Access or Justice? Inside-Out and Transformative Education

Board Member Editorial:Increasing Educational Opportunities for Incarcerated Persons Heidi Coleman The United States has been grappling with mass incarceration for decades, and more intensely in the last few years as explicit and implicit police support of white supremacy and structural racism have become more visible. The United States (U.S.) has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with state prison populations often out-ranking entire countries (Prison Policy, 2021). And people of color are disproportionally represented in this population (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2022). Beckett and Francis (2020) argue that incarceration cannot be separated from racial politics in the U.S. I would argue that incarceration also cannot be separated from education, given that students of color have the lowest cohort graduation rates and highest high school dropout rates (NCES, 2020). The United States crafted the "American Dream" by holding dear to the myth that if you work hard, you can achieve anything—that meritocracy works. But it simply isn't true. Marginalized groups have been structurally and systematically shut out of opportunities, including education, and subsequently a living wage, since our earliest colonial times. Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous males have the highest high school dropout rates across the country (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Of those who graduate, about 50% of Black students, 60% of Hispanic students, and 20% of Indigenous students go on to college compared with nearly 70% of white students (Education Data Initiative, 2021). Given that nearly three-quarters of all jobs require some sort of college credential, this creates an opportunity gap for employment which is compounded by the systemic racism of hiring practices. The result is the school-to-prison pipeline experienced in secondary education across the nation. When we fail to educate those most vulnerable in high school, we facilitate situations in which people have limited choices to support themselves and their loved ones. This pipeline helps explain a report from The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2010 which shows that the U.S. inmate population is higher than the top 35 European countries combined (Collateral Costs, 2010). And the incarceration rate for Black people is 5x higher, the rate for Latinx is 2x higher, and the Native American rate is 3x higher than White, non-Latinx Americans. Over 90% of currently incarcerated individuals will be released. Consider the opportunity gap now created for a marginalized person with a criminal record and no education (high school or college) when they are released from prison. Is it any wonder that nearly 80% of previously incarcerated people will be re-arrested within 9 years of release (BJS, 2018)? This is particularly concerning given the low number of college courses/programs offered in carceral environments. In a national survey of postsecondary education in state prisons, Gorgol and Sponsler (2011) found that only 35% of state prisons offered [End Page 87] college courses and that these programs serve only 6% of the total state prison population nation-wide. This is partly due to funding, but also partly due to structural barriers inside of prisons. Most facilities have few rooms dedicated to education. Gatekeeping actions like placement tests and time served also restrict participation. For example, a school that requires incarcerated students to have less than ten years and more than one year on their sentence to participate. This alone removes options for those who are serving long sentences. Another barrier is state law barring incarcerated students from earning a degree in some states. They can take courses, and may be able to get some level of certification, but cannot earn bachelor's degrees. And these barriers don't consider the interaction of individual bias and power originating from the administrators making decisions about who can participate. In 1994, President Clinton signed the Violent Crimes Act which prohibited incarcerated people from obtaining Pell Grants. Up until that time, higher education programs in prisons were gaining traction and finding that recidivism rates for those who participated in higher education programs in prison were 43% lower than those who did not. A recent study funded by the RAND corporation (Bozick, et al., 2018) found that education programs in prisons saved $5 for every dollar spent due to...

This study examines the connection between participation in higher education programs in prison and the development of social capital. Interviews were conducted with eighteen formerly incarcerated participants enrolled in higher education programs while incarcerated. Findings suggest that participants developed self-efficacy, hard and soft skills, and connections to positive social networks through taking part in a postsecondary correctional education program. Participants noted an expansion of their self-awareness and improved communication skills that facilitated their mostly successful pursuits of employment opportunities after being released. The findings of this study also suggest that the outcomes of higher education programs in prisons extend beyond classroom learning and academic achievement in a way that provides students with knowledge, useful skills, prosocial networks, and access to employment prospects upon reentry into the community. More specifically, this study details how postsecondary correctional education programs provide a foundation for building social capital and preparing incarcerated individuals to become employable, law-abiding citizens. That this information came from formerly incarcerated individuals who are now thriving postrelease warrants further research that would support the expansion of educational programming for prisoners.

From the Editor Debora L. Liddell This issue of The Journal of College Student Development represents the inaugural issue of a new leadership team, following the exceptional direction of John Braxton and his Associate Editors Susan Jones, Kristen Renn, and Vasti Torres. The higher education profession is grateful for their careful stewardship of our profession’s scholarship and of JCSD over the past 7 years. For the next several issues, we will continue to benefit from their editorial decisions as we process the queue of manuscripts accepted under their direction. I am deeply humbled and privileged to accept the invitation to edit this journal. With this transition I am pleased to introduce readers to our new leadership team. As Editor, I come with a background in the scholarship of student development—more specifically, moral development of young adults. My teaching and research have been informed by both qualitative and quantitative inquiry. A secondary line of research for me has been the development of student affairs professionals—how they are trained, socialized, and cultivated professionally throughout their careers. The connections between research, teaching and practice run deep for me. I have spent my entire postdoctoral career at the University of Iowa, teaching in and leading the Higher Education and Student Affairs graduate program. It is here I have had the deep privilege of working with committed colleagues, inquisitive students, and supportive elders. My first decision as Editor was to expand the leadership team and to add a new position, Senior Associate Editor, to assist with the management of the Journal and facilitate the time to publication. Following a national search for Associate Editors, I am pleased to introduce readers to our leadership team. They represent exceptional scholarship, an unwavering commitment to social justice in the academy, and a deep connection to the work of ACPA—College Student Educators International. The entire team has served as JCSD reviewers. As Senior Associate Editor, Dafina-Lazarus Stewart (uses ze, zim, zir/hir pronouns) also serves as Associate Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Bowling Green State University. Hir research agenda focuses on issues of diversity, inclusion, equity, and justice in US higher education, particularly around race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender, as well as religion, faith, and spirituality. Dr. Stewart engages the issues of individual experiences, identity, and outcomes as well as community and institutional structures and systems presented by these social constructions and constrictions predominantly through critical and deconstructivist paradigms and attendant qualitative methodologies. Two colleagues will share the work of Associate Editor for Research-in-Brief and On Campus. Jan L. Arminio is Professor and Director of the Higher Education Program at George Mason University. Her scholarship focuses on multicultural issues, qualitative research, assessment, and campus programs. From 2004–2008, Dr. Arminio served as President of CAS, Council for the Advancement of Standards. She also was appointed to and later chaired the NASPA Faculty Fellows and the ACPA Senior Scholars. Her recent scholarly books included contributions on student veterans in higher education, inclusivity on campus, and qualitative research. Robert Reason, Professor of Student Affairs and Higher Education at Iowa State University, studies how college affects students. His recent work focuses on assessing and improving civic learning for personal and social responsibility in college. He has completed several studies of [End Page 533] first-year student outcomes and is a noted expert on issues of student persistence in college. Before returning to his doctoral alma mater, Dr. Reason was at Penn State University’s Center for the Study of Higher Education. As Associate Editor for International Research and Scholarship, Tricia Seifert is a faculty member in the Adult and Higher Education program at Montana State University and maintains an appointment in the Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Department at the University of Toronto. Using a mixed methodological approach, her scholarship examines organizational cultures and conditions as well as student experiences associated with postsecondary learning and success. She has served as Faculty in Residence for ACPA’s Commission for Global Dimensions on Student Development. Leading the Journal’s commitment to introducing readers to new literature in the field, Maureen E. Wilson will serve as Associate Editor of Book Reviews. She is Associate Professor...

Administrators who opt to provide education programs in prison are faced with the need to structure programs that span primary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. There seems to be consensus in the United States that prison education programs can properly include literacy, vocational education, and life-skill programs. However, this agreement doesn't extend to college programs. Prison college programs have a long history in the United States but their acceptability has ebbed and flowed over the years. Support of college programs in prison peaked in the 1960s and 70s, but became less popular in the 1980s and 90s. These programs depend, to a large extent, on federal tuition assistance. Amendments to federal legislation are offered almost annually, to exclude all prisoners from any college tuition assistance entitlement. These efforts have been unsuccessful, to date, but they reflect a section of public opinion which remains critical of tax supported grants to pay for prison college programs. Do inmate education programs reduce recidivism? Although some argue that it is not reasonable to correlate postrelease outcomes with any one prison program or situation, legislators and the public focus on recidivism and its correlation to specific programs. A significant body of research has developed in recent years that demonstrates a positive correlation between higher education and postrelease success. Despite this, currently, at least in the United States, college programs continue to be the most vulnerable of all prison education programs. If research data continue to show that these programs are cost effective and impact recidivism in positive ways, the situation may stabilize.

There are significant inequalities in the lives of America’s children, including inequalities in the education that these children receive. These educational inequalities include not only disparities in funding per pupil but also in class size, teacher qualification, and resources such as books, labs, libraries, computers, and curriculum, as well as the physical condition of the school and the safety of students within it. While not all schools attended by poor children are bad schools, and not all schools attended by well-off children are good schools, there are clear patterns. Poor children are more likely to attend crowded and poorly equipped schools with less qualified teachers than the children of more affluent families. They are less likely to have computers, books, and advanced placement academic courses. To give one example of the differences in school resources, the wealthiest districts in New York spent more than $25,000 per pupil at the same

Having a college education is necessary to compete for many jobs, and the stakes for ex-offenders are higher than for others. This Perspective summarizes research on the effectiveness of educational programs in reducing recidivism and lessons learned from one state's experience in providing college programs to incarcerated individuals. Focusing on the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative, it outlines key issues to address.

A criminal conviction results in consequences that extend beyond incarceration. Self-stigmatization is a negative consequence that many formerly individuals experience. It manifests in low self-esteem and personal barriers to reentry. This study explores higher education programs in prison as a moderator of self-stigma. Using qualitative interviews, this study investigated the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who participated in higher education in prison in regard to the ways in which incarceration and education affected their self-stigma. Results indicate that incarceration influences self-stigma, but education enhances a sense of empowerment and motivation to resist the negative effects of self-stigma. Reducing the stigmatization of formerly incarcerated individuals is important because if they view themselves positively, it can improve their reentry and life trajectory.

PurposeThis study explores how career training with mentoring (CTM) programs work in Nigerian higher education (HE) institutions to foster students' career development and employability of graduates. It also explores how Nigerian HE curriculum can be adequately used to facilitate CTM as well as possible constraints to effective implementation of CTM programs in Nigerian HE institutions.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on interviews with well-qualified and experienced experts from six Nigerian public universities (each from the 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria), and 20 industries also within the same 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria that were selected for this study using a purposeful sampling technique. The study interviewed 33 experts comprising 21 senior academics at Nigerian universities and 12 industry executives to reveal substantial information about CTM programs in Nigerian HE institutions.FindingsDrawing on the three key themes that emerged during the thematic analysis and linked to social cognitive career theory, it is clear that participants are convinced that CTM can enhance clarity about students' career ambitions, career interests, personal development plans and employability. Findings show that there are some career-related programs or activities that Nigerian HE students are presented with, but the programs have not been effective as to offer graduates quality career guidance and employability skills that employers demand. Acknowledging these, participants recommend establishing CTM centres in all Nigerian HE institutions to provide students with the opportunity to receive quality career advice, coaching and mentoring services while schooling.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study shed light on varying resources required to cope with the demands of labour market in terms of supply of competent workforce that can contribute to Nigeria's economic growth and development. The findings are highly relevant for Nigeria and other developing countries' policy and research initiatives that aim to promote social inclusion and equity and improve better working conditions for all. The findings also have implications for career development and employability of HE graduates in developing world context.Originality/valueUnderstanding the role that CTM programs can play in facilitating career development and graduate employability can arguably be of importance within the developing world context. This study, therefore, provides significant suggestions on how to build sustained HEIs and labour market partnership to foster career development and employability of HE graduates through establishing CTM centres in every Nigerian HE institutions.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present design principles for holistic design of online degree programmes (ODPs) in higher education (HE). The study adds to previous research on online programme design by examining how the digital competence and pedagogical strategy of a HE organisation can inform holistic ODP design.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents a case study placed in the context of a Finnish applied HE organisation. Design-based research (DBR) process is used to create holistic design principles for new ODPs. Theoretical framework for the study is digitally competent organisation (Kampylis et al., 2015) and pedagogical strategy is innovation pedagogy (Kettunen et al., 2013).FindingsDesign principles for pedagogically informed holistic design of ODPs are presented as a three-tiered model comprising organisational, pedagogical and ODP layers. Each layer includes various principles for holistic design to integrate an organisation's pedagogical strategy in a digitally competent context to create quality ODPs.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper presents a case study from a HE organisation in Finland, but results are applicable to a wider global audience.Practical implicationsAs a contribution to practitioners, this paper presents a three-tiered holistic design of ODP in HE organisation, where the design principles are categorised in organisational, pedagogical and ODP design layers. In addition, suggestions to managers, instructional designers and educators are made for the holistic design of ODPs.Social implicationsBuilding the sense of community in ODPs and offering continuous support in pedagogy and technology are valuable for the well-being of the staff, students and the wider society.Originality/valueThe paper draws relationships between holistic design of ODPs, digital competence and pedagogical strategy. The paper provides managerial and operational viewpoints to managers, administrators and educators of HE organisations that plan to create new ODPs with a holistic focus on the educational organisation, its pedagogical strategy and digital competence. Recommendations for further development, possible applications and research of ODP education are made.

Abstract: While academic freedom is considered a birthright in higher education, the current hysteria surrounding teaching critical race theory in K–12 schools and at universities demonstrates an ongoing resistance to teaching theories that deconstruct and challenge white dominant norms. In prison education spaces, where censorship is common, tailoring education to the needs of those in power in prisons is wrought with ethical grievances. As federal funding for incarcerated students increases, how should higher education institutions navigate topics such as race and racism, when this content is challenged by prison officials? This article explores conceptually the role that higher education programming should have in prison spaces and discusses what is at stake when censorship of race and racism are not actively challenged. A framework is employed, through Ladson-Billings work, that names the ways in which an accrued educational debt is owed to incarcerated students of color that can begin to be repaid through student-centered higher education in prison programming. Additionally, the response of a college in prison organization when faced with prison censorship is highlighted as a path forward to engaging and responding to a growing anti-CRT movement, intended to obscure history and the inequity that people of color face in the United States. Without interrogating the role of college in prison programs, universities without careful consideration of how to address these racialized censorship issues can become a part of the repressive institution that is our current carceral state.

Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, of colleges and universities, college students and their parents. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services to help retain students, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, colleges, universities, and parents of students who are attending college and of students themselves. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Contributors: Some of the leading educators who study college student retention contributed to this book. All are truly dedicated to helping students achieve their individual academic and personal goals. A list of each and their affiliation follows: Alexander W. Astin: Allan M. Cartter Professor of Higher Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Director of the Higher Education Research Institute. Elizabeth Barlow: Executive Director of Institutional Research at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. John Bean: Associate Professor of Higher Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. Joseph B. Berger: Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Educational Policy, Research, and Administration in the School of Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. John Braxton: Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program in the Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Kurt Burkum: Doctoral student and Ostar Fellow in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State University. Alberto F. Cabrera: Specializes in research methodologies, college choice, college students, classroom experiences, minorities in higher education, and economics of education. Gloria Crisp: Doctoral student in educational leadership with a focus on higher education in the department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of Education at the University of Houston. Linda Hagedorn: Associate professor and the associate director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA), as well as the program chair for the Community College Leadership program in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Steve LaNasa: Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Planning at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, where he is responsible for outcomes assessment, planning, and program evaluation. Amy S. HirschyAssistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and the Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville. Stephanie D. Lee Doctoral student in the Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Susan C. Lyon: Works in the Office of Student Affairs in the School of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thomas G. Mortensen: Senior Scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, D.C., and an independent higher education policy analyst living in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Amaury Nora: Professor of Higher Education and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development in the College of Education at the University of Houston. Leticia Oseguera: Doctoral candidate in the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Education's Higher Education and Organizational Change program. Alan Seidman: The creator and editor of the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. John H. Schuh: Distinguished professor of educational leadership at Iowa State University, Ames, where he is also department chair. Vincent Tinto: Distinguished University Professor at Syracuse University and chair of the higher education program.

An entrepreneurship program in higher education aims to equip students with the knowledge, skills, and mindset needed to start and manage successful ventures. By integrating these aspects into an entrepreneurship program, higher education institutions can empower students to become successful entrepreneurs who drive innovation, create value, and make a positive impact on the world. This study aims to organize and evaluate entrepreneurship programs in higher education to provide future implications for university graduates. This study involved a bibliometric analysis in identifying, organizing, synthesizing, and analyzing the topic of entrepreneurship programs for higher education. The result is there has been a steady increase in scholarly publications related to entrepreneurship programs in higher education over the past few decades. The analysis in this study show that the papers are strongly connected through meaningful cocitations, highlighting the importance of publications published on different issues of entrepreneurship programs classified through clusters. The overall finding of the papers is that entrepreneurship programs in higher education can significantly influence students' propensity and confidence to start their own companies. Companies, universities, and governments highly value the integration of industry and education as a development strategy for schools, companies, and countries.

Although research has shown that entrepreneurship education can help prepare and motivate people to act entrepreneurially, less is known about why some people who are most in need of such education programs drop out while others persist and generate benefits well beyond those that are solely career related. Using a longitudinal multiple case study method to analyze participants of a 20-week entrepreneurship program in prison, comparisons of successful program participants and drop-outs show, first, that making sense of one’s past and the motivation to move forward activate opportunity recognition processes that facilitate persistence in an entrepreneurship educational program. Second, those who persist with the entrepreneurship education program are transformed—not only are beliefs about their entrepreneurial abilities strengthened but we also find that the program changed their attitudes toward both imprisonment and others, both of which have implications beyond career-related outcomes. Finally, we discuss the implications of the study for future research on management- related education of “high risk” individuals.

The duration of exile in refugee communities has grown immensely over the last two decades. Recent humanitarian reports have called for actors to create more coordinated global support for the refugee crises. In these recent calls, the desire to break a cycle of dependency between the refugee community and international aid has been a clear priority. Hence, education has emerged as a strategic action to foster refugee self-reliance, particularly higher education (HE) and technical and vocational education and training (TVET). There are many opportunities to use HE and TVET to benefit the refugee community, including: developing solutions to improve living conditions, enabling new opportunities for learning pathways, allowing refugees to contribute to the economy in hosting countries, or preparing them to rebuild their lives once they return to their home countries. However, the economic, political, and cultural complexities of refugee communities often add layers of challenges to typical formal HE and TVET programs. In addition, the existing literature in refugee education still lacks a coherent analysis of these factors and conditions for adoption of HE and TVET programs, especially for refugees living in camps. To address these gaps, this dissertation presents three studies that investigate an undergraduate introductory engineering course for refugees called Localized Engineering in Displacement (LED). Specifically, I draw on effective learning and policy frameworks to understand how to situate engineering education across HE and TVET and advance LED in refugee camps. The first study presents a case study examining the iterative processes of creation and implementation of the LED course in the Azraq refugee camp in Jordan. As a general outcome of my study, I describe the novel approach to teaching engineering design for learners in the Azraq refugee camp and its applications to other contexts. The second study examines the LED course implemented in the Kakuma refugee camp. The Kakuma refugee camp is situated in Kenya and considered the largest refugee camp in the world, thus providing a different context of refugee camps. I discuss the contextual challenges to transfer, develop, and implement to a new context and present the course outcomes and experiences based on the course participants’ reflections. The third study extends findings from the first and second studies by using a comparative case study to critically examine the development process and challenges of engineering education in refugee camps. Central to my analysis is the connection between the challenges identified in both camps and existing actors involved with refugee education. My research uses two case studies to underscore the complexity of the LED course development in the Azraq and Kakuma camps. I seek to foster a debate about the challenges that influence the development of higher engineering education programs in refugee camps and how different actors can collaborate to advance high-quality engineering education initiatives in refugee contexts. Overall, this dissertation clarifies some of the biggest challenges to implement engineering education in refugee settings, how different actors can collaborate to mitigate these challenges, and how these findings expose the misalignment between the international rhetoric and reality on the ground in refugee camps.

This article argues that the theory of cognitive apprenticeship could inform those who teach and work with doctoral students in ways that enable them to provide students with more systematic preparation, more focused guidance and scaffolding, more explicit feedback, and enhanced preparation for participating in a collaborative way in communities of scholars. Using the author’s teaching experience with a first‐year doctoral seminar in a program in higher education, the article suggests five specific strategies for utilizing the theory of cognitive apprenticeship in practical and effective ways to strengthen the socialization of future scholars. Cet article défend la thèse selon laquelle la théorie du compagnonnage cognitif (cognitive apprenticeship) peut aider ceux qui enseignent et qui œuvrent auprès des doctorants de façon à fournir à ces derniers une préparation davantage systématique, un accompagnement davantage focalisé, une feed‐back plus explicite, ainsi qu’une meilleure préparation à la participation collaborative à une communauté d’universitaires. Se basant sur l’expérience d’enseignement de l’auteur dans le contexte d’un séminaire doctoral de première année, dans le cadre d’un programme portant sur l’enseignement supérieur, l’article présente cinq stratégies spécifiques à l’utilisation de la théorie du compagnonnage cognitif visant à renforcer la socialisation des universitaires de demain.