Introduction

Since 2010, the U.S. economy has added 11.6 million jobs, and 99% of them have gone to those who have some college education (Carnevale et al., 2016). With the increased number of jobs requiring postsecondary degrees, a college education increases job opportunities (Carnevale et al., 2016). Additionally, a college education is connected to greater health and increased civic engagement (Ma et al., 2016). Unfortunately, Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC), and low-income students do not have the same college attendance and graduation rates as White, Asian, and higher-income students (NCES, 2019). Without a college education, BIPOC and marginalized communities will not have equal employment opportunities.

This literature review presents a synthesis of studies that center equity in college access and readiness from a critical, anti-racist, and asset-based perspective. We selected literature that focuses on college access and college readiness systems rather than BIPOC individuals needing to expand and change. We identified the assets and resources that BIPOC youth and communities contribute to college access and college readiness. The literature review highlighted how factors, such as racism, can disrupt equitable aims to college access and college readiness for marginalized and BIPOC youth. Our goal is to advance approaches to equity, college access, and college readiness by lifting up studies that center marginalized students such as those who are BIPOC and think critically about ways to support them with their college pathways.

Therefore, the literature review asked two questions: 1) What are the systemic, structural, and programmatic barriers to college access and college readiness? 2) What classroom and school cultures and district practices promote widespread college access and readiness?

There are four sections in the literature review. We begin by discussing the theoretical frameworks used for college access and readiness. This section starts by describing guiding theories that are race-centered and asset-based. Considerations toward the identity and aspirations of students of color and the assets that they and their communities bring are the focus of the next group of articles. The section ends by critiquing traditional approaches to college readiness and discussing ways to build on these approaches that center BIPOC and marginalized youth. The second section focuses on higher education and barriers to college access and readiness. It provides an overview of the current higher education context and potential ruptures in the postsecondary pipeline for BIPOC and marginalized youth. Next, there is a discussion on how equity-centered college access and readiness policies impact marginalized students. The section ends by exploring barriers faced by BIPOC youth, including calls for intersectional identities to advance the college access and readiness process. The third section describes classroom-level, school-level, and district-wide/system-level practices that support equity with marginalized students as it relates to college access and college readiness. Lastly, section four includes the conclusion and recommendations for the college access and readiness field.

Literature Review Methodology

We selected empirical and theoretical studies by searching for current (2014-2021) mostly peer reviewed journal articles connecting college access, college readiness, and equity. In addition, we included seminal articles for selected topics before 2014 in our synthesis. We had a total of 22 articles that we cited before 2014. These articles were chosen because they were authors that discussed a foundational concept such as Ladson-Billings (1995) and her definition of culturally relevant pedagogy or Yosso (2005) and her conception of community cultural wealth. Other seminal articles were those from topic areas where articles made a unique or significant contribution to our discussion on college access and readiness for BIPOC and marginalized students. These include articles such as Castro (2013) discussing racialized college readiness or Rogers and Terriquez (2013) presenting their findings on youth organizing and four-year college enrollment. For the entire literature review, we selected as many articles, as possible, that provided critical, anti-racist, and asset-based perspectives about college access, college readiness, and equity that included marginalized and BIPOC student populations. We used search terms to identify an initial set of articles to review. We then expanded on these articles with further research by using citations from articles we found as well as referring to our own library of articles. A total of 166 articles were used to create this literature review. After reviewing the literature and focusing on NTN’s areas of interest, we organized articles into categories and synthesized key findings and future directions.

Theoretical Frameworks

We grounded this literature review in critical approaches to college access and college readiness, including Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Community Cultural Wealth (CCW). This section explores how CRT and CCW connect to how BIPOC youth think about college identities and aspirations, social and familial capital, and expand on traditional approaches to college readiness.

Guiding Theories

While several frameworks inform college access and readiness, many do not employ a racialized lens. Such failure to take a comprehensive look at the contextual factors that make up the educational system (e.g., policies, rigorous academic offerings, school climate, quality facilities) as it relates to college access and readiness leads to deficit thinking (Weber et al., 2018). Within a White-dominant school context, deficit thinking primarily affects BIPOC, emergent bilingual (i.e. ELL), and other vulnerable student populations by setting them up to meet standards that are not designed for them (Ford, 2014). For example, achievement for BIPOC students is centered on Whiteness, meaning that children of color often have to acquire skills, habits, and academic practices that align with their White peers’ background in order to be successful. If they cannot gain these White-centered skills, they run the risk of being seen as not capable of achieving, despite their own unique strengths that they may possess. Such thinking can then lead to a number of outcomes, such as teachers not challenging students, students having lower academic confidence, and, of note, students not pursuing higher education. This warrants the need for utilizing theoretical approaches that note the disadvantages that racially and ethnically diverse students face within the school context. Including the voices of young BIPOC people in defining college access and readiness frameworks is also essential. For example, Sullivan et al.(2020) spoke with college students about their ideas of what is needed to transition to college and sums up the following recommendations based on their answers about increasing college readiness: creating opportunities for teachers and students across institutions to talk, centering deep thinking and deep reading, focusing on big questions and ill-structured (e.g. questions that don’t have only one answer) questions, and embracing culturally sustaining pedagogy. Flennaugh et al. (2017) had similar conversations where Black students shared counterstories about barriers to college and emphasized how the voice of students should inform college readiness reforms and discourse.

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory in education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) is used to articulate that racism is embedded within the U.S. educational system and that racism affects BIPOC students’ chances of being academically successful. Ladson-Billings and Tate argued that, similar to legal policies in the United States, education policies contribute to educational inequities among BIPOC students. They note three key facts that relate to inequities both in education and society as a whole:

• Race remains a significant factor in determining inequities. For example, middleclass African American students tend to academically “underperform” as compared to middle-class White students because race is a more powerful determinant of educational and social outcomes than class (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
• U.S. society is based on property rights. Those with better property are entitled to “better” schools.
• Examining both race and property rights through intersectionality helps us to understand social (as well as school/educational) inequities.

These key factors relate to college access and readiness in BIPOC students by examining how their inequitable educational experiences result in lack of preparedness for college applications and pursuing higher education. Oftentimes, students of color from low-income backgrounds attend schools that do not have as many resources as schools in more affluent neighborhoods. This is due to the fact that property taxes from neighboring homes go directly to school funding. When students live in poor neighborhoods, school funding is limited because they do not receive as much property tax. Thus, they receive fewer academic opportunities and are still compared to those that have been provided those opportunities when it comes time for college entry examinations (e.g., SAT). Essentially, property rights affect the quality of education and preparation for college one receives, which can then directly affect being college ready. BIPOC students in low-income areas must face both a lack of resources and a White-centered educational system on the road to higher education attainment. Even when students of color are from more affluent neighborhoods and can gain access to schools with an abundance of resources, they still face the struggles of navigating a White-dominant culture in which their own unique skills and cultural background are unfavored (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).

CRT has also emerged as a central framework for taking an anti-deficit approach. Previously mentioned, deficit thinking is undergirded by racialized ideas such as solely attributing the performance of BIPOC students to lack of trying rather than examining the structural factors that impede success. Furthermore, deficit thinking also has racialized undertones of who can learn and who is worthy of attending college (Convertino & Graboski-Bauer, 2017). Deficit thinking, though a silent practice, can produce loud, noticeable results. For example, Black and Latinx males are often aware of the biases (e.g., what they can and cannot do) that educators have against them regarding their academic abilities, and they figure out how to navigate continuing to pursue their academic endeavors (e.g., college) despite the negative messages received (Warren et al., 2016). Patton et al. (2015) also apply a CRT lens to college access and admissions and discuss how to situate college access and readiness within the context of factors such as racism and racist institutional policies, which is often left out of the college access literature. Examples of college access barriers include police practices, racist counselors, lack of college outreach to students in certain schools, and few faculty and students of color on college campuses. Moreover, Acevedo-Gil (2017) proposes a college “conocimiento” choice framework that connects inequalities for Latinx students such as insufficient college guidance to their intersectional identities and suggests that CRT is also used for further studies. By employing a CRT lens to examine college access and readiness for BIPOC students, educators can begin to identify how unconscious bias, deficit thinking, as well as other features of the educational system hinder the academic success of BIPOC students and, as such, they can begin to identify antiracist approaches to support BIPOC students’ academic success. Additionally, CRT works to increase students’ critical consciousness (i.e., the ability to critique social inequities and the motivation to take action to address social inequities), which can serve as a protective factor for BIPOC students.

Community Cultural Wealth

While noting the struggles of BIPOC students, it is important to examine their assets that they bring to the classroom and educational system. Social capital is a kind of capital that exists among social networks in families and communities. In education, social capital facilitates access to opportunity and provides the resources for activating these opportunities.

McDonough and Nuñez (2007) discuss Bourdieu’s seminal definition of social capital — which has traditionally framed scholarship on educational inequality — as one where social networks resources are used for tangible and symbolic profit. They also point to Bourdieu’s use of social capital in connection to reproducing social inequality. For education, his theory can view schools as sites that reproduce social inequality (McDonough and Nuñez, 2007). For example, educational disparities for BIPOC and marginalized youth are perpetuated by schools. Social capital is one way to navigate these disparities.

The theory of community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), substantially expands and reorients this conception of social capital. Drawing from CRT in education, Yosso (2005) describes Community Cultural Wealth Theory (CCW), which posits that communities of color possess unique cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities that often go unrecognized.

Yosso (2005) identifies six types of capital found among communities of color:

• Social
• Familial
• Navigational
• Aspirational
• Linguistic
• Resistant

Each of these forms of community cultural wealth informs young peoples’ ability to develop and realize their college aspirations. Among the most crucial differences between community cultural wealth theory and Bourdieu’s theory of cultural and social capital is that it is asset-based. It sees students of color and their families as rich in a variety of resources that will support them to navigate the higher education system. Furthermore, this model’s greater specificity and detail make it a more powerful tool to analyze both the success of college-going students and the resources they bring to confront various obstacles.

Students of color often bring these skills and knowledge into the classroom; however, they often go unnoticed or unwanted. CCW theory aims to acknowledge their assets and argues that educators and school leaders use them within the classroom to deepen learning and achievement and affirm students of color. Drawing on the strengths of students of color can diminish deficit thinking by ensuring that the skills, knowledge, and abilities of BIPOC students are reflected in curriculum and pedagogy. This can also help to ensure that BIPOC students feel efficacious within the academic context and believe that they can successfully pursue higher education (Yosso, 2005).

Using the lenses of CRT and CCW, we now turn to critiquing traditional frameworks for understanding college readiness, namely Conley’s (2007) College Readiness Framework.

Critiques of Traditional Approaches to College Readiness

There are many college readiness frameworks that seek to examine skills and abilities needed for one to become college ready. David Conley’s College Readiness Framework is prominent and widely used among educators and practitioners. His Framework suggests that success in college is dependent upon a student’s possession of four critical skills (Conley, 2007). These skills include:

• Key Cognitive Strategies: The possession of foundational cognitive skills that enable students to obtain, manipulate, present, and retain information
• Key Content Knowledge: The possession of foundational knowledge in core academic subjects
• Academic Behaviors: The possession of self-monitoring, self-awareness, and other self-skills that promote academic success; and
• Contextual Skills & Awareness: The understanding of college systems and culture

Despite being widely used (Duncheon & Muñoz, 2019; Uy et al., 2019), Conley’s College Readiness Framework has received several critiques concerning its limited skills-based approach. Although Conley’s Framework identifies important skills related to college access and readiness, it fails to examine systematic barriers that may hinder marginalized students from obtaining readiness. Without considering how the sociocultural context impacts academic success, Conley’s Framework risks looking at marginalized students and students of color from a deficit perspective.

Assimilation Needed. While the framework offers skills students can build in order to increase college readiness, it fails to take into consideration sociocultural and political factors that can influence these skills. For example, based on the four critical skills needed for college readiness, one would conclude that students of color must gain skills and knowledge that are in alignment with their affluent White peers (Majors, 2019); however, the pathway to doing so looks different. While White students have the advantage of learning these skills in a conducive school environment, students of color must learn these skills through a curriculum and instruction that does not engage them in a culturally responsive manner. Essentially, they would have to assimilate to the White dominant culture in order to succeed, rather than institutions appreciating and uplifting the skills and knowledge that BIPOC students already bring.

Focus on Standardized Testing. Castro (2013) notes that while Conley’s framework recommends several areas to focus on for improving the readiness of students for college, it fails to take into account how entrenched educational inequality functions within school contexts. For example, Conley’s work has focused on a skill development that can be assessed with standardized test scores. However, standardized test scores are problematic for marginalized students, as they were specifically normed using the cultural frames of White families and communities (Duncheon & Relles, 2019; Majors, 2019).

Disproportionate Resources. Disproportionate educational resources and opportunities are available to White affluent students as compared to their non-White and marginalized peers, such as limited AP course offerings and other opportunities for marginalized students to be competitive college applicants, further solidifying White students’ dominance in college readiness (Klopfenstein, 2018; Majors, 2019). Conley’s Framework does not account for this and, essentially, tells students that they lack the skills needed to be successful in college in a way that blames them for the lack of skill rather than the systems at play which hinder their abilities.

These critiques suggest that researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders need to ask more of frameworks that are designed to improve students’ college readiness. Fortunately, researchers have begun to recommend the consideration of additional factors that can enhance the work on college readiness.

• Critical Race Theory Utilization: Critical Race Theory (CRT) fills in racial gaps that the College Readiness Framework does not take into account. Examining college access and readiness through a CRT lens, allows educators and policymakers to trace how racism manifests within classrooms, school and even college readiness frameworks. Through a CRT lens, educators develop critical consciousness (i.e., the ability to critique social inequities, the motivation to take action to address social inequities, and the actual behavior of taking action) which gives them the skills to prepare students for college. If people are not aware of inequities and/or cannot critique them, the chances of perpetual inequality increases. Oftentimes, BIPOC students are exposed to people and situations that serve to oppress them. This is especially true on college campuses. Critical consciousness helps students to understand the world around them and achieve despite stereotype threat and microaggressions. Thus, accounting for critical consciousness in conversations of college readiness could provide meaningful information for students of color. Additionally, based on the significant amount of empirical support for increasing critical consciousness in students (Cadenas et al., 2020; Cadenas et al., 2021), it is suggested that college preparation activities should help to build students’ critical consciousness (MonjarasGaytan et al., 2021), though empirical evidence for this is still limited.
• Identity Utilization: Schools not only teach students academic content, but also help students to form an idea of who they are in relation to others (Duncheon & Relles, 2019). To promote college going identities for BIPOC students’ educators should:
  • Create environments that are similar to college in order to increase students’ postsecondary aspirations and awareness (Corwin & Tierney, 2007; see Practices section).
  • Include school staff that engage in behaviors, beliefs, and language that promote high achievement in students (see Warm Demander section). This will allow students to see themselves as students who are capable of engaging in challenging academic work and, thus, increase their college aspirations.
  • Focus on building positive racial/ethnic identities among students of color (see Practices section).

Given these critiques, we next turn to a discussion of how CRT and CCW can offer more relevant approaches to understanding how identity, aspirations, and familial and community capital shape the college readiness experience of BIPOC students.

Identity and Aspirations

Limited research exists to examine identity in college access and readiness literature that considers the unique identities of BIPOC and marginalized students, even though it is an important aspect of youth development. Identity is a complex construct in which individuals figure out who they are in relation to others (Spencer, 2018). Identity is multifaceted, and includes constructs such as a person's race, gender, class, and other salient groupings that they possess; all of which influence their decision-making and self-efficacy (Brooms, 2019) on a daily basis. Thus, identity is an important construct to consider when promoting college readiness among BIPOC students.

How students view themselves in relation to school plays an important role in their achievement. For example, ample evidence supports the notion that students feeling efficacious in their work (i.e., I can do this) is associated with academic achievement (Olivier et al., 2019; Talsma et al., 2018). However, students’ identity formation looks different based on their racial background. Because students of color have the added challenge of navigating White-dominant school cultures, they are at higher risk of developing negative student identities (e.g., I am not a good student; Brooms, 2019), which can subsequently impact their decision to pursue postsecondary education. Initial theories and frameworks on college access and readiness were developed without considering the role that racism plays in education.

Consider This: Conley’s College Readiness theory articulates four dimensions that students must possess in order to be successful in college (e.g., key cognitive strategies, key content knowledge, academic behaviors, contextual and awareness skills). Garcia (2001) expanded upon this theory by adding in the notion that stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents) supporting students in their readiness for college directly influences their readiness. While these factors and strategies serve as a starting point for understanding college readiness, students of color, specifically, have culturally-specific struggles that must be considered when determining whether they are able to enter a predominantly White university setting. In particular, students of color constantly face challenges that serve to demean their identities (e.g., microaggressions). Essentially, students of color negotiate complex identity processes while adjusting to the university setting (Hungerford-Kresser, 2012).

College readiness theories omit several factors that contribute to students’ of color collegegoing identity construction. Such factors include the need to challenge the many negative narratives that are placed on students of color (e.g., becoming teenage-parents, dropping out of high school to seek employment) (Huerta et al, 2018). The need to challenge those narratives results in the belief that one must “be” someone and to be successful, whether it be in college or in the military. Additionally, military recruiters are notable in minority high schools and make promises of money, which can delay college for technical training (Huerta et al., 2018). When students of color are already feeling finicky regarding their college-going identity, the military serves as a viable solution. Additionally, the financial struggles that come with college can make the military more appealing (Huerta et al., 2018).

CRT and other critical frameworks help to promote positive identity in students of color. In particular, the Community Cultural Wealth theory promotes the inclusion of students of color’ unique knowledge, skills and abilities in the school context. Often, students of color have to compare their skills to other students and schools that favor White ideology (Duncheon & Relles, 2019). Doing so can easily demote their academic efficacy. However, including their skills and abilities in the academic standards helps to level the playing field so that they may develop positive identities and feel better suited for postsecondary education.

While research remains sparse in relation to college identity and students of color, more literature exists to examine college aspirations among students of color. Findings from previous empirical articles indicate that several factors can influence Black and Latinx students’ educational aspirations, including parental and family support. Among Black boys, in particular, aspects such as their quality of life and receiving postsecondary education messages from people closest to them increase their educational aspirations (Brooms & Davis, 2017). For Latinx students, these barriers include lack of resources, negative peer influences, school and family barriers, and systemic barriers (Manzano-Sanchez et al., 2019). Specifically, students have expressed difficulties being able to access scholarships and fear the disadvantages of getting a student loan. Feeling a sense of responsibility to contribute to their family (e.g., rent) also diminishes their aspirations. Of note, students feeling less efficacious and confident in their academic abilities also have fewer postsecondary aspirations (ManzanoSanchez et al., 2019). When Latinx students have the support of their family members, friends, and school personnel, they typically aspire to pursue college (Manzano-Sanchez, 2019).

Social and Familial Capital

Familial capital is the cultural knowledge, memory, and history that young people gather from a wide variety of sources both within and beyond their closest blood relatives. Parent and community engagement is often discussed in early education, but not in higher education (Garcia & Delgado Bernal, 2021). Also, families of BIPOC students are framed in deficit ways in education (Valencia, 1997, Bertrand et al., 2018, Reynolds et al. 2015). Yet, families and communities play a vital role in supporting BIPOC and marginalized youth through high school and into college. In this section, we identify the theories as well as forms of social capital and familial capital that BIPOC communities use to prepare their children for college.

Familial capital. Students of color and college-bound youth have close family and community ties through which they sustain social and familial capital. Carey (2016) describes college-going familial capital as resources collected by youth from an early age from a variety of immediate, extended, and fictive kin. He notes that schools are often unaware of this diverse and rich network of support. Harper et al. (2020) describe how the families of first-generation college students seek to provide advice while respecting students’ autonomy. These parents form a network that includes similarly situated parents as well as extended family members to support their students. At the same time, other studies focus on the transmission of capital in a much more intimate family setting. Garcia and Mireles-Rios (2019) and Quiñones and Kiyama (2014) both analyze the unique role and impact of Latinx fathers on their daughters concerning their college aspirations and attainment. Both of these studies locate the origin of a social justice orientation and resistance to oppression in the conversations that occur between these fathers and daughters.

College success is constructed as a benefit for the family and community, and not strictly for the individual. Multiple studies (Carey, 2016; Harper et al., 2020; Mwangi, 2015; Quiñones & Kiyama, 2014) confirm that educational achievement is most often framed in terms of reciprocity—what the student can give back to their family and community.

In constructing their college aspirations and seeking support for their success, students draw on a wide range of sources for information and inspiration. Many students participate in college preparatory programs either within or beyond their schools (Dávila et al., 2020; Kiyama & Harper, 2018; Kniess et al., 2020; Moses & Wiley, 2020). Parents play a crucial role in this regard (Garcia & Mireles-Rios 2019; Quiñones & Kiyama, 2014), but of equal importance are aunts and uncles, cousins, friends, and all the non-parent family and community (NPFC) members (Mwangi, 2015) whose prior or current experience with college, successful or otherwise, that inform students’ construction of their goals. Mwangi (2015) identifies this as familial social capital and notes that it consists largely of emotional support in the form of encouragement and empathy.

Community Capital. Attempts by high schools, nonprofits, and colleges to engage with students and their families, to draw on and enhance their social capital, vary substantially in their effectiveness. Kniess et al. (2020) describe a program for high school youth whose fathers do not live in the home. He found that the program’s emphasis on goal setting, building relationships, and listening supported participants to be successful in college even after the program had ended. Moses and Wiley (2020), however, describe a program designed to increase access to higher education among low-income youth that is based on a deficit perspective. Staff at this program believe that students must learn to abandon the culture of poverty and adopt middle-class culture to be successful in college. Similarly, Dávila et al. (2020) profiled a college preparatory program that did little to support parents to navigate barriers to participation such as transportation and translation. In both of these cases, the programs were not designed to draw on and enhance the preexisting capital of students and their networks. To correct this, Kiyama and Harper (2018) suggest a Model of Parent and Family Characteristics, Engagement, and Support. This model encourages institutions to examine the assumptions they may hold about families and abandon color-blind and class-blind models of parent involvement. She encourages schools to adopt inclusive practices that emphasize participation and trust-building, and respond to the diversity of students’ families and support networks.

In Summary

• Failure to examine the educational system using a racialized lens can lead to deficit thinking, which can negatively impact BIPOC students' prospect of becoming college ready.
• Critical Race Theory and Community Cultural Wealth Theory challenges inequitable outcomes for BIPOC students by centering their struggles as well as uplifting their own unique abilities.
• The education system is in need of work, including examining BIPOC students’ unique challenges critically and valuing their assets within the classroom setting as much as White-centered skills and knowledge.
• Conley’s theoretical framework on college readiness offers a skills-based approach to understanding students’ preparation to succeed in college.
• Currently, there is a significant gap in understanding students’ of color academic and college-going identities. Theories made with a White-dominant lens do not serve students of color effectively because they examine their qualities using a metric that is designed for White students.
• Too often, families of Black, Latinx, and other students of color are framed in deficit ways when discussing education (Valencia, 1997, Bertrand et al, 2018, Reynolds et al. 2015). Acknowledging the existence of social capital and using an asset-based lens like that of Yosso (2005) to explore community cultural wealth will highlight the ways the families and extended networks can benefit BIPOC students on their pathways to college. While Conley’s framework serves as a starting point, it will be important for stakeholders to examine other factors that can influence students’ ability to become college ready.
• Utilizing a sociocultural, sociopolitical, and racialized lens (e.g., CRT, Community Culture of Wealth) will allow educators to better understand the challenges students of color face in obtaining the skills needed to become ready for college. Such challenges include access to academic resources and opportunities, stereotype threat, and others that can create barriers for marginalized students. Understanding these challenges and providing equitable solutions to combat them will ensure that children from marginalized backgrounds can pursue higher education and succeed in doing so.

Return to report landing page