Predictive Factors, p. 1
Running Head: PREDICTIVE FACTORS IN POST-SECONDARY
Predictive Factors in Post-Secondary Educational Attainment among Latinos
Daniel T. Sciarra
Melissa L. Whitson
Hofstra University
Teachers College, Columbia University
Daniel T. Sciarra
160 Hagedorn Hall
Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY 11549
516-463-5759
516-463-6184 (Fax)
cprdts@hofstra.edu
Melissa L. Whitson
Teachers College, Columbia University
Counseling Psychology Program
525 W. 120th St., Box 64
New York, NY 10027
646-765-3745
mlw2001@columbia.edu
Predictive Factors, p. 2
Abstract
The present study investigated factors that distinguish the increasing number of Latino
students who continue their education beyond high school from the small and stable
number who complete a Baccalaureate degree. The sample included a cohort of 866
Latino men and women who participated in the National Educational Longitudinal Study
(NELS) (1988-2000) and had varying amounts of post-secondary education (PSE) by the
year 2000. The study employed educational, psychological, and familial predictor
variables from 1990 when participants were sophomores in high school. Data were
analyzed using a multinomial logistic regression and results indicated that several factors
were significant in distinguishing those with some PSE no degree and Bachelor
completers. Parent support and locus of control were the two most significantpredictors..
Implications for school counselors are discussed.
Predictive Factors, p. 3
Predictive Factors in Post-Secondary Educational Attainment Among Latinos
In July of 2002, the Census Bureau announced that Latinos had become the
nation’s largest non-dominant group with a population of 38.8 million, surpassing the
African American population now numbered at 38.3 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2002a). With a high birthrate, their numbers are expected to continue to grow rapidly.
Latinos are over-represented among the poor with about a third of families living below
the poverty line. They are a relatively young group with 35% under the age of 18
compared to less than 25% of non Latino Whites. Because of their low-income status
and the high school-aged population, the education of Latinos has become a major
concern in this country (Llagas & Snyder, 2003). This concern was manifested most
notably in the creation on October 12, 2001 of the President’s Advisory Commission on
Educational Excellence for Latino Americans.
Educational Attainment among Latino Americans
Educational attainment data for Latinos beyond high school reveal two very
different scenarios. Large numbers of Latinos are enrolled in postsecondary education;
yet the majority are either older than the 18- to 24-year old cohort, enrolled in community
colleges, or attending part time (Fry, 2002). There is a substantial enrollment gap
between Latinos and all other groups among 18- 24-year olds—the traditional age group
for college attendance and the cohort that reaps the greatest economic benefit from a
college degree. Only 35% of Latino high school graduates in that age group are enrolled
in college compared to 46% of Whites. Latinos are far more likely to be enrolled in twoyear colleges than any other group. About 40% of Latino 18- 24year old college students
attend two-year institutions compared to about 25% of White and Black student’s in that
Predictive Factors, p. 4
age group. Latinos are more likely to be part-time students. Nearly 85% of White 18- to
24-year old college students are enrolled full-time compared to 75% of Latino students in
that age group (Fry, 2002). Similar to high school graduation, college enrollment is more
likely among U.S. born Latinos, especially the second generation, yet their attainment of
a baccalaureate degree still ranks far below that of Whites. Of every 100 Latino
kindergartners, 11 will obtain at least bachelor’s degree compared to 33 for every 100
White kindergartners (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002b).
Factors in Latino Educational Attainment
Explanations of Latino educational achievement and attainment have focused on
familial, societal, educational, and psychological factors. The level of family involvement
has been shown to be a significant factor in the high school achievement of Latino
students (Bamaca-Gomez & Plunkett, 2003; Diaz, Quezada, & Sanchez, 2003). Latino
parents have consistently emphasized the importance of education in the lives of their
children and cite education as an important reason for immigration to the United States
(Behnke, Diversi, & Peircy, 2004). While a number of studies have examined parental
influence and high school completion among Latinos, few studies have examined such
influence on post-secondary educational attainment.
Latino academic underachievement has also been linked to social influences and
lack of community support. Certain negative stereotypes and biases can play a role in
lowering academic expectations for Latinos (Aviles, Guerrero, Howarth, & Thomas,
1999; McWhirter, 2004). The absence of positive role models within the community has
also been linked to higher school drop out rates (Aviles et al, 1999). Too few positive
role models prevent Latino students from obtaining the necessary motivation and
Predictive Factors, p. 5
information on how, for example, to apply to college (Immerwahr, 2003). High
delinquency rates in poor Latino neighborhoods also make it difficult for students and
their families to rely on resources within their neighborhoods to further their education
(Pabon, 1998). While SES is presumed to be a significant factor in distinguishing those
who attend four-year colleges, few studies have examined this variable in conjunction
with others to differentiate the levels of post-secondary educational attainment among
Latinos.
Regarding educational factors, previous research has examined the high school
curriculum effects upon post-secondary educational attainment. When Latino students
follow a rigorous math curriculum and enroll in college prep courses, their reading and
math scores improve to the degree that the achievement gap is significantly narrowed
(Adelman, 1999; National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994; Trusty & Niles, 2003).
This improvement is unrelated to previous educational background. In other words,
when students are held to higher standards, their scores improve in spite of not
necessarily having prior preparation to meet those standards. Gamoran and Hannigan
(2000) found that all students who take algebra score higher, yet Latinos are often
excluded from such courses.
In general, Latino high school students are less likely to be enrolled in a college
preparatory track, only 47% compared to 54% of Whites (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2004; Gonzalez, 2002). Latino students are overrepresented in
special education and very underrepresented in Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Of
the students in 2000 who took AP exams, only 9% were Latino (Presidents Advisory
Commission, 2003). Besides following a less rigorous curriculum, the second major
Predictive Factors, p. 6
variable contributing to low achievement among Latinos is quality of instruction.
Underqualified teachers (i.e. teachers who lack a major or minor in the field they are
teaching) more often teach classes in high poverty schools (Ingersoll, 2003). In schools
with a high (i.e. top quartile) population of non-White students, 41% of math courses are
taught by teachers lacking a major in the field compared to 21% of math courses in
schools with a low (i.e. bottom quartile) population of non-White students (Ingersoll,
2003).
These data about curricula and quality of instruction raise questions about a
school’s support for Latino students going to college. Because many Latino students are
unaware and uniformed about the processes involved in pursuing a college education, it is
easy for school personnel to assume that such students are not interested and do not want
to go to college (Martinez, 2003). Counselors may assume they need not meet to talk
with these students about college planning nor encourage enrollment in more collegeprep courses and reserve their time only for students who are very decided about going to
college (Falbo & Romo, 1996; Gonzalez & Ortiz, 2000). Like parental influence, few
studies, to date, have examined the influence of school personnel (e.g. teachers,
counselors, etc) upon Latino students and their post-secondary education status.
Finally, in regards to psychological variables, the cultural characteristic of
fatalismo (being resigned to one’s fate) has been thought to play a significant role in
preventing Latinos from overcoming obstacles to development (Sue & Sue, 2003) and
from establishing a more internal locus of control. Fighting for educational opportunity
and advancement may require a more internal locus of control. Thus, it would seem
important to consider psychological variables such as locus of control and self-efficacy
Predictive Factors, p. 7
when investigating post-secondary education among Latinos. In addition, the construct
of self-esteem has been considered to play an important role in school bonding and
educational advancement especially among ethnic/racial minorities (Way & Robinson,
2003; Erkrut & Tracy, 2002). Whether these psychological variables are significant
predictors for post-secondary educational attainment among Latinos has yet to be
investigated.
Purpose of this Study
Given the increasing number of Latino students who go on to post-secondary
education (PSE) but who fail to achieve a baccalaureate degree, it is vitally important,
especially in the absence of previous research, to study factors that distinguish levels of
PSE among Latinos. Toward this purpose, the present study employed a PSE outcome
variable with four categories of students: some PSE no degree, certificate or license,
Associate’s degree, and Bachelor’s degree or higher by the year 2000. For investigating
factors in PSE status, this study utilized a combination of family, societal, educational,
and psychological variables derived from previous literature on Latino educational
attainment.
This study sought to answer the following question: what are the significant
factors that distinguish the ever-increasing number of Latino students who go to postsecondary education and do not complete a degree from the much smaller percentage
who complete a bachelor’s degree?
Method
Predictive Factors, p. 8
Our data came from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS): 19882000. NELS began with eighth graders in 1988 and collected subsequently four waves of
data in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 2000. For the independent variables, data came from the
1990 wave of the NELS when students were in their sophomore year of high school.
This decision was based on the critical nature of sophomore year in the determination of
future educational achievement since those doing poorly in sophomore year are at greater
risk for dropping out at the end of that year (Clarke, Haney, & Madaus, 2000; Egemba &
Crawford, 2003). Chronologically, sophomore year is also crucial for making decisions
about courses in view of post-secondary educational plans as students are given more
opportunities and choices to plan their curriculum (Savickas, 1999). For the dependent
variable (PSE status), this study utilized the fourth wave 2000 data, 12 years after the
base year data and eight years after the students were scheduled to graduate from high
school.
Participants
Participants were 866 Latino young people who by the year 2000 had attended a
post-secondary institution and were part of the 1988-2000 National Education
Longitudinal Study (NELS). Data came from two waves of the study: 1990 when
participants were sophomores in high school and 2000, eight years after scheduled
graduation from high school. Data were weighted accordingly (see Curtin, Ingels, Wu, &
Heuer, 2002). Of the participants, 51% had some PSE with no degree, 11% had a
certificate or license, 12% had an Associate’s degree, and 26% had a bachelor’s degree or
higher. Males comprised 45% of the sample; females 55%. Sixty-three percent
Predictive Factors, p. 9
identified themselves as Mexican or Chicano, 5% as Cuban, 9% as Puerto Rican, and
23% as other Hispanic. The majority were born in the United States (87%).
Variables
Background variables. Background variables included gender, SES, language
minority status, and cognitive ability (reading and math). SES is a composite variable
derived from father’s education level, mother’s education level, father’s occupation,
mother’s occupation, and family income. Language minority status is defined as coming
from a home in which a language other than English (in this case, Spanish) is typically
spoken. In the sample for this study, 58% of students were classified as language
minority. The National Center for Educational Statistics measured cognitive ability
through the use of reading and math standardized tests with item response theory (IRT)
scores. IRT scores use a pattern of right, wrong, and omitted responses to account for the
difficulty, discriminating ability, and guess-ability of each item (Ingels et al., 1994). This
study made use of reading and math scores obtained in the sophomore year.
Parent support. The parent support variable was derived from a mean of 11
Likert-scaled items that included: how often parent(s) checked homework, helped with
homework, attended school meetings, called teachers or counselors, and attended a
school event along with how often the student discussed with parent(s) school courses,
school activities, grades, things studied in class, preparation for ACT/SAT, and going to
college. Higher scores indicate a higher degree of parental support. Cronbach’s alpha for
the parent support composite variable was .81.
Teacher support. The teacher support variable was derived from a mean of six
Likert-scaled items according to whether the student agreed or disagreed to the following
Predictive Factors, p. 10
statements: teachers are interested in students, teachers praise effort when the student
works hard, most teachers listen to the student, students in school get along well with
teachers, in general the teaching is good, and student feels put down by teachers (this last
item was reverse scored). Higher scores indicate a higher degree of teacher support.
Cronbach’s alpha for the teacher support composite variable was .73.
Psychological variables. The two psychological variables included in the model
were locus of control and self-esteem, both derived from a mean of Likert-scaled items.
For locus of control, students were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement to the
following items: does not have enough control over life; good luck is more important
than hard work; when getting ahead someone/thing stops student; feels plans hardly ever
work out; when makes plans, student is certain they will work; chance, luck is very
important is student’s life. Higher scores indicate a higher sense of control over one’s
future. Cronbach’s alpha for the composite locus of control variable was .72.
For self-esteem, students were asked to rate their agreement/disagreement to the
following items: feels good about him/herself; is a person of worth; is able to do things as
well as others; on the whole, is satisfied with self; feels useless at times; at times, thinks
he/she is no good at all; does not have much to be proud of. Higher scores indicate a
higher degree of positive self-esteem. Cronbach’s alpha for the self-esteem composite
variable was .82.
Data Analysis
The dependent variable in this analysis was post-secondary education (PSE)
status, which is a categorical variable with four levels: some PSE no degree, certificate or
license, Associate’s degree, and Bachelor’s degree or higher by the year 2000. In order
Predictive Factors, p. 11
to model the relationship between a categorical dependent variable with more than two
possible values and a set of independent or predictor variables, a multinomial logistic
regression was used (Norusis, 2004). Logistic regression models produce odds ratios for
the independent variables. These odds reflect the increase or decrease in the likelihood of
an outcome (e.g., PSE status) for every one-unit increase in the independent variables.
Since our dependent variable has four possible values, three nonredundant logits are
formed. For each group of the dependent variable, the log of the ratio of the probability
of being in that group is compared to being in the baseline group. For this analysis, the
first category (“Some PSE no degree”) was the baseline or reference group to which the
other 3 groups were compared based on the independent variables.
Results
The original multinomial logistic regression model had nine predictor variables
(gender, SES, language minority status, parent support, teacher support, locus of control,
self-esteem, reading ability, and math ability). Likelihood ratio tests indicated reading
ability [χ2 (3, 868) = 2.04, p = .56] and self-esteem [χ2 (3, 868) = 2.25, p = .52] were not
significant in the overall model and therefore were dropped form subsequent analyses.
The revised model included the seven remaining variables. Correlations for the variables
used in the principal analysis are reported in Table 1.
For the multinomial logistic regression examining the effects of the seven
predictor variables, the likelihood ratio test for the overall model revealed that the overall
model was significantly better than the intercept-only model [χ2 (21, 868) = 297.46, p <
Predictive Factors, p. 12
.01]. In other words, the null hypothesis (that the regression coefficients of the
independent variables are zero) was rejected. In addition, the likelihood ratio test for
individual effects reveals that all of the independent variables are significantly related to
the categories of the dependent variable [SES: χ2 (3) = 38.75, p < .001; Parent support: χ2
(3) = 18.46, p < .001; Teacher support: χ2 (3) = 9.83, p < .05; Math ability: χ2 (3) = 44, p
< .001; Locus of control: χ2 (3) = 51.86, p < .001; Gender: χ2 (3) = 38.82, p < .001;
Language minority status: χ2 (3) = 12.65, p < .01].
Table 2 reports the parameter estimates from the logistic regression model
examining the effects of the independent variables on PSE status. Estimates of the
predictor variables are provided for the three different levels compared to Some PSE no
degree: 1) Certificate or license, 2) Associate’s degree, and 3) Bachelor’s degree or
higher. According to these results, the parameter estimates for gender (β = 1.12, p <
.001) and locus of control (β = .66, p < .05) are significantly different from zero for the
first logit (Certificate or licensure compared to Some PSE no degree). In other words,
gender and locus of control are significantly and positively related to this distinction .
For gender, men were coded the value 1 and women were coded the value 2. Therefore,
because the logistic regression coefficient is positive, women were more likely to
complete a certificate or licensure than men. Likewise, students who reported a more
internal locus of control were more likely to complete a certificate or licensure than those
with an external locus of control.
Table 2 also reports that as the “Some PSE no degree group” is compared to
higher and higher levels of educational attainment, more predictor variables appeared to
come into play and be significantly related to whether or not these students pursued post-
Predictive Factors, p. 13
secondary education. For example, for the second logit (Associates degree compared to
Some PSE no degree), the parameter estimate for gender is not significantly related to the
separation of these groups as it was for the first logit (β = .19, ns). However, locus of
control (β = 1.31, p < .001) is significantly related, as is parent support (β = .71, p = .01)
and teacher support (β = -.89, p < .01). Therefore, the parameter estimates for parent
support and teacher support are not significantly different for the first logit but are for the
second logit. Importantly, the logistic regression coefficients for locus of control and
parent support are positive, indicating that students who reported a more internal locus of
control and higher levels of parent support in their sophomore year of high school were
more likely to complete an Associates degree compared to students in the Some PSE no
degree group. However, the logistic regression coefficient for teacher support was
negative, indicating that students who reported higher levels of teacher support were less
likely to complete an Associates degree.
Finally, the third logit compares students who completed a Bachelors degree or
higher to those who completed Some PSE no degree. In the third logit, even more
variables had a strong positive effect on whether students completed a bachelor’s degree
than for the previous two logits. Parent support (β = .90, p < .001) and locus of control (β
= 1.46, p < .001) continue to have strong effects on post-secondary education, as they
were significantly related to the separation between the bachelors degree group and the
Some PSE no degree group. In addition, SES (β = .71, p < .001), math ability (β = .06, p
< .001), gender (β = .99, p < .001), and language minority status (β = .53, p < .05) were
also significantly different from zero for this logit, indicating that they are also
significantly related to this separation.
Predictive Factors, p. 14
An interpretation of the odds ratio in the overall model reveals that students with a
more internal locus of control were three times more likely (a 332% increase) to complete
a bachelors degree compared to students with a more external locus of control (odds =
4.32), while controlling for all other variables in the model. SES (odds = 2.03) and
parent support (odds = 2.46) also had a strong positive effect on whether the students
completed a bachelor’s degree or not. With all other variables controlled, a one-unit
increase in each of these variables increased the odds of degree completion by 103% and
146% respectively. In addition, the positive regression coefficient for gender indicates
that women were over one and a half times more likely (a 168% increase) to complete a
bachelors degree than men (odds = 2.68). Students with higher math ability were 6 times
more likely than those with lower math ability (odds = 1.06) to complete a bachelor’s
degree, while controlling for all other variables in the model. Finally, students who were
considered a language minority (i.e., came from a home where Spanish was the
predominant language) were 70% more likely to complete a bachelor’s compared to
students who spoke English predominantly (odds = 1.70).
Regarding effect sizes, the Nagelkerke R2 (Norusis, 2004) in the overall model
was .32. Therefore, the independent variables included in the model explained 32% of
the variability in post-secondary educational attainment.
Discussion
The model significantly predicted Latino students’ post-secondary education
attainment. Moreover, as Latino students increased their PSE status, more factors from
Predictive Factors, p. 15
the proposed model came to play a significant role. Two of the predictor variables
(locus of control and gender) were significant in differentiating between students who
had a certificate or license and those who had some PSE but no degree. For the students
who received an associate’s degree, three variables (parent support, teacher support, and
locus of control) were significant predictors. Finally, six predictor variables (SES, parent
support, math ability, locus of control, gender, and language minority status)
differentiated between students who completed a bachelor’s degree or higher from those
who had some PSE but no degree.
The results from this study also revealed the relative strength of the predictor
variables, with locus of control as the strongest predictor for all three categories. In other
words, the students with a more internal locus of control were three times more likely to
get a bachelor’s degree or higher, 2.7 times more likely to get an associates degree, and
.92 times more likely to get a certificate or license. Gender was also a strong predictor
for certificate or licensure and bachelor’s degree or higher, with Latinas being more
likely to achieve a higher PSE status than their male counterparts. Parent support and
language minority status were also strong predictors for associate’s degrees and
bachelor’s degrees or higher. Those students who reported higher levels of parent
support were 1.03 times more likely to get an associate’s degree and almost one and a
half times more likely to get a bachelor’s degree or higher. Latino students who came
from homes where Spanish was typically spoken were almost one time (.70) more likely
than those who came from homes where English was typically spoken to complete a
bachelor’s degree or higher.
Predictive Factors, p. 16
Dropped from the original model were reading ability and self-esteem because
likelihood ratio tests indicated that these two factors did not play a significant role in
post-secondary educational status of Latino students. The result of the reading factor is
consistent with other studies that show math more than reading ability and achievement is
significant in succeeding academically in college, especially at the baccalaureate level
(Adelman, 1999; Trusty, 2002; Trusty & Niles, 2003). The results of the present study
show that math ability was a significant factor at the Bachelor’s degree or higher category
of PSE but not at the Certificate/License or Associate’s degree levels. For Latino high
school students who plan to graduate from a four-year college, their math ability and
achievement needs to be carefully considered.
School counselors can help these
students receive extra instruction, ideally from the more effective and experienced
teachers in the school, and encourage them to persevere in higher level math courses in
spite of challenges. Also dropped from the original model was the self-esteem factor.
This result may be somewhat surprising but should be considered in light of the
significance of another factor, locus of control. Locus of control was the most significant
factor at both the Associate’s and Bachelor’s (or higher) degree levels. The results of this
study show that, for Latino students, having a greater sense of control over their future is
more important for PSE attainment than how much they like themselves. This finding is
interesting from both a cultural and career development perspective. There is some
evidence to suggest that Latinos as a group have a more external locus of control
(typically referred to as “fatalismo”) when compared to the White Euro-centric
population (Sue & Sue, 2003). Educational attainment and the tasks involved (e.g.
studying) may favor a more internal locus of control that allows one to perceive higher
Predictive Factors, p. 17
education as a contributor to a greater sense of control over one's life. The acquisition of
a more internal locus of control by their sophomore year of high school appears, based on
the results of this study, to have a played a very significant role in enhancing Latino
students’ PSE status. While the two constructs of internal locus of control and selfefficacy are not to be equated, there is a relationship. Specifically, those who believe in
their ability and expect positive outcomes will also possess a greater sense of control over
their lives. In regards to the present study, this belief about oneself and one’s efforts (i.e.,
locus of control) was related to higher educational outcomes much more so than how
participants felt about themselves (i.e. self-esteem).
Another very significant factor in the overall model was that of parent support.
Parent support was a significant factor for the attainment of an Associate’s and
Bachelor’s or higher degree. It should be noted that the parent support variable did not
include financial support. Six of the eleven items used in the parent support composite
variable dealt with communication between participants and their parents in regards to
school-related matters; two dealt with homework (checking and helping); and three dealt
with parent involvement in the school. While some Latino parents might find it difficult
to deal with homework either because of language issues or poor educational background
and to become involved in school because of demanding and inflexible work schedules
(especially if they are from low a SES background), communication between parents and
children in regards to academic matters is always possible. The results of the present
study suggest that such communication as a part of overall parent support enhances
postsecondary educational attainment.
Predictive Factors, p. 18
SES status, often thought to be a significant factor in PSE attainment, was, in the
present study, significant only at the Bachelor’s or higher degree category. This finding
is not surprising since it costs a good deal of money to graduate from a four-year
institution. More surprising is that locus of control and parent support had a more
significant share of the variance than did SES. While no one can minimize the
importance of needing a good deal of financial support to attain a Bachelor’s degree, the
results of this study indicate that other variables may be just as, if not more important,
than the SES status of one’s family in distinguishing a Latino student with a Bachelor’s
degree from one with some PSE and no degree.
Teacher support was not a significant variable in the overall model except at the
Associate’s degree level, where it was a negative predictor. Statistically speaking, those
Latino students with more teacher support had less of a chance to complete an
Associate’s degree. One explanation for this finding perhaps has to do with the construct
itself. The items used from the NELS:88 database may not be valid items for
constructing a teacher support variable. Most of the items were relational in nature and
on the face level were not related to support for higher educational attainment. Another
explanation could be that Latino students at the Bachelor’s or higher level have
succeeded without teacher support, at least as understood or perceived in their sophomore
year of high school. Since Latino students are concentrated in low-income schools that
tend to have a greater share of less qualified teachers, it may be that Latino students who
achieve higher levels of PSE are doing so in the absence of teacher support in high
school. One study (Sciarra, 2004) found that Latino students garnered teacher support
only after the teachers discovered they were good students. Future research will need to
Predictive Factors, p. 19
examine further teacher support as a factor in Latino educational attainment after high
school.
Implications for School Counseling
According to the results of the present study, the two most significant variables
among Latino high school sophomores in differentiating those who had some PSE and no
degree from those who went on to receive a Bachelor’s or higher were parent support and
an internal locus of control. This finding suggests a strategic role for school counselors
who work with Latino students at the elementary, middle and high school levels. In
terms of parent support, the need for communication and information-sharing between
parents and their children is crucial. While some Latino parents may have difficulty
(perhaps because of language difficulties and loss of income from missing work)
establishing a physical presence in the school, counselors should not take this as sign of
disinterest. Rather, they should take every opportunity to meet with Latino parents
outside of the school setting (e.g., in neighborhood community rooms, local churches,
etc) to explain, via an interpreter if need be, the post-secondary preparation process, the
various possibilities that exist for their children, and encourage parents to talk with their
children about school in spite of perhaps not speaking English or having an impoverished
educational background. School counselors can encourage parents to check on
homework even if they do not fully understand all that’s being done.
We know from recent research that the quality and intensity of the high school
curriculum play an important role in determining the quality of post-secondary life
(Adelman, 1999; Education Trust, 2005). School counselors need to emphasize this to
Latino parents whose children may want to avoid the more challenging and demanding
Predictive Factors, p. 20
courses. Many Latino parents will not understand the consequences of certain curriculum
choices and may easily succumb to their children’s avoidance of failure. On the other
hand, negative stereotypes of Latino students may give way to subtle racism in the form
of not encouraging these students to pursue higher level courses. School counselors, by
working collaboratively with Latino parents in helping them understand and talk with
their children about the effects of course-taking variables upon post-secondary
achievement, will be operationalizing their roles as advocates and systemic change
agents—roles specified by the ASCA National Model.
In the same vein, school counselors must encourage their Latino students to
communicate with their parents about school. A Latino student might often resist saying:
“My parents don’t speak English”; “My parents grew up in another country and don’t
understand much about school here.” School counselors should not capitulate to such
resistance but help to process what can be a student’s frustration in communicating with
his/her parents especially if they are immigrants with little knowledge of how the school
system functions. Given the results of this study that indicate language minority students
were no less likely to achieve a Bachelor’s degree or higher, school counselors can
persevere in helping Latino students initiate conversations with their parents about
school.
While communication between adolescents and their parents can often be
difficult, school counselors can take advantage of the culturally characteristic closeness
and loyalty that exists in the Latino family to promote this communication. Leaving
home after high school to go to college, for example, may be more difficult emotionally
for Latino adolescents and their parents than for a White family. The local community
college may appear a more attractive alternative. Rather than dismiss their reluctance
Predictive Factors, p. 21
about leaving home, school counselors can facilitate a discussion about the pros and cons
of attending the local college.
In regards to locus of control, the implications for school counseling are
enormous. Counseling has had a long history of helping people move from an external to
an internal locus of control through various methods of empowerment. For example, a
collaborative approach where counselor and client work together in generating strategies
to achieve particular goals avoids a dependent relationship on the counselor and helps the
client take more control of his/her life, build a positive self-identity, and increase selfefficacy. The results of the present study show that those Latino sophomores who
possessed an internal locus of control had a much greater chance of attaining a PSE
degree, especially a Bachelor’s degree. While the cultural challenges in helping Latino
students achieve a more internal locus of control may be formidable (e.g. low SES
background, ethnic/racial non-dominant status), school counselors need to realize the
importance of doing so. School counselors can be more proactive in sharing information
with Latino students who are often uninformed about the processes involved in preparing
for life after high school. The sharing of information and resources is often the first step
in gaining a sense of control over one’s life and future. In addition, school counselors
can maintain the goal of increasing Latino students’ sense of self-efficacy. Beginning in
the elementary schools, they can collaborate with teachers and help to provide Latino
students with experiences that are the antithesis to learned helplessness. Such
experiences can greatly help Latino students see positive results from their efforts.
Limitations and Future Research
Predictive Factors, p. 22
The analyses conducted in this study are limited to the data contained in NELS:
88. For example, many of the teacher support items were general in nature and related to
the school environment, but none dealt specifically with support for post-secondary
education that would have been more relevant to this study.
Reading and math ability
were determined solely through the use of standardized tests and therefore suffer from the
limitation of all standardized tests. Future studies will need to include items assessing
support for educational attainment and other criteria such as reading and math GPA along
with course-taking variables, i.e. remedial versus grade-equivalent versus advanced.
The significance of parent support, language minority status and internal locus of control
in the present study suggests that future research should examine these variables in more
depth.. This study, for example, did not differentiate parent support according to SES
status or family composition. Is parent support greater in families with higher incomes or
in those with two-parent versus mother-only families? The fact that students coming
from predominantly Spanish-speaking families had a slightly greater chance of
completing a bachelor’s degree raises the research question as to whether more traditional
Latino families have more forms of support available to them. Perhaps, there is a
relationship with ethnic identity. Future research needs to explore this. Finally, since
internal locus of control was a very significant contributor to differentiating levels of PSE
status, future research should examine its relationship to other motivating variables such
as self-efficacy. For example, rather than examining if a student wants to go to college
and graduate, future research might examine whether Latino students believe they have
the ability to go to college and succeed.
Conclusion
Predictive Factors, p. 23
This study has sought to examine factors that distinguish the large number of
Latino students who have some post-secondary education from the relatively small
number who complete a degree. Our sample was representative of this discrepancy: of
the 866 Latinos who had PSE in their background, 51 % had no degree versus 26 % with
a Bachelor’s degree or higher. The multinomial logistic regression used for data analysis
found that parent support and locus of control were the strongest factors differentiating
those Latino students with some PSE and no degree from those with a Bachelor’s degree
or higher.
Latinos are the largest non-dominant group in the United States and growing
rapidly. They are also a very young population. While being ethnically and racially
diverse, Latinos are concentrated in lower-SES situations. The ability of the United
States to draw in the future from a talented pool of young workers will depend, in part, on
the higher educational attainment of Latinos. School counselors, whose training requires
multicultural sensitivity and a commitment to social justice, are in an excellent position to
be proactive with Latino students and their parents to initiate a process that can lead to
greater PSE success. By enhancing parent support especially in terms of communication
around school-related matters and Latino students’ self-efficacy along with the
consequential internal locus of control that it fosters, school counselors can contribute
significantly to increasing the future pool of highly qualified Latino workers in this
country.
Predictive Factors, p. 24
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education
American Institutes for Research (2003). AM statistical software. Retrieved May 3,
2005 from http://am.air.org
Aviles, R. M., Guerrero, M.P., & Howarth, H.B.(1999). Perceptions of Chicano/Latino
students who have dropped out of school. Journal of Counseling and Development,
77, 465-473.
Bamaca-Gomez, M., & Plunkett, S. (2003). The relationships between parenting,
acculturation, and adolescent academics in Mexican-Origin immigrant families in
Los Angeles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 222-239.
Behnke, A., Diversi, M., & Piercy, K. (2004). Educational and occupational aspirations
of Latino youth and their parents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26,
16-35.
Clarke, M., Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school
completion. National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy, 1(3), 1-15.
Curtain, T.R., Ingels, S.J., Wu, S., Heuer, R. (2002). National education longitudinal
study of 1988: Base year to fourth follow-up data file user’s manual (NCES 2002323). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
Education Trust (2005). Achievement in America. Retrieved July 10th, 2005 from
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/PowerPoint.htm
Predictive Factors, p. 25
Egemba, M.O., & Crawford, J.R. (2003, April). An analysis of Hispanic students dropout rates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Erkrut, S., & Tracy, A. J. (2002). Predicting adolescent self=esteem from participation in
school ports among Latino subgroups. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
24, 409-429.
Falbo, T., & Romo, H.D. (1996). Latino high school graduation. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Washington,
D.C.: Pew Latino Center.
Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E.C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of collegepreparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary
school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241-254.
Gonzalez, R. (July, 2002). The No-Child Left Behind Act: Implications for local
educators and advocates for Latino students, families, and communities. National
Council of La Raza: Issue Brief (pp. 2-14).
Gonzalez, R., & Ortiz, F. (2000). Latino high school students’ pursuit of higher
education. Aztlan, 25, 67-107.
Immerwahr, J. (2003). With diploma in hand: Hispanic high school seniors talk about
their future. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, and Public Agenda.
Ingels, S.J., Dowd, K.L., Baldridge, J.D., Stipe, J.L., Bartot, V.H., & Frankel, M.R.
(1994). National educational longitudinal study of 1988, second follow-up: Student
Predictive Factors, p. 26
component data file fuser’s manual (NCES 1994-374). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2003). Education Trust of 1999-2000 school and staffing survey.
Unpublished data, University of Pennsylvania.
Llagas, C., & Snyder, T.D. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics.
Martinez, M. (2003). Missing in action: Reconstructing hope and possibility among
Latino students placed at risk. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 13-21.
McWhirter, M.J. (2004). School dropouts. In J.J. McWhirter, B.T. McWhirter, E.H.
McWhirter, & R.J. McWhirter (Eds.), At-risk youth (3rd. ed.) (pp. 95-113). Pacific
Grove, CA: Thomson/Brook-Cole.
National Center for Educational Statistics (1994). National Assessment of Educational
Progress 1992 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2004). Educational longitudinal study: 2002
data files and electronic codebook system. Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988-2000 Data Files and Electronic Codebook
system, Base Year through Fourth Follow-up (2002). (NCES 2002-322).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational research
and Improvement.
Norusis, M.J. (2004). SPSS 13.0 Advanced statistical procedures companion. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Predictive Factors, p. 27
Pabon, E. (1998). Hispanic adolescent delinquency and the family. A discussion of
sociocultural influences. Adolescence, 33, 941-956.
President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Latino Americans
(2002). Road to a college diploma: The complex reality of raising educational
achievement for Latinos in the Unites States (Interim Report). Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
Savickas, M.L. (1999). The transition from school to work: A developmental
perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 326-336.
Sciarra, D.T. (in press). A qualitative investigation into Latino academic resiliency. Race,
Class, and Gender.
Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high-school course-taking and other variables on choice of
science and mathematics majors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 464474.
Trusty, J., & Niles, S.G. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the
Bachelor’s degree. Professional School Counseling, 7, 99-107.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002a). Current population reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002b). The condition of education, 2002. March current
population survey, 1971-2000. Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Education (2002). Dropout rates in the United States. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Way, N., & Robinson, M.G. (2003). A longitudinal study of the effects of family,
friends, and school experiences on the psychological adjustment of ethnic minority,
low-SES adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 324-346.
Predictive Factors, p. 28
Predictive Factors, p. 29
Table 1
Correlations for SES, parent support, teacher support, math ability, locus of control,
gender and language minority status.
SES
Parent
Support
Teacher
Support
Math
Ability
Locus Gender Language
of
Minority
Control
Status
SES
1.00
Parent
Support
.18**
1.00
Teacher
Support
-.20**
.28**
1.00
Math
Ability
.35**
.07*
.02
1.00
Locus of
Control
.22**
.40**
.25**
.30**
1.00
Gender
.03
-.04
-.00
.09*
.06
1.00
Language
Minority
Status
-.37**
-.00
.15**
-.20**
.04*
-.17**
Note. n = 866; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01.
1.00
Predictive Factors, p. 30
Table 2
Parameter estimates from the logistic regression model examining the effects of the
predictor variables on post-secondary education status.
POST SECONDARY EDUCATION STATUS
Certificate/License
Associates Degree
Bachelor’s or Higher
β
Odds
β
Odds
β
Odds
SES
-.30
.74
-.09
.91
.71***
2.03
Parent
Support
.37
1.45
.71**
2.03
.90***
2.46
Teacher
Support
.09
1.10
-.89**
.41
-.36
.70
Math
Ability
-.03
.96
-.03
.97
.06***
1.06
Locus of
Control
.66*
1.93
1.31***
3.71
1.46***
4.32
Gender
1.12***
3.07
.19
1.21
.99***
2.68
Variable
Language
-.04
.96
-.41
.67
.53*
Minority
Note. The reference category is PSE no degree. Standard errors for
sampling design effects calculated with the use of AM software (American
Institutes for Research, 2003) were adjusted. Nagelkerke R2 = .330.
n = 1,660; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001.
1.70
Predictive Factors, p. 31