Nearly 27 percent of California’s population are foreign-born and almost a quarter are undocumented. Yet, research is limited on mechanisms affecting immigrants’ college access. We know little about how informational resources (e.g., counselors, peers) support or constrain the college information seeking pursuits of immigrant youth who arrive to the United States (U.S.) before 18. Also less known is how immigrant youth navigate informational resources according to their needs, such as for DREAMer and DACA youth who are undocumented. One hypothesis suggests that access to higher education is related to different arrival ages and integration experiences. Yet much of prior work tends to conflate immigrant youth with 2ndGen (born in the United States to at least one immigrant parent) or combine this population into one category regardless of arrival age, reflecting dataset limitations that preclude disaggregation by arrival age.

This practice contradicts theoretical and empirical work suggesting that older and younger arrivals have varied incorporation experiences, including language proficiency and educational attainment. This likely reflects arrival age differences reflecting how relative to childhood arrivals, older arrivals have less familiarity with the American education system. In relation to pursing the college-going path, this implies that older arrivals have less familiarity with the college and financial aid application process. Immigrant youth with less familiarity may encounter more barriers than younger arriving youth. Moreover, the few existing studies on immigrant youth and college-going may exclude legal status or tend to examine a single immigrant group despite the diversity of immigrants in the U.S. Consequently, some of what we know, more precisely assume, about immigrant youth is potentially inaccurate due to data limitations. This dissertation draws on existing nationally representative data as well as a mixed-method approach, original survey and interviews, to address data and empirical research gaps.

In the chapter one, using nationally representative data (HSLS), I examine whether there is an association between immigrant youth residing in immigrant-friendly policy states and college enrollment. I find that net of controls, students residing in immigrant-friendly policy states do not experience an increase in enrollment. In chapter two, drawing on interviews with immigrant youth across three higher education institutions in California (two universities and a community college serving large immigrant populations), I investigate how immigrant youth perceive informational resources, such as counselors and alumni, and what factors motivate their college-information search process. Findings illustrate four themes characterizing immigrant youths’ experiences in navigating the postsecondary path: (1) avoidance of counselors, (2) dual frame influence on postsecondary path choices, (3) the powerful role of villages nudges, and (4) “more approachable” connections with alumni. In chapter three, I draw on original survey data collection to examine descriptively the college-information seeking behaviors of immigrant youth across three higher education institutions. Findings shows that a smaller proportion of older arriving immigrant youth are satisfied with counselors’ guidance on college choice and financial aid. Additionally, a larger share of older arriving immigrant youth prefer to meet with counselors online only in contrast to younger arriving immigrant peers and US-born peers. I conclude with a discussion on the overall findings from this dissertation and suggestions for future directions.

In 2021 alone, more than 32 million college graduates also completed advanced degrees – master’s, professional, or doctoral degrees (U.S. Census 2021). Not only is this annual number increasing in the U.S., but the returns to graduate education also constitute a substantial portion of returns to a college education more broadly. Despite this, we know very little about how graduate and professional education contribute to processes of social reproduction and mobility (Posselt and Grodsky 2017). Motivated by theories of capital and habitus and situated in a graduate education socialization framework, this multi-method study examines how family class background operates through education, particularly through the mechanism of advanced degree attainment. It is a systematic and detail-rich comparative analysis of first-generation students’ experiences and pathways through graduate and professional education. I use data from Baccalaureate and Beyond 2008/2018, a nationally representative longitudinal study sampling a cohort of college graduates. Using logistic regression, I investigate intergenerational associations between social origins and dimensions of horizontal stratification (i.e., degree level and program type and sector) that may cause variation in graduate educational attainment. I also implement grounded theory via a case study and conduct semi-structured interviews of 40 master’s and doctoral students to explore contextual influences on graduate education and processes students navigate into and through their programs.

Quantitatively, I find variation in levels and timing of degrees. First-gen students had lower odds of applying to graduate school at the end of high school and enrolling and completing doctoral degrees, but higher odds of completing a master’s, relative to continuing-gen. Comparing the groups qualitatively, I also find differences. First-gen students’ decision-making was “other-based,” going to grad school to “do good” and “give back” and choosing for sense of community, in contrast to continuing-gen who sought personal development. First-gen students navigated structures strategically, translating acquired institutional experiences and professional networks and skills, while continuing-gen students deployed their ascribed capital for a smoother integration. Orientations towards people also varied, whereby first-gen students continued to provide support to their families and appreciated faculty as mentors and peers as supportive, though often migrating to external spaces for a sense of belonging. This contrasted with continuing-gen students who still benefited from family guidance and described faculty as assets and peers as toxic. Surprisingly, I find similarities with how first- and continuing-gen students perceived learning. Though both collectively called for more inclusive and student-centered teaching, the consequences were different for each group, as equally poor programming has a disproportionate negative impact for first-gen students.

This study contributes to the fields of sociology and higher education, demonstrating differences are not only notable in qualitative accounts, but also at a statistically significant level in a national data set. Taken together, the results complement each other in developing a more sophisticated understanding of pathways through advanced degree attainment – a pre-requisite to identifying effective policies and practices for equity. Just as future research can build upon this analysis, so too can future practice. Being cognizant of mechanisms that help transmit social background effects can inform creation and maintenance of structures and policies that invite and allow the behaviors and actions of first-generation students to become more normative. A variety of stakeholders can act to harness first-gen strengths and provide equitable opportunities, to narrow the class and status gaps for advanced degree holders. To this end, I conclude with multi-level recommendations – for institutions, for departments and programs, and for individual faculty.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted and transformed public education and revealed deeply embedded inequities within educational systems. The unpredictable shift to virtual learning exposed these disparities, illuminating the need for innovative, student-centered educational approaches. This dissertation examines how Black educators who adhere to progressive values navigate the relationship between race, pedagogy, and democratic education to develop and maintain their praxis. Employing a qualitative methodology, this study involved preliminary data collection through three "Anti-Racist Happy Hours" in 2020-2021, which analytically functioned as focus groups and shaped the developed research questions and research design. In-depth semi-structured interviews with Black progressive educators were conducted via Zoom and analyzed using a grounded thematic approach. The "Anti-Racist Happy Hour" data included a thematic content analysis of guiding session materials and the participant dialogue in the Zoom chat. This data was further supplemented by reflection surveys completed via Qualtrics. The methodological framework enabled a comprehensive exploration of how Black educators' motivations for progressive practices are deeply embedded in their racialized K-12 experiences while acknowledging that they engage in a standard set of progressive values -- remaining student-centered, developing familial relationships, and prioritizing community engagement -- which are adoptable by any educator committed to equity. Moreover, this work identifies gaps in progressive educators' professional development (PD) and illuminates their leadership capacity to employ their expertise to mitigate gaps in their growth. This highlights the importance of school districts and administrations considering internal candidates with the expertise to mentor and develop educators dedicated to progressive practices. Furthermore, this study indicates that progressive educators need additional opportunities for critical professional development and desire the freedom to select PD programs to enhance their praxis. As the public education system transitions back to in-person learning and prepares for future disruptions, this work serves as a timely and substantive insight, offering practical recommendations and toolkits for developing leadership capacities and fostering collective action despite unprecedented obstacles.

In 2013, California’s Local Control Funding Formula devolved significant budget and planning control to school districts. As part of its parent involvement priority and community-centered accountability, administrators and staff must “meaningfully engage stakeholders” in district decisions and describe their processes in publicly available plans. Researchers, advocates, and policymakers agree that LCFF’s stakeholder engagement mandate is “a remarkable experiment in local democracy” (Humphrey and Koppich 2014:243), but high expectations, minimal guidelines, and tight schedules left many implementers and participants across the state unclear about their responsibilities. How do administrative agents and participants collaboratively implement ambiguous participatory governance (PG) reforms? What conditions facilitate and forestall collective democratic participation in education decisions? Researchers’ reliance on cross-sectional case studies leads many analysts to explain “failure” by extrapolating from “successes”; institutionalists to frequently examine reforms as time-in-point changes; and relational theorists to interpret PG as perpetually unsettled. Treating LCFF implementation as a “process-in-the-making” (Baiocchi and Summers 2017) under circumstances not of actors’ own choosing, I uncover how both institutional structures and ongoing relational struggles unevenly shaped stakeholder engagement practices over time. I leverage statewide implementation to test prior theories’ generalizability using computational text analyses and longitudinally explore the causes of, changes in, and consequences from “moments of uncertainty” (Baiocchi and Summers 2017:314) in one school district. Although most school districts concentrated on state compliance, several promising practices emerged in surprising places like racially and ethnically diverse school districts with support from nearby community organizations. In an unlikely school district hailed for its early engagement record, prior policies, democratic structures, and informal recruitment practices gradually stymied equitable participation. Moreover, competing policy approaches translated questions over authority into conflicts over technical procedures and institutional relationships that semi-formalized facilitation positions and procedures, committed institutional liaisons’ heightened capacities, and selective participant withdrawal attenuated. I draw lessons for practitioners’ and policymakers’ considerations as they revise and implement LCFF and future PG reforms.