Factors Related to Accessing Postsecondary School Supports by English Learners With Disabilities

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between demographic, disability-related, and transition planning experiences and accessing disability-specific and universally available supports at 2- and 4-year colleges by postsecondary students identified in secondary school as English learners with disabilities. Findings were based on secondary analysis of a nationally representative sample of approximately 160 English learners with disabilities included in the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Logistic regression results identified two potentially malleable factors linked to increased likelihood of English learners with disabilities accessing postsecondary supports. If these students had a high school transition plan that indicated postsecondary supports as a needed post-high school service, when they attended college they were more likely to access both postsecondary disability-specific supports (p < .01), and supports universally available to the full postsecondary student body (p < .001). Aspects of self-determination also were related to an increased likelihood of seeking postsecondary supports. Higher levels of personal autonomy were positively related to accessing disability-specific (p < .001) and universally available help (p < .05), and higher levels of psychological empowerment were related to receipt of universally available supports (p < .01). These findings demonstrate that high school professionals can support the postschool success of English learners with disabilities by influencing their likelihood of accessing beneficial supports in postsecondary school.

Keywords

English learners students with disabilities college supports transition plan self-determination

When a national sample of secondary students with disabilities were asked about their postsecondary education expectations, more than three-quarters expected to complete a postsecondary degree (Lipscomb et al., 2017). With the ongoing rise in postsecondary enrollment for students with disabilities, these expectations were not unwarranted. Between 1990 and 2005, the postsecondary enrollment rate of students with disabilities nearly doubled (Newman et al., 2010), and enrollment rates have continued to increase (Hinz et al., 2017). Although these statistics are encouraging, data on degree completion for students with disabilities remain troubling. Comparing data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and NLTS2, Newman et al. (2010) found no significant difference in completion rates of students with disabilities between 1990 and 2005. More recent data indicate that fewer than half of individuals with disabilities who had ever enrolled in a 4-year college had received a degree or credential, and among those who had ever enrolled in a 2-year college, approximately one-third had completed their program (Snyder et al., 2016). The data on degree completion for students who are English learners (ELs) with a disability are even more stark. Only one-quarter of those who had attended a 2-year college had completed their program, and of those who attended a 4-year college, only 4% had completed their programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

To fully benefit from postsecondary education, students need to graduate. For example, the median earnings of 25- to 34-year-olds with a bachelor’s degree were US$55,700, as compared with US$39,750 for those who had attended some college (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Given the effect of college completion on future employment and earnings, the advantages of attaining a postsecondary degree may be particularly critical for students dually identified as ELs with disabilities. These individuals often face additional barriers to college completion compared to their peers who are not ELs. Barriers can arise from (a) navigating school with a disability and developing English language skills (Klingner et al., 2006); (b) race-, class-, and linguistic-based discrimination; and (c) challenges associated with growing up in poverty and being a first generation college student (Trainor et al., 2019), because students who are dually identified are often multiply marginalized (Annamma et al., 2013). Multiple marginalization, according to intersectional theorists such as Crenshaw (1991) and, later, Annamma and colleagues (2013), occurs when individuals face biased responses from people and systems associated with ability, race/ethnicity, language, sex, gender, sexual identity, and other factors that contribute to identity and group affiliation (Annamma & Morrison, 2018). ELs with disabilities may face additional institutional and structural barriers to success in college, including lowered academic expectations and diminished access to certain forms of capital essential for postsecondary success (Keel et al., 2018). The application of intersectionality in special education, however, continues to evolve because of the primacy of disability as a driver of experience and the ideology of individual difference that is the backbone of special education policy (García & Ortiz, 2013).

The work of Bourdieu (1986) provided theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrating that multiple types of capital—cultural, social, and economic—function as levers of both social reproduction and agency associated with group dominance. For purposes of this analysis, we use Bourdieu’s historical work to frame our study. Many scholars have used both Bourdieu’s early and subsequent studies to understand the phenomenon of social reproduction and both the challenges and successes, for example, that individuals experience as first generation or immigrant college students (Winkle-Wagner, 2010; Yosso, 2005). Understanding barriers related to capital helps elucidate why postsecondary education completion outcomes for ELs with disabilities are lower than their peers and why better understanding the experiences of ELs with disabilities in college is so paramount. Thus, this study sought to examine one potential barrier to success, which is the extent to which postsecondary students who were identified as ELs with disabilities in secondary school received supports and services in college, as well as the student characteristics and transition planning experiences related to their accessing these types of supports. The aim of this work is to identify how secondary schools and postsecondary institutions can better prepare and support ELs with disabilities as they matriculate through college and into careers of their choosing.

Postsecondary Transition for English Learners With Disabilities

It is important to note that the literature base on the topic of college-going for ELs with disabilities is limited. Few studies have examined the factors that influence the success of ELs with disabilities in college, and thus, this review will focus both on findings from the literature on students with disabilities more broadly as well as on the few studies that have examined ELs with disabilities in college. Despite gaps in the literature, a growing number of studies have explored the secondary transition experiences of dually identified students (e.g., Newman, Garcia et al., 2021; Trainor et al., 2019). Transition planning experiences may influence and predict aspects of postschool success. Thus, in the present study, transition experiences as well as individual, family, and high school factors will be explored in relation to accessing college support by students identified as ELs with disabilities.

Studies on the transition experiences of ELs with disabilities have found that they are overall motivated and engaged in their secondary schooling and aspire to attend college (W. G. Kim & Garcia, 2014; Trainor et al., 2019). Families of ELs with disabilities similarly express a desire for their students to matriculate into college, often providing encouragement and support (Gothberg et al., 2019; Romano et al., 2023). At school, these aspirations are often not met with the opportunities and resources required to achieve these goals. Compared with ELs with disabilities and their families, teachers often hold lower expectations for the future and often do not provide access to rigorous academic opportunities, such as taking the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), in preparation for college (Keel et al., 2018; Trainor et al., 2019). Structural barriers, including those related to social reproduction and limited access to economic, cultural, and social capital associated with attending and completing postsecondary education, can often impede college-going attempts and interfere with college retention for ELs with disabilities (Bourdieu, 1986). For instance, postsecondary institutions, often largely adhering to White dominant cultural values (Bensimon, 2018), frequently are not designed for this group to succeed and services integrating both English language and special education are rare. In addition, ELs with disabilities are often the first in their family to attend college, which can pose a challenge to gaining important insights and insider knowledge into how to succeed in college (Trainor et al., 2019).

In a recent review of secondary transition predictors of post-high school success, Mazzotti and colleagues (2021) identified 16 research-based or promising predictors of postsecondary enrollment for students with disabilities, using the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition’s (NTACT, now NTACT:C) Quality Indicator Checklist: Correlational Studies, and then, applying the NTACT Criteria for Levels of Evidence (NTACT, 2018). These predictors included goal setting and self-determination/self-advocacy among others (Mazzotti et al., 2021). It is important to note that these findings extrapolate to students with disabilities broadly and should be applied with caution to understanding the experiences of ELs with disabilities specifically. This is especially important considering that, as youth who face multiple marginalizations associated societal biases and structural obstacles, there is variation within the population as well as assets and sources of capital that convey protection. We present this review with the understanding that the predictors of postschool success are likely a baseline, a foundation from which to develop culturally sustaining practices for dually identified students.

Predictors of Postsecondary School Success

In contrast to the number of secondary predictors of postsecondary enrollment identified as having successfully met the NTACT standards by Mazzotti and colleagues (2021), a systematic review of postsecondary practices linked to postsecondary school perseverance and completion for students with disabilities found that the postsecondary research base was “not robust enough to confidently report evidence-based practices” (Madaus et al., 2021, p. 198). Although NTACT’s Levels of Evidence could not be established for all practices, the Madaus et al. (2021) review identified several factors that were significant predictors of postsecondary retention and completion for students with disabilities. These identified factors included student expectations/aspirations, aspects of self-determination, living off campus or with parents, friends’ intentions to go to a 4-year school, type of disability, and high school course taking.

Of particular interest are two malleable factors that the Madaus et al. (2021) review identified as being related to postsecondary success and persistence for students with disabilities—accessing universally available supports, such as learning centers, math, writing, and study centers that are available to the general student body, and accessing disability-specific supports, such as receipt of testing and course accommodations (W. H. Kim & Lee, 2016; Newman et al., 2019; Troiano et al., 2010). Evidence from analyses based on a nationally representative sample of students with disabilities using quasi-experimental propensity methodology confirmed the importance of receipt of universally available and disability-specific supports for students with disabilities, identifying that those who accessed these types of supports were significantly more likely to persist in their 2- or 4-year college programs (Newman, Madaus et al., 2021). In addition to benefits for those with disabilities, universally available supports also have been linked to postsecondary perseverance for students in the general population (Reinheimer & McKenzie, 2011). While these findings substantiate the importance of access to supports as a key predictor of postsecondary success, less is known about ELs with disabilities post-high school and the specific needs of this population in the context of college-going. The present study will explore several indicators of success that pertain to this population to elucidate the unique needs of this group and opportunities for a more individualized approach.

Support Receipt Factors

Responsibility for accessing supports shifts when students with disabilities transition from high school to postsecondary school. When students are in high school, the school is mandated to find and serve the student. However, when students with disabilities enter postsecondary school, the student must recognize when they need help, understand where to get it, and then actively follow through, independent of whether the supports are universally available or disability-specific (Trammell & Hathaway, 2007). In addition, those who seek disability-specific supports must disclose their disability to individuals at their postsecondary school, including disability resource professionals, faculty, and other instructional staff. However, national data indicate that self-disclosure rates for postsecondary students with disabilities are low—35% (Newman & Madaus, 2015a), and preliminary evidence suggests that the issue of disclosure may invite additional complications and complexities for ELs with disabilities (Romano et al., 2023). Many postsecondary students with disabilities lack the necessary knowledge about legal rights, available services, and their specific disability and its impact on learning (Lightner et al., 2012; Walker & Test, 2011). In addition, new college students in general frequently do not know what support resources are available or how to access them (Karp & Hare Bork, 2012). The challenges often are compounded for first generation college students navigating a postsecondary institution for the first time, often experiencing feelings of alienation and navigating additional familial and economic responsibilities that can detract from academic coursework (Gibbons et al., 2019). Preliminary evidence also suggests that access to such capital for first generation college students is gained through older siblings (Delgado, 2020), yet these individuals are infrequently included in formal transition planning.

In their analysis of factors related to accessing postsecondary disability-specific supports by students with disabilities, Newman and Madaus (2015b) identified differences based on student and family characteristics, including variation by disability category, with those with more apparent or visible disabilities being more likely to access disability-related supports. They also examined accessing supports by household income and found that students from households with lower incomes were less likely to access supports. More importantly, beyond disability and demographic characteristics, the study identified several potentially malleable factors that were related to a higher probability of postsecondary students with disabilities accessing accommodations and supports (Newman and Madaus, 2015b). These factors included aspects of high school transition planning, such as receiving transition planning education in high school and having a transition plan that specifically identified postsecondary accommodations as a needed support after high school. Lightner et al. (2012) also found that students with learning disabilities who had received more transition planning support were more likely to disclose their disability earlier to their college and were more likely to earn higher college grade point averages (GPAs) and more credits by their sophomore year compared with those students who had not disclosed.

In addition to disability-specific supports, colleges offer a range of services universally available to the full student body, including writing, math, study centers, and tutoring (Trammell & Hathaway, 2007). Analyses based on a national sample of students with disabilities identified the positive effect of aspects of transition planning on receipt of universally available and disability-specific supports in college (Newman et al., 2016). Propensity model analyses indicated that receipt of transition planning education and having postsecondary accommodations included on a transition plan as a needed post-high school support significantly increased the odds that students with disabilities would access disability-specific and universally available supports at postsecondary institutions (Newman et al., 2016). These disability-specific and universally available supports are the types of supports that have been demonstrated to positively affect 2-year or 4-year college perseverance and completion (W. H. Kim & Lee, 2016; Lightner et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2019, Newman, Madaus et al., 2021; Troiano et al., 2010).

Given the consequence of college non-completion and the demonstrated positive effect of universally available and/or disability-specific support receipt, understanding what factors influence ELs with disabilities in accessing these types of postsecondary supports has the potential to improve service delivery. To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined support access for this population, and there is an opportunity to better understand the unique experiences in college of students identified as ELs with disabilities when they were in high school. Thus, the present study explored the relationship between student characteristics, secondary school transition planning experiences, and postsecondary support receipt, based on secondary analysis of the NLTS2. Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): To what extent do postsecondary students who had been identified in secondary school as ELs with disabilities access postsecondary supports?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the individual, family, and high school transition planning factors related to receipt of universally available- and/or disability-specific postsecondary supports and services for students who had been identified in secondary school as ELs with disabilities?

Method

NLTS2 Overview

The findings in this article are based on secondary analyses of the only nationally representative data with postsecondary education outcomes for secondary students with disabilities—NTLS2. By identifying students with disabilities in secondary school and following their experiences longitudinally from secondary school to college, NLTS2 data include information that represents the complete population of postsecondary students with disabilities who had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) when in high school. In contrast, the samples in most other studies of postsecondary students with disabilities have been limited to the 35% of postsecondary students who self-identify, nearly completely overlooking the 65% of students with disabilities who do not disclose their disability to their postsecondary school (Newman & Madaus, 2015a). It is important to acknowledge the age of the NLTS2 data as a limitation because experiences and outcomes may have changed over time. However, the NLTS2 data provide an important (and currently, the only) opportunity to begin to identify the high school experiences linked to postsecondary success for ELs with disabilities, based on nationally representative data.

The NLTS2 two-stage sampling plan first randomly sampled local educational agencies (LEAs) and state-supported special schools stratified by region, district enrollment, and district wealth. Students ages 13 to 16 in Grade 7 or above and identified by their LEAs as receiving special education services were randomly selected from rosters of 500 LEAs and 40 special schools to yield nationally representative estimates of students with disabilities as a whole and in each of 12 federally recognized disability categories. Sample selection, sample attrition, and representativeness were more fully described by SRI International (2000) and Javitz and Wagner (2005). NLTS2 data were collected over a 9-year period (2001–2009) in five waves conducted every other year. By the final data collection wave, youth were 21 to 25 years old.

English Learners With Disabilities Sample

The present study’s sample included students whose high school transcript indicated English as a Second Language (ESL) or bilingual courses, or whose school program survey indicated that the student was bilingual, Limited English Proficient, or non-English speaking. Students whose parents reported that they solely used sign language were deleted from the sample, unless their transcript indicated they had taken ESL courses. The present study included approximately 160 ELs with disabilities. To be included in the sample, young adults were required to have at least one Wave 2 through 5 interview/survey in which they were reported to have attended a 2-year and/or 4-year college. Response rates for Waves 2 through 5 ranged from 61% in Wave 2 to 48% in Wave 5. Unweighted sample sizes in this article were rounded to the nearest 10, as required by the U.S. Department of Education when restricted data sets are used. Weights were computed by considering youth and school characteristics used as stratifying variables in the sampling and nonresponse in those strata. Details on the weighting strategy are in Valdes et al. (2013).

Data Sources

Parent/young adult interviews/surveys were conducted in English and Spanish across five waves of data collection, conducted every other year from 2001 to 2009. Measures of self-determination skills were included in in-person youth interviews conducted during the data collection wave in which youth were 16 to 18 years old. School program surveys were completed by high school staff who were most knowledgeable about students’ overall school programs. For details on data sources, see Valdes et al. (2013).

Measures

Dependent Measures

Receipt of universally available supports (e.g., the types of supports available to the general student body, such as learning, math, and writing centers, tutors) and disability-specific supports were the two dependent measures in the analyses. The data sources for these variables were the telephone interviews/mail surveys. In each data collection wave where the young adult was reported to have attended a 2- or 4-year college, respondents were asked about the types of services, accommodations, and other help received from the school. Students who were reported ever to have received universally available and/or disability-specific supports in any wave from either type of college were dichotomously coded (1 = yes) for receipt of that type of support.

Independent Measures

The variables included in the models were selected based on the NTLS2 conceptual framework (Wagner & Marder, 2003), which theorizes that youth’s experiences, in this case receipt of universally available and disability-specific supports and services in postsecondary school, are shaped not only by the characteristics of students (e.g., disability category, gender, and race/ethnicity) and their households (e.g., household income and mother’s education level); but, also by factors that have occurred in their past (e.g., transition planning), and factors that can change over time (e.g., self-determination skills). The specific measures, selected based on this conceptual framework as well as prior research, are described below.

Disability/Functioning Indicators

Federally defined disability categories were provided by secondary school districts. Disability category was included in the models as a dichotomous variable of learning disability versus all other disability categories. The number of affected domains was also included in the models, indicating whether youth had any problems seeing, speaking, conversing, understanding language, appendage use, or health, based on parent interview data.

Individual and Family Demographic Measures

Individual and family demographic measures were reported by parents during interviews/surveys. These included youth’s gender (0 = female; 1 = male); race/ethnicity (Hispanic/Latinx vs. all other groups); mother’s highest level of educational attainment (less than high school vs. high school graduate or higher); and family income (lower vs. middle- or higher-income level).

Self-Determination Skills

Three domains of self-determination were measured using the Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (SDS; Wehmeyer, 2000). NLTS2 included a subset of items from three of the four Arc’s SDS subscales: personal autonomy, psychological empowerment, and self-realization; specific items in each of the three subscales have been published previously (Valdes et al., 2013). The personal autonomy summative scale ranged from 15 to 60, the psychological empowerment summative scale ranged from 0 to 6, and the self-realization summative scale ranged from 5 to 20.

Transition Planning

Two aspects of transition planning were included as dichotomous variables (1 = yes; 0 = no) in the analysis: (a) whether a student was reported by school staff to have received instruction specifically focused on transition planning, for example, a specialized curriculum designed to help students assess options and develop strategies for leaving secondary school and transitioning to adult life; and (b) whether postsecondary accommodations and supports were specified on a high school transition plan as a service need after high school. Data about high school transition planning experiences came from school program surveys.

Missingness rates ranged from 0% to 8% for disability and demographic characteristics. The two transition planning items had missingness rates of approximately 17%, and the self-determination subscales had missingness rates of approximately 23%.

Data Analyses

Descriptive analyses focused on the extent to which ELs with disabilities accessed postsecondary support from 2- and/or 4-year colleges, transition planning experiences during high school, and their disability, demographic, and self-determination characteristics. Percentages and standard errors are presented, and statistics were weighted to represent population estimates.

Two multivariate linear regression models estimated the adjusted association between student, family, and school correlates and each of the two types of postsecondary supports, using the SAS proc surveylogisic procedure. All models accommodated the cluster, stratification, and sampling weights used in NLTS2 and used the Taylor series linearization technique for variance estimation to account for lack of independence due to sampling within clusters. Regression coefficients, standard errors, and significance levels are reported. Results were weighted by using the cross-wave, cross-instrument weight wt_anyPYPHSsch (Valdes et al., 2013), which is appropriate for analyzing multiple waves of NLTS2 data so that findings are nationally representative of ELs with disabilities in the NLTS2 age range and time frame. Regression diagnostic tests revealed that data met regression assumptions. In addition, tests for multicollinearity revealed low variance inflation factors (VIFs) for the independent variables (VIFs were less than 2.03 in all cases).

Results

Two in five ELs with disabilities had attended a 2- and/or 4-year college within 8 years of leaving high school. Approximately 80% of ELs with disabilities at 2- or 4-year colleges were male, and 75% were Hispanic/Latinx (see Supplemental Table S1). Almost two-thirds of ELs with disabilities were from parent households with lower income levels (less than US$25,000 in 2009). In addition, approximately half of the parents of ELs with disabilities had not completed high school and many parents had limited exposure to postsecondary education, with less than one-third of parents having attended a postsecondary program.

RQ1: To What Extent Do Postsecondary ELs With Disabilities Access Supports?

Approximately two in five (42%) EL students at 2- or 4-year colleges had accessed the types of supports universally available to the full student body, such as tutoring and writing, study, and math centers (see Table 1). With only 23% choosing to disclose their disability status to their college, it is not surprising that less than 20% of all ELs with disabilities at 2- or 4-year colleges had accessed disability-related supports and services.

Table 1.

High School Transition Planning Experiences and Postsecondary Support Receipt of 2- or 4- Year College Students Identified in Secondary School as English Learners With Disabilities.

Characteristic	%	SE
High school transition planning experiences
Received transition planning education	65.98	17.27
Postsecondary accommodations identified on high school transition plan	73.72	16.33
2- or 4-year college support receipt
Disclosed disability to the college	22.83	11.82
Accessed disability-related supports	19.11	11.65
Accessed universally available supports	42.17	17.28
Unweighted N	160

Note. Data are from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10, as required by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education for restricted-use datasets. % = percent; SE = standard error.

RQ2: What Are the Factors Related to Receipt of Supports and Services by Postsecondary ELs With Disabilities?

Table 2 presents results of logistic regression analyses identifying factors related to receipt of disability-specific and universally available services or supports for ELs with disabilities from 2- or 4-year postsecondary institutions.

Table 2

Factors Related to Receipt of Postsecondary Supports by 2- or 4-Year College Students Identified in Secondary School as English Learners With Disabilities, by Type of Support.

Characteristics	Disability-specific supports		Universally available supports
Characteristics	β	SE	β	SE
Disability/functioning
Primary disability category was LD vs. not LD	−2.62***	0.69	−5.61***	1.15
Number of affected functional domains	0.03	0.22	1.42***	0.15
Student demographic
Gender (male vs. female)	−0.55	0.96	−2.54**	0.91
Race/ethnicity—Hispanic/Latinx vs. all other groups)	1.64	1.67	−4.11***	1.07
Family demographics
Mother’s education	−1.30*	0.57	3.43**	1.18
Household income (lower vs. middle/higher)	−2.95*	1.51	−7.97**	2.72
Arc’s Self-Determination Scale subscale scores^a
Autonomy	0.29***	0.07	0.13*	0.05
Psychological empowerment	−0.75	0.50	2.25**	0.70
Self-realization	0.12	0.28	−0.29	0.16
Transition planning during high school
Transition planning education	1.39	1.13	−0.46	0.42
Postsecondary accommodations and supports specified on transition plan	2.76**	1.04	8.07***	2.19
Intercept
R ²	0.30		0.62
N	160

Source. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Special Education Research, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).

Note. Unweighted sample size numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 as required by the restricted data use agreement with the U.S. Department of Education. β = regression coefficient; SE = standard error; LD = learning disability.

Self-determination subscales from The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer, 2000).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Disability-Related and Demographic Characteristics

The likelihood of postsecondary ELs with disabilities receiving disability-specific help differed by disability. Students with learning disabilities were less likely to access both types of supports than those in other disability categories. Students with more functional domains affected by their disability were more likely to access universally available supports. The odds of accessing universally available supports were lower for male than female ELs with disabilities at 2- or 4-year colleges. In addition, Hispanic/Latinx ELs with disabilities were less likely to access universally available help than were other ELs with disabilities. Both students’ family household income and their mother’s educational attainment were related to whether students chose to access universally available and disability-specific supports. Students with better-educated parents were more likely to receive disability-specific supports; however, they are less likely to access universally available supports. In addition, ELs with disabilities from middle- or higher-income households were more likely to access both types of supports.

Self-Determination

Of the three aspects of self-determination examined, higher levels of personal autonomy were positively related to accessing disability-specific as well universally available help. Higher levels of psychological empowerment were related to receipt of universally available supports for ELs with disabilities at 2- or 4-year colleges.

Transition Planning Experiences During High School

Receipt of transition planning education during high school was not related to whether ELs with disabilities accessed disability-specific or universally available supports. However, ELs with disabilities, who had a high school transition plan that specifically identified postsecondary accommodations and services as a needed support after high school, were more likely to access both types of supports in college.

Discussion

Prior research has identified that students with disabilities who received disability-related and/or universally available services during college are more likely to be successful and persist in and complete their postsecondary program (W. H. Kim & Lee, 2016; Newman et al., 2019; Newman, Madaus et al., 2021; Troiano et al., 2010). To receive disability-related or universally available supports, students with disabilities must take the initiative to access these beneficial supports. Similar to the low national rates of students with disabilities accessing either type of support (Newman et al., 2011), only two in five postsecondary ELs with disabilities accessed universally available supports and less than 20% received disability-specific supports. Dually identified students are at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities (e.g., EL status, disability, race, language, and low income) and may face additional challenges to self-advocating for supports because of multiple barriers associated with structural inequalities and biases. Multiple marginalizations require individualization in preparing students to seek disability and universal supports for learning. Individualized approaches to preparing these students, informed by the preferences, strengths, and needs associated with individuals’ and their families’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, remain an important step in accessing both types of supports.

Limitations

This study provides evidence on factors related to receipt of supports by postsecondary students identified in secondary school as ELs with disabilities. However, several limitations should be considered in interpreting the findings of this study. This study was based on a national sample of ELs with disabilities. States and school districts can vary widely in their processes of identifying students with disabilities and students who require English language supports. This national sample may not be representative of specific ELs with disabilities, and therefore, the findings should be interpreted with an understanding that characteristics related to postsecondary service receipt may look different across different student subgroups. In addition, as a secondary analysis of the NLTS2 dataset, this study was constrained by the design and the items in the study. Study respondents were given the option of responding in English or Spanish to the surveys; the minority of sample respondents who spoke another language might have experienced difficulty in answering the questions. As a result, the sample may be under-representative of students who speak languages other than English or Spanish, and thus, these findings should be interpreted with caution for these other groups. Beyond language differences, self-determination factors are constructs that are considered to have cultural meanings attached to them. For example, autonomy can be impacted by both attitudes about age-appropriate independence and structural barriers that may obstruct autonomy through resource deprivation, such as having sufficient money to be able to participate in some of the autonomous activities measured in the Arc’s SDS. In addition, several variables, including most importantly the postsecondary support receipt outcome variables, were based on parent and postsecondary student self-report and could not be verified. Considering the low level of disability support receipt reported by ELs with disabilities, these support receipt rates may have been underreported because parents and students may have been unaware of the types of postsecondary supports received. In addition, the relationship among variables reported in this study is correlational and does not permit causal inference. In addition, the NLTS2 dataset includes almost no information about postsecondary institutions, thereby precluding a focus on potential structural barriers to support receipt. For example, there can be significant differences in student experiences across institutions as a function of whether colleges are identified as Hispanic serving, historically Black colleges, or predominantly White serving colleges. Broader, structural barriers are important to keep at the forefront when examining the college experiences of this population and to contextualize the findings of the present study as well as findings from prior research pointing to lower college completion rates for this group (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

Prior studies focused on factors related to support receipt indicated that some relationships varied by type of postsecondary institution (Newman & Madaus, 2015b). However, because the EL with disabilities sample at 2- and 4-year colleges was too small to conduct separate analyses for each type of college, we were unable to explore the relationship between student, family, and school factors and receipt of postsecondary services and supports at the two types of colleges independently. In addition, it is important to acknowledge the age of the NLTS2 data. Although the NLTS2 dataset is the only available data with postsecondary education outcomes for a nationally representative sample of ELs with disabilities, some of these data may no longer be fully reflective of the current secondary and postsecondary experiences of ELs with disabilities. When national postsecondary education data become available, it will be important to replicate current analyses based on a more-recent dataset.

Implications for Researchers

Studies focused on students with disabilities found that the factors related to support receipt differed by type of postsecondary institution (Newman et al., 2016). For example, aspects of self-determination were related to receipt of disability-specific supports at 2-year colleges but not at 4-year colleges. As indicated, the size of the current sample of postsecondary ELs with disabilities necessitated combining students across the two types of colleges. Small sample sizes also precluded examining the effect of aspects of transition planning on postsecondary support receipt using a quasi-experimental approach. When national data with a potentially larger sample of postsecondary ELs with disabilities become available, this study should be replicated with separate models for those attending 2-year and 4-year colleges. In addition, if possible, these analyses should address the relationships identified in this study through more rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental methods. For similar reasons, we could not test the complex interactions found in previous studies by Shogren et al. (2018) of the effects of disability, race, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds with regard to self-determination, and this should be considered in further research. Using a capital theory framework, further examination of marginalization associated with parents not having college experiences would be helpful to better understand and deconstruct barriers associated with this issue.

To understand more fully the experiences and challenges of EL students with disabilities accessing supports based on research using a qualitative approach would be a valuable addition to the field. Qualitative methods also would be beneficial in examining how high school experiences can shape postsecondary outcomes, including a focus on school characteristics and special education team structures. Beyond focusing on the relationship between high school factors and postsecondary receipt of supports, it is perhaps even more important to examine comprehensively the linkages between receipt of disability-specific and universally available postsecondary supports and perseverance and graduation, particularly considering the low postsecondary completion rate for ELs with disabilities, especially from 4-year institutions (Barber, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Such findings would be valuable to both secondary transition programs and college disability service programs. In addition, this study examined student-focused variables and did not have the data to consider college factors that might influence support availability. Therefore, individual barriers have been foregrounded rather than structural barriers, which can appear to place blame on individuals instead of systems and perpetuate deficit-based orientations toward marginalized communities (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016). Future research should explore college factors, such as institution type, size, student body characteristics, such as historically Black colleges, level, and type of services, including EL services, to more fully understand the factors that influence ELs with disabilities accessing services and supports.

Implications for Practitioners

Identifying the factors that are related to accessing supports can help transition professionals target interventions to better ensure that ELs with disabilities develop the skills and have the necessary transition planning information to successfully navigate the transition to postsecondary education, including accessing helpful postsecondary services and supports. Several disability and demographic characteristics were related to students accessing supports. Although findings related to these characteristics are presented independently, these characteristics are intersectional, and individualization across the intersecting continua of marginalization is important when tailoring approaches to intervention.

Consistent with prior findings by Newman and Madaus (2015b), the present study identified that EL students with learning disabilities, the disability category that accounts for almost three-quarters of postsecondary EL students with disabilities, were less likely to access both disability-related and universally available supports than were students in other disability categories. Male students were less likely than female students, and Hispanic/Latinx students were less likely than other students to access universally available supports. In addition, similar to prior findings for students with disabilities as a whole, EL students with disabilities from households with lower annual incomes were less likely to access both types of supports. This study also indicated a relationship of mother’s education level with both disability-related and universally available support receipt, although in opposite directions. Mother’s education level was negatively related to receipt of disability supports and positively related to receipt of universally available supports. This negative relationship of household income and parent education level with receipt of disability-related supports is concerning because more than half of all ELs with disabilities were from lower income households, with parents who had not completed high school. Evaluations often required for receipt of postsecondary disability-related supports can be costly, and families require the cultural capital to be aware of the necessity for, as well as where and how to access evaluations when students leave the K-12 school system. Families of ELs with disabilities may require additional information about the need for postsecondary supports and services when students leave high school to attend college. Transition professionals need to consider culturally and linguistically appropriate ways to provide information and support to ELs with disabilities and their families to ensure they better understand postsecondary options, particularly those related to support receipt.

The present study also identified two potentially malleable factors linked to increased likelihood of ELs with disabilities accessing supports; the first being aspects of students’ self-determination. Current findings demonstrated a positive relationship between both types of postsecondary support receipt and aspects of self-determination. Students with higher autonomy scores were more likely to access both disability-specific and universally available supports, and those with higher empowerment scores were more likely to access universally available supports. These findings are consistent with evidence that self-determination is a contributor to a range of positive outcomes (Cobb et al., 2009; Shogren et al., 2017). Self-determined behaviors are particularly important during college, when the responsibility for accessing needed supports and services shifts from the school to the student (Trammell & Hathaway, 2007). However, ELs with disabilities report lower levels of autonomy and empowerment than other students, both those with disabilities and students in the general population (Newman, Garcia et al., 2021), which points to the importance of promoting the self-determination of secondary school ELs with disabilities before they transition to college. If given adequate supports, encouragement, appropriate interventions, and opportunities to learn and develop these skills, research has confirmed that students can become more self-determined (Burke et al., 2018). Promoting self-determination for ELs with disabilities requires teachers to be knowledgeable about students’ and their families’ attitudes and skills related to self-determination (Shogren et al., 2018), as well as have cross-cultural communication competence and the ability to share information in ways that are accessible (Trainor, 2010). Based on the importance of understanding student and family characteristics when selecting and implementing self-determination interventions for ELs with disabilities, Newman, Garcia, and colleagues (2021) conducted research to identify the characteristics linked to the self-determination of this dually identified population of students. These characteristics, including disability category, gender, age, and student and family expectations, provide guidance for schools to target and implement effective practices to promote the self-determination of ELs with disabilities. In considering evidence-based practices, it also is important to be aware that special education transition supports frequently do not adequately integrate EL supports, often serving one over the other (Cioè-Peña, 2017).

Most noteworthy, the current findings demonstrate the importance of the transition plan on the postsecondary school success of EL students with disabilities. High school transition practices can influence the likelihood that students will seek out supports when in college. Having postsecondary accommodations and supports specified on high school transition plans as a needed post-high school support significantly increased the odds of EL college students with disabilities accessing both disability-specific and universally available postsecondary supports. This positive relationship between aspects of transition planning and postsecondary school outcomes is consistent with findings from prior studies focused on students with disabilities. (Lightner et al., 2012; Newman & Madaus, 2015b; Newman et al., 2016). However, in contrast to findings from prior studies that focused on students with disabilities as a whole (Newman & Madaus, 2015b), this study did not find a significant relationship between transition planning education and accessing postsecondary supports for ELs with disabilities.

Lacking the understanding of the availability of postsecondary supports (e.g., Barber, 2012; Lightner et al., 2012), few postsecondary ELs with disabilities choose to disclose a disability to their colleges or access supports. These dually identified students need to be provided with information about the availability, as well as the potential benefits of accessing the types of supports available to the general student body, which do not require identifying as an individual with a disability, such as math, study and writing centers and tutors. Landmark and Zhang (2013) found that the individual education programs/transition plans of students from minoritized communities frequently were less likely to include critical components. It is important that transition planning for ELs with disabilities with a postsecondary education goal directly focuses on issues related to the receipt of postsecondary supports and services.

Conclusion

This study examined the student, family, and transition planning factors related to receipt of universally available- and disability-specific postsecondary supports and services by ELs with disabilities. Particularly noteworthy in the present results is the relationship with receipt of postsecondary supports of two malleable factors—aspects of self-determination and having a transition plan – that specified postsecondary accommodations and supports as a needed post-high school service. These findings demonstrate that high school professionals can potentially influence the likelihood of ELs with disabilities seeking beneficial postsecondary supports.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cde-10.1177_21651434231154584 – Supplemental material for Factors Related to Accessing Postsecondary School Supports by English Learners With Disabilities

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cde-10.1177_21651434231154584 for Factors Related to Accessing Postsecondary School Supports by English Learners With Disabilities by Lynn A. Newman, Audrey A. Trainor and Lindsay Romano in Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A170259 to New York University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

ORCID iDs

Lynn A. Newman

Lindsay Romano

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available at .

References

Annamma

S. A.

Connor

Ferri

(2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511

Annamma

S. A.

Morrison

(2018). DisCrit classroom ecology: Using praxis to dismantle dysfunctional education ecologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.008

Artiles

A. J.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(43), 1–29. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.14507/epaa.24.1919

Barber

(2012). College students with disabilities: What factors influence successful degree completion? A case study [Disability and work research report]. John Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. https://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2020-10/College_Students_Disabilities_Report.pdf

Bensimon

E. M.

(2018). Reclaiming racial justice in equity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3–4), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509623

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.

Burke

K. M.

Raley

S. K.

Shogren

K. A.

Hagiwara

Mumbardo-Adam

Uyanik

Behrens

(2018). A meta-analysis of interventions to promote self-determination for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518802274

Cioè-Peña

(2017). The intersectional gap: How bilingual students in the United States are excluded from inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(9), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1296032

Cobb

Lehmann

Newman-Gonchar

Morgan

(2009). Self-determination for students with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809336654

10.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

11.

Delgado

(2020). Decoding the hidden curriculum: Latino/a first-generation college students’ influence on younger siblings’ educational trajectory. Journal of Latinos and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2020.1801439

12.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=95446092&site=ehost-live

13.

Gibbons

M. M.

Rhinehart

Hardin

(2019). How first-generation college students adjust to college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(4), 488–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116682035

14.

Gothberg

J. E.

Greene

Kohler

P. D.

(2019). District implementation of research-based practices for transition planning with culturally and linguistically diverse youth with disabilities and their families. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418762794

15.

Hinz

S. E.

Arbeit

C. A.

Bentz

(2017). Characteristics and outcomes of undergraduates with disabilities: Web tables. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018432

16.

Javitz

Wagner

(2005). Analysis of potential bias in the Wave 1 and Wave 2 respondents to the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). SRI International. https://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_analysis_bias_respondents.pdf

17.

Karp

Hare Bork

(2012). “They never told me what to expect, so I didn't know what to do”: Defining and clarifying the role of a community college student (Community College Research Center working paper no. 47). Teachers College, Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/defining-clarifying-role-college-student.pdf

18.

Keel

J. M.

Cushing

L. S.

Awsumb

J. M.

(2018). Post-school visions and expectations of Latino students with learning disabilities, their parents, and teachers. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417708997

19.

Kim

W. G.

Garcia

S. B.

(2014). Long-term English language learners' perceptions of their language and academic learning experiences. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514525047

20.

Kim

W. H.

Lee

(2016). The effect of accommodation on academic performance of college students with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 60(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355215605259

21.

Klingner

J. K.

Artiles

A. J.

Barletta

L. M.

(2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020101

22.

Landmark

L. J.

Zhang

(2013). Compliance and practices in transition planning: A review of individualized education program documents. Remedial and Special Education, 34(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511431831

23.

Lightner

K. L.

Kipps-Vaughan

Schulte

Trice

A. D.

(2012). Reasons university students with a learning disability wait to seek disability services. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 25(2), 145–159. http://www.ahead-archive.org/uploads/publications/JPED/jped25_2/JPED25_2_FullDocument.pdf

24.

Lipscomb

Haimson

Liu

A. Y.

Burghardt

Johnson

D. R.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012: Vol. 1. Comparisons with other youth (NCEE 2017-4016). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174016/

25.

Madaus

Gelbar

Dukes

I. I. I. L. L.

Taconet

Faggella-Luby

(2021). Are there predictors of success for students with disabilities pursuing postsecondary education? Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(4), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420976526

26.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Kwiatek

Voggt

Chang

Fowler

C. H.

Poppen

Sinclair

Test

D. W.

(2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793

27.

National Technical Assistance Center on Transition. (2018). NTACT criteria for levels of evidence. https://transitionta.org/criteria-for-levels-of-evidence/

28.

National Technical Assistance Center on Transition. (2021). Quality indicator checklist: Correlational studies. https://transitionta.org/quality-indicator-checklists/

29.

Newman

L. A.

Garcia

Trainor

Chong

(2021). National picture of the self-determination characteristics of secondary school English learners with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(4), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420982923

30.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

(2015a). Reported accommodations and supports provided to secondary and postsecondary students with disabilities: National perspective. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(3), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413518235

31.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

(2015b). Analysis of factors related to receipt of accommodations and services by postsecondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515572912

32.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

Javitz

(2016). Effect of transition planning on post-secondary support receipt by students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915615884

33.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

Lalor

A. R.

Javitz

H. S.

(2019). Support receipt: Effect on postsecondary success of students with learning disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418811288

34.

Newman

L. A.

Madaus

Lalor

A. R.

Javitz

H. S.

(2021). Effect of accessing supports on higher education persistence of students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000170

35.

Newman

L. A.

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A. M.

Shaver

(2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school (NCSER 2010-3008). SRI International. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20103008

36.

Newman

L. A.

Wagner

Knokey

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

. . ., Wei

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from NLTS2 (NCSER 2011-3005). SRI International. http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf

37.

Reinheimer

McKenzie

(2011). The impact of tutoring on the academic success of undeclared students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2011.10850340

38.

Romano

L. E.

Trainor

A. A.

Newman

L. A.

(2023). Triad transition planning for students receiving special education and English learner services, families, and teachers. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221143514

39.

Shogren

K. A.

Lee

Panko

(2017). An examination of the relationship between postschool outcomes and autonomy, psychological, empowerment, and self -realization. The Journal of Special Education, 51(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916683171

40.

Shogren

K. A.

Shaw

L. A.

Raley

S. K.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2018). Exploring the effect of disability, race-ethnicity, and socioeconomic status on scores on the self-determination inventory: Student report. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918782150

41.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016014

42.

SRI International. (2000). National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) sampling plan. https://nlts2.sri.com/studymeth/nlts2_sampling_plan2.pdf

43.

Trainor

A. A.

(2010). Reexamining the promise of parent participation in special education: An analysis of cultural and social capital. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01086

44.

Trainor

A. A.

Newman

Garcia

Woodley

Traxler

R. E.

Deschene

D. N.

(2019). Postsecondary education-focused transition planning experiences of English learners with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2165143418811830

45.

Trammell

Hathaway

(2007). Help-seeking patterns in college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 20(1), 5–15. https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/publications/jped/archived-jped/jped-volume-20

46.

Troiano

P. F.

Liefeld

J. A.

Trachtenberg

J. V.

(2010). Academic support and college success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2010.10850329

47.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) restricted dataset. National Center for Special Education Research.

48.

U.S. Department of Education. (2021). NCES digest of education statistics 2020 Table 502.30. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_502.30.asp

49.

Valdes

Godard

Williamson

Van Campen

McCracken

Jones

(2013). National Longitudinal Transition Study-2(NLTS2) Waves 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 data documentation and dictionary. SRI International. https://www.nlts2.org/data_dictionary/data_documentation_dictionary.html

50.

Wagner

Marder

(2003). Introduction. In Wagner

Marder

Levine

Cameto

Cadwallader

T. W.

Blackorby

(Eds.), The individual and household characteristics of youth with disabilities: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (pp. 1–5). SRI International. www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_08/nlts2_report_2003_08_complete.pdf

51.

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

(2011). Using a self-advocacy intervention on African American college students’ ability to request academic accommodations. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00333

52.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2000). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale: Procedural guidelines (Revised). The Arc of the United States. https://thearc.org/wp-content/uploads/forchapters/SD%20Scale%20Procedural%20Guidelines.pdf

53.

Winkle-Wagner

(2010). Foundations of educational inequality: Cultural capital and social reproduction. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36, 1–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3601

54.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB