain- ment gap between Hispanic students, the stark reality facing Mexican American males in particular is cause for great concern. Until recently, few researchers have closely examined Latino male achievement despite the pervasive growth in Latino students’ P– 12 school enrollment, and the potentially grave economic consequences it could portend for our future if they do not complete a postsecondary credential. The larger crisis—in our view—is that there are few meaningful discussions taking place about Latino males in education.

The Experiences of Latino Males in Early, Primary, and Secondary Schools

The Latino educational achievement gap manifests at multiple points along the educational pathway. In general, most boys are struggling aca- demically relative to their female peers, and their problems are increas-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 197

ingly evident during the impressionable early schooling years (Snyder 2012). For example, observable differences in enrollment rates persist be- tween male and female students in early childhood education, especially among Latino and Black children. In 1990, 33.6 percent of Latino females under the age of five were enrolled in school on a full- time or part- time basis compared to 28 percent of Latino male peers (National Center for Education Statistics 2010). Although by 2000 the gender disparity had in- creased, by 2011 the gender enrollment gap, while narrowing, was reversed (43.6 percent enrollment for Latino boys and 39.6 percent for Latino girls) (see table 9.1) (Aud et al. 2013).

While these enrollment increases represent a promising trend, Latino students still lag behind their White and Black peers on this early indica- tor of school enrollment. Other gender gaps in early childhood education milestones (e.g., reading achievement) are particularly troubling, given the importance of the development of emerging social skills, early read- ing, math literacy, and beginning verbal skills in students’ smooth transi- tions into primary education levels.

The levels of participation in early childhood education can signifi- cantly affect early academic success for all students (Zambrana and Mo- rant 2009). Alexander and Entwisle (1988) noted that by the third grade, a child has established a pattern of learning that shapes the course of his or her entire school career. Gurian and Stevens (2005) suggest that boys are being educated within a system that is unaware of the potential mismatch

Table 9.1. Percentage of the Population Who Are 3- and 4- Year- Old Children Enrolled in School by Race and Ethnicity: 1980–2011

Male Female

Year White Black Latino White Black Latino

1980 39.2 36.4 30.1 35.5 40.0 26.6 1990 47.9 38.1 28.0 46.6 45.5 33.6 2000 54.1 58.0 31.9 55.2 61.8 40.0 2009 54.9 58.1 39.4 56.2 58.8 44.4 2011 56.4 53.4 43.6 56.1 57.1 39.6

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2013). Note: Includes enrollment in any type of graded public, parochial, or other private schools. Includes nursery schools, kindergartens, and elementary schools. Attendance may be on either a full- time or part- time basis and during the day or night.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

198 The Magic Key

of the male learning style with current educational practices. They note that boys are on average a year to a year and a half behind girls in reading and writing skills. Consequently, most boys in grades four through eight are twice as likely as girls to be held back a grade, and the rate is even higher for boys of color (Shaffer and Gordon 2006). Other data show that 12.4 percent of Hispanic males and 25.6 percent of Black males have re- peated at least one grade (see table 9.2). Serious concerns with boys’ grade promotion challenges are exacerbated by differential rates of suspension and expulsion for male students of color (Aud, Fox, and KewalRamani 2010; Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera 2010; Milner 2013).

Table 9.2. Percentage of Public School Students Who Have Repeated a Grade, Been Suspended, or Been Expelled by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2007

Race/Ethnicity Total Male Female

Percentage in K– 12 who have repeated a grade Total1 11.5 13.9 8.9 White 8.7 11.2 6.1 Black 20.9 25.6 15.3 Hispanic 11.8 12.4 11.1 Asian 3.5 6.5 0.0 Percentage in grades 6–12 who have ever been suspended Total1 21.6 27.9 14.9 White 15.6 21.3 9.7 Black 42.8 49.5 34.7 Hispanic 21.9 29.6 14.1 Asian 10.8 14.9 ‡

Percentage in grades 6–12 who have ever been expelled Total1 3.4 4.5 2.3 White 1.0 1.3 0.7 Black 12.8 16.6 8.2 Hispanic 3.0 3.1 2.9 Asian ‡ ‡ ‡

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education, Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 2007. Note: All data are based on parent reports. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 1 Total includes other race/ethnicity categories not separately shown. ‡ Reporting standards not met.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 199

Overrepresentation in Special Education and the School Discipline Pipeline

Since the late 1960s, the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has reported the pervasive problem of overrepresentation of minority children in cer- tain disability categories (Artiles, Harry, Reschly, and Chinn 2002; Dunn 1968; Ferri and Connor 2005), and the disparities are even more pro- nounced for minority male students. Differing learning styles between boys and girls in the early schooling years can have consequences that may serve to redirect boys away from higher education pathways. For example, boys are twice as likely as girls to be labeled “learning disabled” and are seven times more likely to be diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Boys con- stitute up to 67 percent of the special education population and in some school systems are up to ten times more likely to be diagnosed with seri- ous emotional and behavioral disorders (Gurian and Stevens 2005; Pollack 1998). T. Parrish (2002) noted that Latino students are more likely to be overrepresented in special education, and tend to be especially overiden- tified during their secondary years, sometimes related to their status as English language learners (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda 2002), making their college pathways that much more difficult to navigate. These unsettling trends reflect one of the most long- standing critiques of special education practice, namely, the disproportionate placement of students of color in special education programs, referred to in the education litera- ture as “overrepresentation” (Diaz and Zambrana 2011; Ferri and Connor 2005; Harry and Klingner 2006; Losen and Orfield 2002).

Disparities in grade promotion and school suspension rates can be as- sociated with other forms of unhealthy behavior or misdiagnoses that may lead to missed educational opportunities. For example, Latino and African American males are overrepresented in special education tracks (Losen and Orfield 2002), referrals to juvenile justice agencies ( Justice Center 2011), and high school dropout rates (Sáenz and Ponjuán 2009). Some of these trends are an artifact of zero- tolerance discipline policies that have taken root in many schools, especially in urban areas (Skiba 2000). In a recent study of school discipline policies in Texas, 83 percent of Afri- can American males and 74 percent of Hispanic males were reported for at least one discretionary school violation between seventh and twelfth grade, rates significantly higher than those of their female or White male counterparts ( Justice Center 2011). The same study also reported that suspended or expelled students are almost three times more likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system the following year.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

200 The Magic Key

Public School Structures and Potential Obstacles

In his 1991 book Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol exposed America’s public school systems as having divergent extremes of wealth, opportu- nity, and segregation that form structural barriers which can discourage the academic success of poor and minority youth. Indeed, Latino students are among the most segregated minority groups in schools, separated out along racial, socioeconomic, and even immigrant characteristics (Orfield and Gordon 2001). Such extremes translate into gross inequalities that re- sult from unequal distribution of school funding, underprepared teachers, high teacher turnover, poor administrative leadership, and an underrepre- sentation of Latino male teachers.

A structural issue affecting Latinos on their pathway to college is the lack of Latino males in the teaching workforce. In 2013, less than 10 per- cent of all elementary and middle school (9.8) and secondary school teachers (7.1) were Latino (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014). Of the over four million teachers employed in K– 12, only about a quarter were male, indicating that the proportion of Latino male teachers is much lower than that of all female teachers at all grade levels. Zapata (1988) argues that teachers of color are critical because they can be better equipped to meet the learning and mentoring needs of an increasingly diverse school popu- lation. In addition, male teachers of color can serve as role models for Latino students.

Identity and Family Socialization Processes

Further complicating the growing Latino gender gap are the pervasive psychological constructs around masculinity. Prevailing constructs of Latino masculinity tend to focus on the archetypes of machismo and ca- ballerismo. “Machismo” refers to masculinity traits, such as assertiveness, power, control, aggression, and obsession with achieving status (see, for example, De la Cancela 1993; Rodriguez and Gonzales 1997; Torres, Sol- berg, and Carlstrom 2002). “Caballerismo,” partly in reaction to the nega- tive connotations of machismo, focuses on positive instantiations of mas- culinity, such as chivalrousness, family- centeredness, nurturing stances, and approaching of problems from a more emotionally connected per- spective (Arciniega, Anderson, Tovar- Blank, and Tracey 2008). The con- cept of a “boy code,” which shapes the identity development of all boys at an early age, includes the set of behaviors and rules of conduct that are

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 201

inculcated into boys by our society. Such gendered norms of behavior in- clude being strong, tough, and independent, and not showing weakness (Pollack 1998). For low- income Latino males, the analogous boy code “machismo” archetype can serve to reinforce gendered behavior expecta- tions through a culturally infused lens, and many young boys can retreat further away from education.

Perhaps feeling ashamed of vulnerabilities, boys tend to mask their emotions, causing a sociopsychological disconnection that can lead to feelings of failure, helplessness, and even depression. Pollack (1998) notes that the rate of depression among boys is surprisingly high, and adoles- cent boys are three times more likely to commit suicide than adolescent girls (Snyder and Swahn 2004). Overall, Latino youth are at greater risk for attempting suicide, and at increased risk for nonfatal suicidal behav- ior, when compared with youths of other minority groups (Canino and Roberts 2001). In short, Latino males are more likely to endure disci- plinary problems, exhibit suicidal and depressive tendencies, be suspended from classes, and drop out from school.

Emerging theoretical work on Latino masculinity appears headed in a more critical and perhaps purposeful direction. Extant work examines the intersection of race and class, and their simultaneous influence on men’s ability to access social and financial capital; when young men are de- nied access or confront failure within educational spaces, they often revert to nonproductive resistance stances and/or hypermasculinity behaviors (e.g., Ramírez and Casper 1999; Torres, Solberg, and Carlstrom 2002). Such may be the case for low- income Mexican American males, some of whom struggle along their educational pathways and ultimately choose to enact their identities through resistive action in the classroom, or through leaving school to contribute to family economic stability and well- being.

One of the more important and enduring cultural values is familismo, which involves the strong identification and attachment to immediate and extended family. In many respects, the familismo orientation among Latino families serves to structure gender roles and expectations for family members. For example, Morales (1996) observes that the Latino male’s responsibility is to “provide for, protect, and defend his family” (274). Young Latino males are raised with expectations that they are to be family- oriented, strong, brave, and hardworking, and to be family contributors.

Nonetheless, the notion of familismo among Latino families should not be seen as a negative or deficit force working to perpetuate gaps in educational attainment between males and females. Familismo can serve

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

202 The Magic Key

as a strong source of social support and as a form of social capital and a family asset in educational success (Suarez- Orozco and Suarez- Orozco 1995; Valenzuela 1999; Zambrana and Zoppi 2002). For Latino males, familismo can be a valuable asset because of its correlation with strong social and family networks, which can ultimately be accessed to support their academic achievement (Valenzuela and Dornbusch 1994).

A Demographic Profile of Latino Males in the U.S. Education System

In recent years, educational attainment data show significant differences in success rates between male and female Latino students (Aud et al. 2013). For example, in 2011, 31.4 percent of Latino males who were twenty- five years and older were high school graduates compared to 28.2 percent of Latino females. A closer review of these data reveals that Mexican Ameri- can males have the second- highest high school completion rate (31.7 per- cent) compared to other Latino male subgroups (i.e., Puerto Rican [34.4 percent], Cuban [30.8 percent], Central American [28.7 percent], South American [30.9 percent], and Other Hispanics [30.2 percent]) (U.S. Cen- sus Bureau 2012b).

Latino Males and High School Dropout Status

The high school dropout issue has been a major source of contention among policymakers and educational practitioners, partly as a result of the varied metrics used to define a dropout. We utilize the metric of high school completion. In 2010, the percentage of eighteen- to twenty- four- year- old Latino males who had not completed high school or its equivalent was 34.2, compared to 27.1 percent for Latino females. The rates for not completing high school among Latino males and females were substantially higher than the overall rates for all males and females (Aud et al. 2013).

Despite a decade’s worth of campaigns to enhance school account- ability and high school completion, these data indicate that much work remains to be done. Further, a national educational report shows that the higher dropout status is also related to a student’s immigrant status. “A higher dropout rate among Hispanics who were foreign born (31 per- cent) versus those who were native born (10 percent) partially accounts for the relatively high overall Hispanic dropout rate (16 percent)” (Aud et al. 2013, 130).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 203

Degree Attainment Patterns at Two- Year and Four- Year Institutions

Less than twenty years ago there was little difference in degree attain- ment between male and female Latino students. However, the gender gap has widened. In 2012 females continued to outpace their male counter- parts and earned approximately 60 percent of all baccalaureate, associate of arts, and associate of sciences degrees awarded to Hispanic students (twenty- five years of age and older) in the United States (U.S. Depart- ment of Education 2013).

Despite having relatively successful high school completion rates com- pared to their peers, figure 9.1 shows that Mexican American males are the second- least likely (17 percent) to attend some college or complete an associate degree compared to other Hispanic male ethnic subgroups (27 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012b). These data warrant additional investigation, with some caution to account for the other dimensions of accumulated social, cultural, and structural challenges that accompany males along their educational pathways.

Over the fifteen years from 1995 to 2010, Latino students trailed the overall population in college degree attainment. Furthermore, in 2010, Latino males compared to females earned a smaller percentage of postsec- ondary degrees—12.9 percent and 14.9 percent, respectively (see figure 9.2). Mexican American males compared to their Latino male peers had

Figure 9.1. Latino Students Who Attended Some College or Earned an Associate Degree by Gender and Hispanic Origin Group (%) (2011) Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012b).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

204 The Magic Key

the lowest percentage (9 percent) to have earned a bachelor’s degree or greater (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Since many Mexican American males are not enrolled in college or completing a college degree, the majority are in the labor force.4 An over- view of employment, occupational, and income patterns is provided for Latino males. When data are available, we focus on Mexican American males.

Overview of Employment, Occupational, and Income Patterns by Nativity

Significant disparities exist in employment and occupational patterns by Latino male subgroup. Mexican Americans have historically had among the highest participation rates in the U.S. labor force, but they tend to work in occupations that pay low wages, provide low economic mobility, provide little or no health insurance, are less stable, and are more haz- ardous to their health (Maldonado and Farmer 2006). Their low occu- pational positions are associated with lower educational attainment, lim- ited English language proficiency, and lack of work experience, training,

Figure 9.2. Bachelor’s or Higher Degree Attainment by Ethnicity and Gender (1995 to 2010) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 205

and/or other employability skills (“‘Deadly Trend’ ” 2002). In 2011, 82.2 percent of the 11.5 million Latino males ages sixteen and older were em- ployed full- time, compared to 72.3 percent of their 8.14 million Latina counterparts. It is worth noting that Mexican American males were in the bottom third of Hispanic males working with full- time status (81.6 percent), compared to Cuban (86.2 percent) and South American (85.9 percent) males, who constituted the top third of Hispanic workers (U.S. Census Bureau 2012e). The unemployment rate for Latino males sixteen years and older, and in the civilian population, was 12.9 percent. Mexican American males had the second- highest unemployment rate (13.2 per- cent), compared to South American males (10.7 percent), who had one of the lowest rates (U.S. Census Bureau 2012e). More important, the data indicate urgent concerns about the long- term employment stability for males in unskilled occupations.

Occupational data show that college- age Latino males have a lower representation in management, professional, and related occupations (15.5 percent) compared to the general population (38.7 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012f ). Once again, Mexican American males are the least likely to hold management positions (12.9 percent) compared to other Latino male groups (e.g., Cuban males, 31.5 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012g). Latino males represent a lower proportion of white- collar posi- tions in sales and office occupations (15.1 percent) compared to the gen- eral U.S. population (17.0 percent). Following a similar pattern, Mexican American males (6.5 percent) and Central American males (4.0 percent) represent the bottom third of these professional and related white- collar positions (U.S. Census Bureau 2012f, 2012g).

Conversely, Latino males occupy blue- collar employment positions (i.e., manual labor positions) in greater proportions compared to the general population: 22.6 percent of the Latino male workforce (sixteen years and older) occupies positions in construction, maintenance, or re- pair, compared to 14.1 percent of the general male population (U.S. Cen- sus Bureau 2012f ). Mexican American males (24.7 percent) and Central American males (27.8 percent) represent the largest percentages (U.S. Census Bureau 2012g). In terms of income, Latino male workers have the highest percentage (21.2 percent) of those earning $25,000 to $34,999 compared to the general male population (14.1 percent) (U.S. Census Bu- reau 2012h). Mexican American males had the highest percentage of men earning less than $34,999 (22.1 percent) compared to other Latino males (U.S. Census Bureau 2012i). In this same category, 20.6 percent of Mexi- can American males live below the poverty level, a much higher percent-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

206 The Magic Key

age than among their South American peers (13.0 percent). At the upper range of earnings, only 5.2 percent of Latino males earned a salary of $100,000 or greater, compared to the general male population (14.1 per- cent). As expected, only 3.8 percent of Mexican American males earned in this salary range, compared to South American males (11.9 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012i). This enormous wage disparity reveals the effects of limited workforce opportunities for Latino males, especially Mexican American males, who are less likely to have a postsecondary credential.

Latinos constitute the majority of the foreign- born workforce popu- lation, with a significant number categorized as unauthorized workers or undocumented immigrants (Passel 2006). Undocumented Latino males often live below the poverty level. Of Latino males aged eighteen to sixty- four years, 19.5 percent live below the poverty level, compared to the general male population (10.5 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2012j). Ap- proximately 26.5 percent of Latino males in the United States do not have citizenship, compared to 3.5 percent of non- Hispanic immigrant popula- tions (U.S. Census Bureau 2012c). Among Latino male subgroups, only 27.1 percent of Mexican Americans do not have U.S. citizenship, com- pared to nearly half of Central Americans (49.7 percent) who are with- out citizenship. However, Mexican American males are the largest ethnic group, so there are still four times more Mexican American males (4.5 million) than Central American males (1.1 million) without U.S. citizen- ship (U.S. Census Bureau 2012d). Within the workforce, these undocu- mented Latino males are largely concentrated in blue- collar positions, most frequently construction, which rank low in potential earnings and educational requirements and are less conducive to upward social mobility (Kochhar 2005).

Despite the many challenges that Hispanic males face along their edu- cational and career pathways, there is growing interest in meaningfully addressing these challenges at the school, community, state, and national levels. Similar to the ongoing, well- established efforts to improve the edu- cational outcomes of African American/Black males in higher education, there is a nascent and focused national movement to develop outreach initiatives and policies that help Latino males achieve educational and occupational success.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 207

At the Crossroads of Practice, Research, and Policy: Recommendations to Improve Mexican American Males’ Educational Achievement

Education shareholders must develop effective policies, along with inno- vative, promising programs, and seek out unique research approaches to enact more successful academic transitions for Latino males into post- secondary institutions and favorable occupational careers. We argue that translational research benefits all low- income Latino males, and especially first- generation Mexican American males. In a recent article we identified several outreach programs focused on Latino males across the country (Sáenz and Ponjuán 2012). These programs, developed in predominantly Mexican American areas of concentration, represent a starting point for efforts that can be used to improve Mexican American male educational success, especially as momentum builds toward proactive interventions and services. We leverage the research literature to frame (Hurtado, Alva- rez, et al. 2012) and support our recommendations (e.g., Gándara and Contreras 2009; Núñez and Crisp 2012).

Recommendations for High Schools

Local school boards are essential change agents for addressing the chal- lenges Mexican American males face in completing high school. We sug- gest that school districts and high schools enact several recommendations focused on community outreach (e.g., family education seminars), re- vision of high school curriculum policies (e.g., advanced placement [AP] and dual enrollment course availability, teacher professional develop- ment), and programs (e.g., interpersonal, financial aid– related) empower- ing Mexican American males to attend college.

Family Engagement

Mexican American parents who are supportive of their child help that child to maintain high educational aspirations, regardless of the number of peers who are achievement- oriented (Espinoza, Gillen- O’Neel, Gonza- les, and Fuligni 2013; see chapter 5). Given the important role that family plays in the lives of young Mexican American males, particularly those from low- income families and low- resource communities, it is impera- tive that schools develop policies and practices that encourage Mexican

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chart 9.1. Promising Outreach Programs Focused on Hispanic Males

Programs Description

Fathers Active in Communities and Education (FACE)

Funded by a GEAR UP grant, this collaborative program en- gages fathers with information and opportunities to support their students’ academic success. Working primarily with Mexi- can American communities in South Texas and in partnership with K– 12, higher education, and local business partners, the program promotes intervention and support for academics through essay contests, hands- on activities, college tours, and many community and family- focused events throughout the year. www.fathersactive.com

Encuentros Leadership

This program, located in northern San Diego County, was formed to address the critical educational, social, and economic issues affecting the quality of education and life opportunities for Latino boys within the community. Encuentros hosts an an- nual summer leadership academy and an annual career and edu- cation conference for male Latino students. It also developed a textbook that it incorporated into its classroom program target- ing the educational needs of male Latino adolescents. www .encuentrosleadership.org

XY- Zone Built within the expansive network of Communities in Schools (CIS), the XY- Zone program actively works with male students in high schools to help them navigate the challenges associated with school issues, healthy personal relationships, and their aca- demic futures. Similar to other K– 12 educational programs, this program offers a small- scale, community- based approach to an educational problem that is approaching epidemic levels. The initial XY- Zone chapter was started in Austin, Texas, in 2000, and it has since expanded throughout the CIS network to other sites across the country. www.cisaustin.org/page- xy- zone.cfm

Puente Project Located in California, the Puente (English translation: “bridge”) Project is specifically designed to “increase the number of edu- cationally underserved students who enroll in four- year colleges and universities, earn degrees and return to the community as leaders and mentors for future generations.” For over 25 years, the Puente Project has been shown to improve college- readiness and college- going rates for Latino students (Gándara 1998). While not focused solely on Latino males, the Puente Project provides a strong academic, counseling, and mentoring model that has been proven to help facilitate college pathways for underrepresented students. www.puente.ucop.edu

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 209

American families to become more actively involved in the educational experience of their young men. Educational leaders at the school and school district levels need to recognize that Mexican American families are a crucial component in creating and instilling a college- going culture (Gándara and Contreras 2009; Núñez and Crisp 2012).

High school administrators need to engage family members (e.g., par- ents, grandparents) with language- appropriate materials and presenta- tions during nonworking hours (evenings and weekends) about how they can help their son complete high school. Ultimately, schools need to col- laborate with Mexican American families to create and nurture a school climate and culture that encourage high school completion, application for college and financial aid, and college enrollment for their young males.

There are several community- led programs, which work with schools, focused on creating innovative outreach efforts for Hispanic families. These partnerships are designed to assist Mexican American males as they navigate the high school pathway, and work with schools and families to impress upon their students the knowledge, skills, and behaviors needed to improve educational outcomes and achieve high school degree comple- tion. Chart 9.1 provides examples of these programs.

Improve Access to a College- Ready Curriculum

At a time when the alignment between high schools and higher educa- tion for a seamless college- track curriculum has never been more impor- tant, local school districts are wise to develop policies that provide equi- table access to precollege curricula to prepare Mexican American males for college and career success. High school administrators must increase equitable access to courses designed to prepare students for the rigors of college and career, including advanced placement (AP), honors courses, dual- and concurrent- enrollment courses, the International Baccalaure- ate curriculum, and rigorous career and technical education courses. A disproportionate distribution of AP courses in high schools can be traced along racial, ethnic, gender, and income lines (Allen, Kimura- Walsh, and Griffin 2009). Greater access to this type of curriculum enhances Mexican American students’ chances to attend higher education. High school ad- ministrators must also pay particular attention to the gender gap in enroll- ment in AP and dual- enrollment courses, since Mexican American males lag significantly behind their female peers in participation.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

210 The Magic Key

Empower and Educate

Although there has been progress in developing rigorous academic stan- dards and assessments (i.e., state- mandated exit exams) to prepare high school students for college and careers, high school teachers and coun- selors need to give more attention to the academic and social developmen- tal supports needed for the most at- risk students to navigate successfully those academic benchmarks. High school counselors who help Mexican American high school students develop problem- solving skills enhance those students’ ability to succeed beyond high school (Huang and Flores 2011). High schools need to develop programmatic initiatives focused on proactive career exploration and planning workshops, peer- to- peer men- toring, and study skills for Mexican American males. Such linked pro- grams help to ensure that these most at- risk male students have developed the academic and social capital, behaviors, and capabilities needed to suc- cessfully transition into two- and four- year institutions.

Financing College

Policymakers and practitioners must recognize that low- income Latino students and families, during the high school years, face difficult hurdles in financing and paying for higher education (Núñez and Kim 2012). A well- known disconnect exists between the knowledge that families have about the financial aid process and the opportunities that are available to them. Greater transparency on the part of postsecondary institutions and the higher education community is necessary in order to provide students and families with accurate data on the financial costs of attending college, and on what aid, if any, is available. We recommend that high schools work with colleges to develop individualized information packets on financial costs that include not only tuition, but the costs that students from dif- ferent backgrounds pay to attend the institution, including net price— defined as the full cost of attendance minus any scholarships or grants. Students often lack key information about the relationship between in- adequate financial aid and college enrollment (Gándara and Contreras 2009; Núñez and Kim 2012).

In addition to maintaining greater transparency on the financing of college, postsecondary institutions should publish clear and reliable data on average time to degree completion, and graduation rates disaggregated by race/Hispanic ethnic subgroup, gender, income level, job placement, and graduate school admission rates. While it may be cost- prohibitive to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 211

create these individualized reports for all students, we argue that these reports should be a priority for certain underrepresented student groups (e.g., Mexican American, first- generation college- bound students).

Recommendations at the College Level

Latino students face challenges when navigating the college climate (Hur- tado and Ponjuán 2005). Given the breadth and depth of expertise that exist on college campuses—from faculty to student affairs staff (e.g., financial aid officers, admissions counselors) to students themselves— individuals and departments have much to offer Mexican American males to help them succeed academically and socially. Higher education institutions can address the unique needs of Mexican American males in three major areas: community college enrollment, academic success programs, financial aid, and loan forgiveness policies for Mexican American male teachers.

Earning a Postsecondary Credential

Mexican American males are more likely to enroll at community col- leges instead of four- year institutions (Núñez and Crisp 2012). Unlike traditional academic four- year degrees, a community college credential (e.g., in welding, culinary arts, etc.) represents a viable educational option for many Hispanic males, as there are long- term economic and health benefits for males who complete a community college credential (Belfield and Bailey 2011). Community colleges need to proactively help Mexican American males in their efforts to earn a college credential.

Community colleges can also develop programs in the juvenile justice system to assist those remanded to it in transitioning back into society. GED and vocational education programs provide options for continued education. These types of proactive outreach programs illustrate the spirit of nonpunitive forms of rehabilitation for at- risk Mexican Ameri- can males that are necessary approaches for this student population (Rios 2011). Creating opportunities via this educational route may improve their employment opportunities.

Targeting Programs for Academic Success

Despite the low representation of Mexican American males in four- year institutions, administrators, faculty members, and student affairs pro- fessionals need to create special programs and policies tailored to these

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

212 The Magic Key

young men’s academic needs, such as curricular and co- curricular initia- tives to ensure higher rates of recruitment and retention (Sáenz and Pon- juán 2011).

Implementation of academic policies that require Mexican American males to complete mandatory academic advising sessions (or proactive academic advising sessions for students on academic probation) and career exploration workshops for students who are undecided about their aca- demic major could enhance their academic experiences. Co- curricular programs, such as academic- living learning communities (e.g., engineer- ing, business), tutoring for gateway academic courses, and first- year ex- perience programs, should be offered to complement more traditional learning experiences. Finally, to ensure the availability of role models and mentors throughout these students’ college careers, colleges and univer- sities must promote policies that focus on the recruitment, hiring, and retention of U.S.- born Mexican American males, and other men of color, as faculty members (Ponjuán 2011). Linking academic and nonacademic initiatives addresses Mexican American male students’ retention beyond the first year of enrollment and increases their odds of college graduation and a successful transition into the workforce.

Tools for Financial Aid Literacy

Financial aid literacy and the long- term implications of financing a col- lege education remain a critical component of the college process. Post- secondary institutions should develop programs and policies that contrib- ute to the development of behaviors and skills needed to make informed and financially secure decisions, particularly for traditionally underrepre- sented Mexican American student populations. These students and their families are less likely to borrow to pay for college, especially if they have unmet financial need after grant aid has been taken into account (Cun- ningham and Santiago 2008). Four- year institutions must be transpar- ent about the distinction between grants/scholarships and student loans, as well as types of private company and government- supported student loans. For example, students should have information on the average fi- nancial aid package disaggregated by type of aid (Pell grants, institutional aid, state grants, etc.), average student loan debt, average delinquency and default rates disaggregated by student characteristics, and information on unpublished costs, including how financial aid packages may change from year to year. Armed with accurate and user- friendly information, insti- tutional agents can help Mexican American families compare the value

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mexican American Males’ Pathways 213

of different financial aid packages across many institutional types, which may help these families make informed college application and choice decisions.

Loan Forgiveness Policies for Mexican American Male Teachers

Inasmuch as Hispanic male teachers can serve as role models, mentors, and support systems to male students, incentives such as loan forgiveness, to draw more men into the field of education, should be developed. For example, loan forgiveness for the top 10 percent of new, Mexican Ameri- can male teacher education graduates from public four- year teaching pro- grams could encourage students to consider teaching careers. Loan for- giveness and other incentivized policies are innovative ways to encourage educational success by capitalizing on a problem area and refashioning it into a sustainable solution.

Conclusions

The sobering and disproportionate underachievements of Mexican American males highlight social and economic disadvantage and a criti- cal need for educational leaders to take action. This chapter raises specific awareness of the bleak portrait of Mexican American males’ participa- tion in P– 12 schools and barriers to engagement in higher education. The disparity in educational and employment outcomes for Mexican Ameri- cans males compared to other Hispanic ethnic subgroups and racial/ethnic males highlights an invisible educational and social crisis, although it re- mains ambiguous, undefined, and unnoticed in many policy contexts and discussions.

The dearth of disaggregated data for Latino subgroups made it chal- lenging to provide an accurate portrait of key educational and employ- ment outcomes. We encourage governmental and educational agencies to design future data sets so as to provide accurate portraits of this emerg- ing, complex Hispanic ethnic group, with particular attention to Mexican Americans. This unique spotlight on Mexican American males is critical, since they are the largest subgroup and yet remain an untapped resource in our professional, government, military, private, and public workforces.

Finally, from a societal perspective, the critical role of Mexican Ameri- can males as spouses, fathers, community leaders, and role models for the burgeoning Mexican American population could be in jeopardy due to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

214 The Magic Key

continual educational struggles and increased incarceration rates. Ulti- mately, these barriers will inhibit their ability to fulfill the critical eco- nomic and social roles essential to securing upwardly mobile and eco- nomically stable Latino families and communities. Ongoing demographic shifts show an increasingly young Mexican American male labor supply as the fastest- growing employment pool, and yet the most underutilized tal- ent base. Furthermore, America’s human capital capacity and global com- petitiveness will be increasingly dependent on this growing segment of the population. Therefore, educational leaders should heed this call, take into account the unique educational needs of Mexican American males, and develop and implement programs and policies across the pre- K– college continuum to capitalize on their full potential and in turn ensure the long- term viability of Mexican American communities.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

CHAPTER 10

The Role of Educational Policy in Mexican American College Transition and Completion

fr anCe s Cont rer a s

Unless solutions are created to assess and repair educational pathways at individual, institutional, and societal levels, countless Mexican Americans will continue to drop out of high school, leave college before completion, and depart from doctoral programs. franCes Contreras, aChieving equity for latino stuDents

Educational policy plays a critical role in the experiences and services available to Mexican American/Chicano students in the United States (Gándara and Contreras 2009; Contreras 2011). State and federal policy sectors therefore have the potential to be an avenue for addressing the needs of this consistently expanding, yet underserved, segment of the student population. In my previous work, Achieving Equity for Latino Students (2011),1 I proffer nine policy recommendations for moving an education policy agenda forward for Latinos, among whom Mexican Americans require the most significant attention. These recommenda- tions were designed to introduce and expand upon policy approaches to raise student achievement, engagement, and ultimately college comple- tion among Mexican American and other underrepresented, underserved, low- income, first- generation students. These recommendations are:

• Address the cracks in the pipeline that inhibit successful transition to college

• Develop a college- for- all policy at the federal level • Reframe the discussion around testing and accountability • Establish accurate state- level longitudinal data systems that inform

practice

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

216 The Magic Key

• Address college affordability • Increase financial aid availability • Revisit the need to pass the DREAM Act • Prioritize the unfinished business of the stated objectives of affirma-

tive action • Utilize P– 16 councils to address educational inequity and uneven

postsecondary access

This chapter draws on prior evidence- based policy analyses to describe key policy frameworks that continue to influence opportunities to learn in the K– 12 system, the transition to college/intervention programs and policies, the rising costs of attending college and financial aid, and the potential for higher education to move beyond affirmative action policies to an equity framework. It highlights select public policies that serve to support or hinder the progression of Mexican American/Chicano stu- dents through the P– 16 pathways. In particular, discussions of account- ability policies such as exit exams, inequitable curricular access, rising tuition costs, affirmative action policy, and shifts in financial aid policies are included to assess the role public policies had, and continue to have, on Mexican American/Chicano student transition to, and success in, col- lege. These key policy issues and levers serve as a foundation for viable policy approaches and are essential to promoting Mexican American col- lege completion. I conclude with a specific set of policy recommendations to move the Mexican American educational agenda forward and increase student preparedness and college completion.

My collection of data emphasizes policies related to college readi- ness, transition, and persistence. Sources include: state- level data from longitudinal systems, census data from the Pew Hispanic Research Cen- ter and the American Community Survey, federal financial aid data from the NPSAS (National Postsecondary Student Aid Study), Office of Civil Rights data, and state public higher education data. When possible, I use disaggregated data on Mexican American students. However, many state and national data sources aggregate data pertaining to “Hispanic Origin,” making it difficult to assess accurately the plight of Mexican Americans, the largest subgroup, with their long- standing history of facing educa- tional inequity, discrimination, and anti- immigrant public policies (Ortiz and Telles 2012; Donato 1997; Menchaca 1995).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 217

Background

Educational policy has the potential to shape opportunity for youth at every stage in the educational pathways as children transition to adult- hood and postsecondary options. For Latino students, now 23.3 percent of the K– 12 population in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), the policy arena plays a unique role in mandating reform. However, reforms such as No Child Left Behind have not resulted in measurable gains in access to rigorous curricula, test score achievement, or college readiness and transition for Mexican American students. In fact, Mexican American students are far less likely than their peers to be enrolled in Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), an honors curriculum, or advanced place- ment (AP) courses, and less than half of those who transition to college immediately following high school begin their higher education journey in four- year postsecondary institutions.

Mexican Americans have lower levels of education compared to other Latino subgroups. For example, only 9.6 percent of Mexican Americans twenty- five years of age and older have earned at least a bachelor’s de- gree or higher, while 13 percent of all Latinos earned a bachelor’s de- gree or higher (Gonzalez- Barrera and Lopez 2013). In addition, 42.3 per- cent of Mexican Americans have earned less than a high school diploma compared to other educational attainment levels (table 10.1). Tremendous challenges exist for Mexican American youth in achieving greater educa- tional equity, access, and success throughout the P– 16 pathway.

Table 10.1. Educational Attainment (Age 25 Years and Older), Mexican Americans, 2011 (thousands)

Mexican American (N)

Mexican American Percentage

Less than a high school diploma 7,280 42.3 High school diploma or equivalent 4,638 27.0 Some college 3,630 21.1 Bachelor’s degree or more 1,659 9.6

Source: Gonzalez- Barrera and Lopez (2013). Note: Author calculations of percentage within each category.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

218 The Magic Key

Policy Context

The historical interaction between Mexican American students and formal public education systems has been an ongoing struggle for equality (Donato 1997; Menchaca 1995; MacDonald 2004). Mexican American youth have experienced limited access to highly qualified teachers, under- resourced schools, and segregation and discrimination in schools (Gán- dara and Contreras 2009; Contreras 2011). This trend is ever present, as evidenced by anti- immigrant sentiment over the past fifty years. Figure 10.1 displays a chronology of anti- immigrant public policies from 1994 to 2013 that adversely impacted Mexican American and Latino youth in K– 16 settings. Such policies have negatively targeted bilingual and/or Mexican immigrant students and have occurred at a time when our na- tion is witnessing unprecedented growth in the Mexican American popu- lation. These policies can be viewed as a direct response, manifesting as demographic denial, blindness, and fear, to the perceived “browning” of the United States. The changing demographic landscape of the nation is fueling such policies, which are directly targeting Mexican Americans in states like California, where Latinos constitute well over half of the K– 12 population and represent a growing portion of the electorate.

Such policy efforts have exacerbated persistent inequities in the pub- lic schooling system, legitimizing institutional racism, and continuing to perpetuate a deficit-model paradigm and a culture of low academic expec- tations for Mexican American students. As a result of experiencing an in- ferior public educational infrastructure, few Mexican American students transition to college immediately following high school and even fewer complete a college degree. Figure 10.2 shows that since 1975, Hispanic students have lagged behind their White peers in the immediate transi- tion to college. These rates do not reflect the already sizable dropout rates among Mexican American students during their high school years.

Persistent Inequitable Opportunities to Learn for Mexican American Students

Low transition rates to college enrollment are in large part due to per- sistent inequities that exist throughout the educational system. Mexican American students, particularly those who have parents with less than high school education, have very different educational experiences and largely attend segregated, low- resource schools. Telles and Ortiz (2008) conducted a longitudinal study of the educational progress of Mexican

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Figure 10.1. Key Anti- Mexican Proposed Immigrant Policies Affecting Student Progress in K– 12 and Higher Education, 1994–2013

Undocumented Students Alabama, H.B.* 56, 2011 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2011); ALA. CODE §31- 13- 8 (added section barring undocumented students from enrolling in or attending any institutions of postsecondary education; enjoined by federal district court, October 2011). Arizona, S.C.R. 1031, §3, Proposition 300, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006 (Ariz. 2006); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §15- 1803 (amended to ban in- state tuition for undocumented students). Florida, S.B.** 2040 and H.B 7089 (proposed)—would give law enforcement the ability to check the documented status of people under criminal investigation if there is “reasonable suspicion.” It would also make being undocumented a state crime. (Did not pass.) Georgia, S.B. 492, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2008); GA. CODE ANN. §20- 3- 66(d) (amended to ban in- state tuition for undocumented students). Indiana, H.B. 1402, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2011); IND. CODE ANN. §21- 14- 11 (added Ch. 11 to title 21, banning in- state tuition for undocumented students). New Hampshire, H.B 1383 (signed into law, June 18, 2012). Requires students paying in- state tuition rates to sign an affidavit attesting they are legal residents of U.S. Ohio, 129th General Assembly File No. 28, H.B. 153, §101.01; O.R.C. 3333.31 (D), (E) (2011) (banning in- state tuition for undocumented students). Montana, 2011 Mont. Laws 1238 (ratified by state ballot measure, November 2012; amending MONT. CODE ANN. §20- 25- 502 [2009], eff. Jan. 2013) (enjoined by federal court, June 2014). South Carolina, H.B. 4400, 117th Gen. Assemb. Reg. Sess. (S.C. 2008); S.C. CODE ANN. §59- 101- 430 (added section 430 to bar undocumented students from attending public institutions of higher learning, and also bar them from being able to receive in- state tuition).

Immigration Policy SB 1070 AZ (2010)—“Papers please” law. Secure Fence Act 2006—border across Southwestern United States to keep Mexicans out. Proposition 187 CA (1994)—attack on immigrant, civil, and educational rights.

Pedagogy HB 2281 AZ (2010)—ban on ethnic studies in public schools.

Linguistic Policy Restrictions Proposition 227 CA (1998)—ban on bilingual education. Proposition 203 in AZ (2000). Question 2 MA (2002). Horne v. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (AZ- 2009).

Higher Education and Affirmative Action Policy SP- 1 policy, UC Regents (CA- 1995). Proposition 209 (CA- 1996). Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.) (TX- 1996). Initiative 200 (WA- 1998). One Florida Initiative (1999). Smith v. University of Washington Law School (WA- 2002). Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Proposal 2 (MI- 2006). Federal court upholds Grutter (2009). Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (2013).

*House Bill **Senate Bill

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

220 The Magic Key

Americans across two generations, following up on an original sample of 684 respondents from 1970. The researchers interviewed the respon- dents’ children (n = 784) to examine various factors related to social and economic progress. They examined measures of progress, which included: socioeconomic status, language use, neighborhood integration, educa- tional attainment, and civic engagement. They found minimal economic progress after the second generation, and educational attainment stalled after the third and fourth generations. Limited economic and educational mobility was attributed to insufficient funding in school systems that serve Mexican American students (Telles and Ortiz 2008). These data confirm the struggle for P– 12 school equity (see, for example, Valenzuela 1999; Contreras 2011). This lack of equity helps to explain low college transi- tion, retention, and completion rates among underserved and underrepre- sented minority students. Mexican American students continue to experi- ence limited access to school resources (e.g., most advanced technology), highly qualified teachers, and a rigorous college- going curriculum, and they live in highly segregated communities where they attend underper- forming Hispanic- serving schools.

Problems of inequity within schools and districts remain a salient con- cern, as deep gaps in funding exist across and within school districts in the United States. These gaps appear to be the greatest in districts

Figure 10.2. Percent of High School Graduates Who Have Had an Immediate Transition to College by Race/Ethnicity, 1975–2014 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1975–2014 (2014).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 221

and states with high Mexican American and Black population concen- trations. Funding gaps include, but are not limited to, those affecting access to programmatic offerings and rigorous curriculum content, ac- cess to adequate facilities, access to highly qualified teachers, and access to technology.

Challenges to the inequities that Mexican American students experi- ence in schools continue in the courts. In Rodriguez et al. v. San Antonio Independent School District (1971), parents alleged in a class- action suit that the State of Texas’s system of funding schools based on local property taxes violated equal protection to students in poor districts under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents initially won, with the Texas district court ruling Texas’s school finance system unconstitutional. However, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court re- versed the lower court decision, preserving Texas’s school finance policy (Rodriguez II: San Antonio Independent School District et al. v. Rodriguez et al., 411 U.S. 1 [1973]). In the opinion, the Supreme Court noted: “Though education is one of the most important services performed by the state, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution” (36 L. Ed. 2d 16). In the past forty years, over forty- five states have witnessed school finance litigation (Reyes and Rodriguez 2004). The discourse around public school financing has now become a discussion of adequacy; finance equity is based on the resources necessary to provide an “adequate” education to all students (Satz 2007).

These funding constraints yield two unfavorable outcomes in districts serving high concentrations of foreign- born and native- born Mexican students: English language learners (ELLs) being taught by underquali- fied personnel and low National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores demonstrating underperformance in math (U.S. Depart- ment of Education 2013).

ELLs continue to be ill- served in the educational system, as evident in their consistent underperformance on state and federal exams. These data are a reflection of the neglect they encounter in schools. Such ne- glect ranges from their not receiving bilingual services in schools to being taught by paraeducators (staff members with less certification/training in curriculum content than teachers) in the classroom (Contreras et al. 2008; Gibson, Gándara, and Koyama 2004). As a result, ELLs score lower on statewide exams and are less likely than their peers to graduate high school and transition to college (Gándara and Contreras 2009; Rumberger and Gándara 2004). Not only is there a pattern of low achievement, but there is also an undercurrent of low expectations for low- income, first-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

222 The Magic Key

generation Mexican American students that is exacerbated by inequities in funding and powerfully impacts their academic performance, particu- larly in testing outcomes.

The NAEP scores in math for nine- year- old students show the early gaps between Latinos and Whites that persist as students progress through the educational pathways (see figure 10.3). Further, these test score gaps illustrate the uneven performance among Latino students very early in the educational experience.

While NAEP scores show uneven achievement, very few academic sup- ports are built into the educational infrastructure in primary grades to en- sure that students are caught up to grade level in critical content areas such as math. As a result, many Mexican American students continue on a path of uneven achievement, which ultimately affects their level of engagement in school. Table 10.2 shows the number of high school students nationally who took advanced placement (AP) courses in academic year 2009–2010. The data highlight uneven access to AP courses (mathematics, science, for- eign language, and other AP subjects) in the nation’s high schools by race/ ethnicity. Latino students make up 25.1 percent of public school enrollment

Figure 10.3. NAEP Scores, Math Source: U.S. Department of Education, Instutite of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long- Term Trend Mathematics Assessments. Notes: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. “Hispanic” includes Latino. The “White” race category excludes Hispanic origin. *Significantly different (p <.05) from 2008.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Table 10.2. Access to Rigorous Advanced Placement (AP) Courses in High School, by Race/ Ethnicity, 2009–2010

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian/ Alaska Native

Asian/ Pacific

Islander Chicano/

Latino Black White Total

Courses Sex Percent

(n) Percent

(n) (n)

AP Mathematics

Male .005 (1153)

16.5 (40731)

9.7 (23999)

6.1 (15146)

68.3 (168893) 247417

Female .006 (1547)

16.2 (38916)

10.5 (25258)

9.7 (23411)

65 (156017) 240128

Total .006 (2700)

16.3 (79647)

10.1 (49257)

7.9 (38558)

66.6 (324910) 487545

AP Science Male .006 (1406)

17.4 (41707)

10.6 (25365)

6.9 (16562)

66.8 (160126) 239745

Female .007 (1664)

16.4 (41774)

11.4 (29007)

8.8 (22311)

64.2 (163243) 254347

Total .006 (3070)

16.9 (83481)

11 (54371)

7.9 (38872)

65.4 (323369) 494092

AP Foreign Language

Male .004 (233)

13 (8483)

42.7 (27955)

5.6 (3637)

45.6 (29843) 65502

Female .006 (625)

11.7 (12794)

42.4 (46439)

7 (7712)

44.4 (48690) 109581

Total .005 (857)

12.2 (21277)

42.5 (74394)

6.5 (11349)

44.9 (78533) 175083

AP Other Subjects

Male .006 (4255)

11.4 (77889)

14.4 (98070)

8.6 (58550)

63.4 (433036) 683164

Female .007 (6223)

9.8 (90160)

14.9 (136660)

11.3 (103996)

62.9 (577937) 919336

Total .007 (10447)

10.5 (168049)

14.6 (234730)

10.1 (162546)

63.1 (1010973) 1602500

Source: Office of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, June 2011, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

224 The Magic Key

in 2013, but only 13 percent enroll in AP courses (Solórzano and Ornelas 2004). Thus, Chicano/Latino students are approximately 6 times less likely than their White peers to be enrolled in an AP mathematics or science course, and 4.3 times less likely to be enrolled in other AP subject courses. Interesting patterns can be observed in table 10.2. Chicana/Latina females are more likely to take AP courses than Chicano/Latino males and are twice as likely as their male counterparts to take AP foreign language courses.

Tremendous variation also exists in the number and content of AP courses offered in high schools. For example, Solórzano and Ornelas (2004) found that Mexican American students had far less access to AP and honors classes than White students, even when courses were offered in their Los Angeles high schools (e.g., Mexican Americans constituted 78 percent of school enrollment but only 13 percent of AP class enrollment). Low transition rates to college enrollment are due in large part to these students’ poor preparation associated with persistent inequitable oppor- tunities (Gándara and Contreras 2009; see chapter 3).

Accountability Frameworks and Their Role in Inhibiting Opportunities to Learn

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is part of a high- stakes accountability sys- tem that focuses on student assessment and outcomes, using standardized measures. This approach to education, with an emphasis on testing, places the onus of achievement on the student and has adversely impacted Mexi- can American students throughout the K– 12 system. Under this account- ability framework, there is very little consideration for the educational context or resources, and how these impact students as they navigate their schooling experience. This accountability framework, which began under the Bush administration in 2000, has extended into the Obama adminis- tration, with an ongoing high- stakes orientation toward accountability and outcomes. This framework fails to take into account the role of in- equity in school systems, especially regarding adequate funding of re- sources that are positively associated with academic performance, as one observes in upper- middle- class communities.

The more recent implementation of the Common Core Standards for curricula, like accountability policies that came before, does very little to address persistent inequities present for Mexican American and other underrepresented youth in the United States. As I observed in prior work on this subject:

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 225

The underlying assumptions of the present accountability framework are that attaching consequences to education reform will raise student achievement. The approach does not solve the education and opportunity gap that exists for Latino students. (Contreras 2011, 58)

As a result of NCLB, states continue to rely on statewide assess- ment mechanisms, as well as exit exams, as a requirement for high school graduation. Several key cases have been filed on behalf of students to chal- lenge the required use of tests in schools. In Florida, for example, the case of Debra P. v. Turlington (1984) involved African American students who challenged the high school graduation test requirement for a diploma. The plaintiff argued that the exam was being administered without notice to students and then used as a mechanism to segregate African American students into remedial courses in high school. The key rulings from this case, in favor of the students, included: (1) the court required schools to provide adequate notice regarding the test administration schedule; and (2) the court ruled that students must be exposed to a curriculum that re- flects the content of the exam.

The state of Texas has also been a battleground for challenging a high- stakes accountability framework. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a class action suit against the state, in American GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency (2000), challeng- ing the TAAS (Texas Academic Assessment System) graduation require- ment. The plaintiff ’s central argument was one of disparate impact—the testing requirement had a racially discriminatory impact on Latino and African American students because they had unequal access to resources in schools. While the court acknowledged that the TAAS exam had a dis- parate impact on Latino and African American students, as evidenced by their low passing rates when compared to their White peers, the court believed the TAAS exam was not intended to negatively affect Latino and African American students (Moran 2000; Valencia 2000). This ruling raises important questions on the disparate impact exams have on Mexican American students and whether using tests as a requirement for gradua- tion is equitable. In Texas, this has led to the increased use of end-of- course requirements and an alternate pathway to high school graduation. Over the last decade, in twenty- eight states that have used exit exams as a requirement for graduation, they have not been shown to minimize the achievement gap or raise the high school graduation rate (Moran 2000). Such assessments are misaligned with the original intent of the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, now known as No

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

226 The Magic Key

Child Left Behind), which emphasizes equal access to educational ser- vices. The original Elementary and Secondary Education Act did not in- clude a strong emphasis on “rigorous assessment,” as seen in the case of NCLB. Rigorous assessment has translated into “punitive” assessment, where the onus of achievement disparities is placed on the student. Exit exams are the prime example of the punitive approach to assessment that NCLB promotes.

Policy reforms over the past fifty years represent a complex backdrop for understanding the educational plight of Mexican American students. NCLB, for example, has called for accountability and led to a prolifera- tion of exams for students without an infrastructure in place to ensure that all students are taught and can meet grade- level benchmarks. This reform resulted in over fourteen years of heightened accountability without tar- geting or altering sources of inequity (e.g., teacher quality, resource allo- cation, school quality) for Mexican American students.

The current educational reform effort, the Common Core Standards Initiative, represents a national effort for encouraging U.S. states and ter- ritories to adopt and focus on critical thinking skills and cognitive de- velopment across a uniform set of goals. While the potential impact of a Common Core Standards system is unknown, the intent of this reform still fits under the umbrella of the NCLB policy framework that places the onus of achievement on the student. If persistent inequities are not addressed in the accountability frameworks designed to raise student aca- demic achievement, reforms are not likely to show measurable success because infrastructure will continue to be limited in addressing the edu- cational needs of Mexican American students. Policy initiatives have his- torically and continually approached education reform narrowly rather than holistically, in a way that addresses the needs of every child for the purpose of success in school.

Federal and State Intervention Programs

Federal and state intervention programs historically and currently play a critical role in providing college information, promoting college readi- ness, and facilitating access to vital academic resources for Mexican American students (Contreras, Flores- Ragade, Lee, and McGuire 2011; Gándara and Bial 2001; Gándara and Contreras 2009). These programs have served to complement the resources not fully present or adequate

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 227

in formal schooling experiences for Mexican American and underrep- resented students. Federal programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, Talent Search, and Upward Bound2 have served as vital resources for underrep- resented youth from first- generation, low- income backgrounds who are more likely to attend low- resource schools.

State intervention programs, such as the PUENTE Project, provide students with access to role models and ongoing support as they transi- tion from middle school to high school, and then to college. Such sys- temic approaches across key segments of the educational continuum are not present for Mexican American students in the formal K– 12 system. Although making a considerable difference in high school graduation rates and the transition to college, the need for programs such as PUENTE or MESA3 is far greater than their ability to meet it.

Federal programs are often the primary source of college information and preparation for Mexican American students. While these interven- tion programs have provided decades of academic support and motiva- tion for Mexican American and other underrepresented students, these programs struggle with federal and state funding. And while these efforts were not intended to replace education services in public education sys- tems, they provide a critical function when underserved students do not receive proper services in schools. The struggle for funding is manifest in table 10.3, which illustrates federal allocations for the TRIO programs over the past decade.

The TRIO program funding levels convey a trend of declining support since 2004 that shows diminishing priority for such programs. From 2004 to 2012, data show a steep decrease in funding allocation for training, in number of awards, and in number of participants. In effect, from their in- ception to the present, TRIO programs have been severely cut. Between FY 2005 and FYI 2012, TRIO programs lost more than $70 million in funding and, as a result, serve fewer students. Beginning in the 2013–2014 program year, individual grant awards will be reduced by 5.2 percent.

These reductions in public funding for federal programs are particu- larly devastating for already underrepresented and underserved youth (Contreras et al. 2011). Effective TRIO programs that show successful educational outcomes, and undergo regular internal and external evalua- tions (Olsen et al. 2008), have been able to raise parent awareness and ad- vocacy in schools, while providing an inspirational and supportive envi- ronment in which students achieve academic success and thrive.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

228 The Magic Key

The Role of Parents in Intervention Programs and Higher Education

Intervention programs that target parents and families have also been one of the primary entry points for Mexican American parents to engage with their children in higher education (Gándara and Bial 2001; Gán- dara and Contreras 2009). Local pathway projects (e.g., Long Beach’s Seamless Pathway Project) represent the potential for engaging parents earlier in the college planning efforts of their children. Select K– 12 pro- grams such as PUENTE, Upward Bound (TRIO programs), and com- munity partnerships extend into higher education and have distinct parent components and efforts. Parent intervention programs such as PIQE (the Parent Institute for Quality Education) work to empower parents to be advocates for their children by sponsoring parent training institutes and ongoing education programs for Latino and multilingual parents. PIQE also encourages parents to acquire English language skills and seek de- gree options so they have greater work opportunities. PIQE is now an international model for engaging parents. Formal evaluations of this pro- gram have found that it impacts parental support, student academic en- gagement, completion of A– G courses (refers to the high school courses required for entrance into college) at higher rates for California college admissions, high school graduation, and the rate of students transition- ing to college (Chrispeels, Bolívar, and Vaca 2008; Chrispeels, Gonzalez, and Arellano 2004).

Table 10.3. Funding Levels for Federal TRIO Programs, 2002–2012

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Funding allocation for training $6,762,255 $7,500,188 $5,299,275 $5,299,275 $3,331,222 $3,331,222 $4,274,802 $4,274,802 $3,641,500 $3,528,612 $1,399,998 Number of awards 29 29 13 13 8 8 10 10 10 10 6 Number of participants 4,164 4,416 3,688 3,688 2,600 2,600 3,125 3,125 2,500 2,500 1,161 Average award $233,181 $258,627 $407,637 $407,637 $416,403 $416,403 $427,480 $427,480 $364,150 $352,861 $233,333 Average number of participants 149 158 284 284 325 325 313 313 250 250 194 Average cost per participant $1,555 $1,632 $1,437 $1,437 $1,281 $1,281 $1,368 $1,368 $1,457 $1,411 $1,206

Source: U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education. Notes: (1) The FY 2002 funding includes $287,573 for a grant for the National TRIO Clearinghouse. Since this project does not provide training to TRIO project staff, the average number of participants per project and the cost per participant exclude this grant award. (2) The FY 2003 funding includes $293,324 for a grant for the National TRIO Clearinghouse. Since this project does not provide training to TRIO project staff, the average number of participants per project and the cost per participant exclude this grant award.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 229

While intervention programs may represent viable ways to increase parent participation and partnerships with colleges, the reality remains that most low- income Mexican American students do not have access to these intervention programs. The challenge, therefore, is to make relevant programmatic features (such as academic supports, ongoing parent in- volvement, and education engagement activities) part of the institutional infrastructure (Dance 2009). Yet, as of now, there is no policy agenda to better incorporate parents into the postsecondary landscape.

The Rising Cost of College

The rising cost of attending college has many students choosing to attend two- year institutions as their primary entry point into higher education. Over the past decade, tuition has increased well over 25 percent in public four- year colleges (College Board 2012). In addition, most of the increases in college costs have occurred in states with the largest concentration of Mexican American and Latino students, such as California and Texas. “In fall 2010, 13% of all FTE enrollments in degree- granting public in- stitutions were in California colleges and universities. California, Texas, Florida, and New York enrolled one- third of all FTE students attending public institutions in the United States” (College Board 2012). Over 58 percent of Latino students begin postsecondary education in community

Table 10.3. Funding Levels for Federal TRIO Programs, 2002–2012

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

230 The Magic Key

colleges, largely because of the high cost of attending a four- year institu- tion (Contreras 2011). In 2012–2013, the lowest published tuition and fees for public two- year colleges were in California, where students pay an average of $1,418 annually to attend a community college (College Board 2012). This presents challenges for college completion, as many Latino students who begin postsecondary education in the community college sector do not transfer to four- year institutions, nor do they earn their bachelor’s degree. A huge drop- off in college enrollment thus occurs, in part due to financial reasons and the decision to attend the lowest- cost postsecondary option. Figure 10.4 shows inflation- adjusted tuition and fees for the years 1982–2013 for public two- and four- year colleges and universities and private nonprofit four- year higher education institutions. The steep upward curve shows that four- year public institutions experi- enced the greatest tuition increases over the time period.

The rising cost of tuition at public four- year colleges and universities is

Figure 10.4. Inflation- Adjusted Published Tuition and Fees Relative to 1982–83, 1982–83 to 2012–13 (1982–83 = 100) Source: College Board (2012).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 231

cause for concern, as students are bearing the burden of the current eco- nomic recession. Rising tuition levels are happening at a time when state budgets are shrinking, and states have responded by diminishing their in- vestment in higher education (see figure 10.5 for the annual percentage change in state appropriations). Many states have seen a significant decline in annual state appropriations for higher education institutions. Such de- clines in public support for higher education ultimately affect tuition and college costs, and influence student perceptions of access to higher edu- cation. Student perceptions of cost and affordability play a direct role in their willingness to enroll in public higher education, and particularly the higher- cost option of a four- year institution (Perna 2006). In order for greater numbers of Mexican American students to enroll in and graduate from college, cost controls must be an integral part of the policy agenda. Affordability is the single greatest concern among Mexican American par- ents when thinking about their child’s enrollment in college (Contreras 2011; Zarate and Fabienke 2007). Although the public two- year sector has lower tuition rates overall, the trend for community college expense is also steadily on the rise, illustrating the overall increasing cost of attending public institutions of higher education in the United States.

Figure 10.5. Annual Percentage Change in State Appropriations for Higher Education per Full- Time Equivalent (FTE) Student and Percentage Change in Inflation- Adjusted Tuition and Fees at Public Four- Year Institutions, 1981–82 to 2011–12 Source: College Board (2012).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

232 The Magic Key

The Role of Parents in College Financing

Nationally, parents play a significant role in college financing, although parents’ ability to pay for tuition has diminished (Steelman and Powell 1991; Cunningham and Santiago 2008; Perna and Li 2006; Payea, Baum, and Kurose 2013). Since many Mexican American and other low- income Latino parents are less educated, have lower- paying jobs, and have less disposable income, they are also less likely to have additional resources to finance higher education for their children (Zarate and Pachon 2006). Further, due to a limited amount of disposable income, larger family sizes, and greater levels of economic instability, Mexican American parents are not likely to initiate college savings accounts or participate in payment plans. The recent economic decline, a result of the national housing crisis, has left the Mexican American community with significant declines in household wealth (Taylor, Kochhar, Fry, Velasco, and Motel 2011). High rates of poverty (28 percent) compared to the U.S. population (16 per- cent), and lower median annual personal earnings of $20,000, compared to $29,000 for the U.S. population, leave Mexican American families with limited monetary resources. Yet, despite these limitations, many Mexican American parents help their children at the postsecondary level by allow- ing them to continue to live at home while attending college—this is par- ticularly true for those students who are single parents (Fry 2004). Finan- cial support is an important resource in attending and completing college, along with parent support for student college choice. Further, parents play a key role in supporting students once enrolled in college.

Moving from Affirmative Action to Equitable Access and Outcomes

Affirmative action policy was enacted to ensure equal access to opportu- nity structures (public sectors, institutions, agencies) for communities that had been historically underserved and underrepresented. Executive Order 10925, signed by President Kennedy in 1961, was this nation’s first attempt to rectify the impact of discrimination against historically dis- advantaged minority groups (e.g., Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Black/African Americans, and Native Americans/American Indians) by U.S. institutions and agencies. Affirmative action is often instituted in employment, housing, and educational contexts to counter or prevent dis- criminatory practice, promote fair and equal access to opportunity, and increase diversity and inclusion.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 233

The landmark Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke (1978) was significant in that it preserved the right to claim race as one of several factors to be considered in the college admission process. In the decision, the court ruled the use of a quota system (i.e., a certain number of spots reserved for minorities) unconstitutional, but recognized diver- sity as a compelling government interest. It permitted the use of race- based considerations in the admission process, so long as race was consid- ered amongst a variety of factors that promoted diversity (i.e., a holistic view). However, the 1990s began two decades of ongoing struggle, as liti- gation and state policy initiatives attacked the use of affirmative action policy. Such initiatives have led to repeated examination of this issue by the Supreme Court in the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013) cases.

Figure 10.1 outlines the expansive timeline of anti– affirmative action policies over the past two decades and conveys the overall need for recon- ceptualizing affirmative action as a means of raising the pool of histori- cally underrepresented groups in public institutions. Two misunderstand- ings related to affirmative action policies are: that inequities do not exist in schools and major public sectors of American society, and that current admissions policies and practices address diversity adequately. One of the more significant examples of this is the valuing of academic merit, which places increased importance on academic achievement, standardized test scores, and grades in advanced course work. The social construction of academic merit is rooted in privilege and fails to acknowledge the fact that first- generation, low- income students, of whom a majority are Mexi- can American, are less likely to have the course offerings that could earn them a GPA exceeding a 4.0 (which can occur with taking AP classes) (Contreras 2005, 2011; R. Parrish 2006). A holistic review of student ad- missions applications has been enacted in states like California and Texas, which have large Mexican American concentrations; however, such insti- tutional efforts fall short of achieving equitable access to selective insti- tutions. Now, institutional segregation at the higher education level has reemerged, which scholars have predicted will have a “cascading effect” (Gándara 2000; Loury et al. 2003), where less- competitive institutions admit and enroll students from historically underrepresented groups (see chapter 3).

Even though affirmative action is repeatedly challenged in the courts, this policy alone has not resulted in optimal levels of diversity in higher education; instead, there is far less than parity between underrepre- sented groups and the general population (Santos, Cabrera, and Fosnacht

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

234 The Magic Key

2010). Levels of diversity have remained a challenge even under affirma- tive action. Minority student representation has been far lower in higher education institutions than, for example, the levels of representation that Mexican Americans and Latinos have at the K– 12 level. There simply is no substitute, in affirming our commitments to the inclusion of Mexican Americans, for including racial/ethnic, generational, and income- status considerations in admission decisions (Orfield and Miller 1998; Campbell and Kane 1998; Contreras 2005).

In June 2013, in Fisher v. University of Texas, affirmative action was once again center stage. The Supreme Court, in a 7- 1 ruling, negated the lower appellate court decision in favor of the University, noting that the Uni- versity did not apply strict scrutiny in admissions practices. The court did not, however, take on the legality of using race as a factor in admissions decisions, thereby leaving the Grutter ruling intact. But this ruling re- mains a challenge for universities seeking to diversify their student body, as it places the onus on the institution to narrowly tailor any use of race in admissions.

Recommendations

Targeted supports for Mexican American students throughout the edu- cational pathways are critical for increasing the overall success of stu- dents and ensuring economic mobility. Political bodies such as Obama’s President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for His- panics have the potential to influence policy by implementing tangible recommendations to alter the level of investment in low- income Mexican American students in the United States. Yet, although similar special com- missions have been in existence for over fifty years, we still see minimal changes in resource investments and education service delivery for Mexi- can American students. Greater equity in opportunity indicators for K– 12 students (Oakes, Mendoza, and Silver 2004) is a step forward in measur- ing progress toward equitable educational access in schools that will ulti- mately prepare students to transition to higher education.

As approaches to achieving greater Mexican American student equity, I extend my prior recommendations to include:

1. Address the unequal resources that exist across schools and districts. Educa- tion is a civil and human right for our nation’s youth. Since Mexican American youth are the largest demographic in this age group, inequi-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 235

ties (as defined by student characteristics such as low- income, first- generation, parents with less than high school education) in schools that serve them must be addressed to raise achievement, persistence, and high school graduation rates, and enhance preparation for col- lege. Since some of the biggest resource inequalities center on teach- ers (teacher quality, their expectations of students, cultural/ethnic and economic awareness), increasing teacher training across districts serving high concentrations of Mexican American students is one tan- gible way to address this issue in schools.

2. Eliminate the use of punitive approaches to testing. Punitive approaches to assessment inappropriately place the onus of achievement on the student, and fail to acknowledge systemic inequities that persist in schools serving large concentrations of Mexican American students. In the twenty- eight states that have implemented exit exams since the inception of NCLB, student achievement has not risen. Rather, state exams are merely altered if passing rates are far too low. The notion that one exam can seal the fate of a high school student, by determin- ing whether or not he or she receives a diploma, continues to be in- effective public policy (Reardon, Atteberry, Arshan, and Kurlaender 2009; Contreras 2010).

3. Support intervention programs as a complement to K– 12 systems. Inter- vention programs at the federal and state levels provide a critical re- source in mentorship, academic support, cultural empowerment, and motivation to transition to college. These programs have played an important role in compensating for resources not present in public school districts that serve high concentrations of Mexican American students (Contreras et al. 2011)—resources that are present in districts where parents have higher education and income levels (e.g., state- of- the- art technology, books, highly paid and qualified teachers) (Reyes and Rodriguez 2004; Gándara and Contreras 2009). At a time when federal and state governments should be enhancing their level of in- vestment in such efforts, there is a move away from supporting them. Ongoing support for intervention programs will cost far less than having to invest in these youth later into adulthood, particularly if they fail to graduate from college.

4. Institute cost controls for public four- year colleges. Controls on tuition increases are necessary to ensure that all young adults have access to public institutions and graduate with their degree. A college degree provides students with longer- term employment options, decreases unemployment rates, provides economic buffers to weather economic

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

236 The Magic Key

downturns, and increases public revenues through tax receipts. State priorities have shifted away from investing in higher education, de- spite the fact that resources invested now are a direct investment in the future of states and their workforces. Limited state financing for higher education jeopardizes the ability of states to sustain their economies with domestic workers. Further, expanding finance options beyond loans (the primary option offered to college students) to in- clude such options as work- study, state financial aid programs for low- income students, and merit scholarships would open the doors to higher education for Mexican American students, who are more likely to be debt averse compared to their college- going peers (Cunningham and Santiago 2008).

5. Restore affirmative action policies for achieving greater postsecondary access and equity. Historically, affirmative action was a step toward open- ing public institutions to earlier generations of historically under- represented and underserved students, allowing them greater access to postsecondary institutions through the admissions process. While diversity was not the sole variable in admissions, the fact that institu- tions could emphasize and act upon the severe underrepresentation of historically underrepresented groups “affirmatively” resulted in a modest increase of representation and targeted programmatic efforts that countered discrimination.

The Need for a Policy Agenda for Mexican American Students

Creating a policy agenda for Mexican American students is critical to raising the overall status of a community that continues to be largely ex- cluded from equitable access to public education services in the United States (Menchaca 1995). The future of Mexican American and under- served low- income Latino students is closely intertwined with the fate of the nation, as demographic trends show that the majority of students in public schools in California and the southwestern states are Mexican American, and Mexican Americans are the fastest- growing Hispanic sub- group population throughout the country. The services that the pub- lic enjoys will rest upon the shoulders of a population that may not be prepared to support the social and service infrastructure if the current pathway of educational achievement and attainment is not altered (Gán- dara and Contreras 2009; Contreras 2011). An equity agenda for Mexi- can American students is an investment in the short and long term, and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Role of Educational Policy 237

a proactive approach to ensuring that the United States remains viable economically. We simply cannot afford to lose the current or next gen- eration of students to populate only low- wage or low- skilled jobs, because our nation’s ability to sustain itself rests upon the shoulders of the current generation of Mexican American students.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed