In this chapter, literature will be reviewed that will place this study in a contextual framework. The informants have been identified as single-parents with dependent children, poor or low-income by their own definition, and students engaged in a four-year degree program. It is through their relationship with the institutions of family, the university and social services that the stories of the informants for this study demonstrated the interconnectedness of what it is like to experience all three institutions simultaneously.

Greedy Institutions

Lewis Coser (1974) introduced the concept of greedy institutions that is most useful in the current study. The definition of greedy institutions was outlined in the introduction to this chapter and the concept refers to an organization or group that places demands on an individual and usually requires the full attention of the person. According to Coser, greedy institutions "seek exclusive and undivided loyalty and they attempt to reduce the claims of competing roles and status positions on those they wish to encompass in their boundaries. Their demands are omnivorous" (p. 4). Most research done relating to greedy institutions has looked at the relationship between family and work, especially in military families (Segal, 1986, 1988, 1989)

Family and higher education have both been defined as institutions requiring the full attention of a person. Social services have traditionally not been the type of institution that requires a total commitment from the recipient. In fact, until the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was passed, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program could not be characterized as a greedy institution. This changed when welfare reform was implemented, and the welfare work requirements require a substantial commitment from recipients, in addition to their responsibilities as single parents, and in this study, as students. According to Edwards (1993), women often feel pressured to achieve success in both family and education and to ensure that neither suffers because of their participation in the other.

Moreover, the qualities associated with competent performance in higher education, like competitiveness and individual achievement, are contradictory and deemed inappropriate for success in the family, where nurturance, loving, and caring are related to success (Coser, 1974; Edwards, 1993). Trow (1992) observed the same differences, as did Hammons-Bryner (1995), who did not label the concept as one of greedy institutions, but linked the differences to perceptions of motivation. Hammons-Bryner’s description of motivation was similar to greedy institutions when she discussed how motivation has traditionally been defined as competitiveness or as the desire to excel, and the idea that students are viewed as having no family or financial responsibilities. Family responsibilities and their "interference" with educational requirements are often perceived as lack of motivation (Hammons-Bryner, 1995; Sidel, 1994).

Sidel (1994) provided an example of the phenomena Edwards (1993) and Hammons-Bryner (1995) described when she recounted the story of a low-income single-parent mother attending Columbia University. According to Sidel (1994):

For women who enroll past the traditional age, and/or who are members of the working class or a minority group, the standard for traditional age students and its implications pose nearly insurmountable obstacles (Hammons-Bryner, 1995). Profiles of students now are much different than they used to be - they may be female, married, raising children, working or unemployed, retired, commuter and part-time students, and ethnically diverse (Edwards & Person, 1997). Yet universities are often unresponsive to these needs (Gladieux, 1996).

Edwards (1993) relayed the impossibility of meeting the demands the women in her study viewed as resulting from their choice to attend a university:

Families were often viewed to be suffering as a result of the women being in school, even when gaining an education was being undertaken for the benefit of their families (Edwards, 1993). Although some of the women saw attending school as allowing them more flexibility in their schedules, they seemed to mostly be referring to physical availability. An emergent theme in Edwards’ study was that mentally, women were often thinking of family matters while at school, and school matters while with their families. When there was a conflict about what needed more attention, family generally took precedence over school. Again, this was related to their feeling guilty for from choosing to attend college, and seeing it as solely their responsibility to ensure that their family lives were disrupted as little as possible (Edwards, 1993). Not surprisingly, any form of relaxation that had nothing to do with being a mother/partner or being a student appeared to be trivialized (Edwards, 1993).

The pervasive thought patterns of guilt and obligation described above characterize the essence of both family and school as greedy institutions, which is demonstrated during breaks from school, when the women would try to catch up housework and other duties that might have been neglected during the school period. Edwards (1993) calls this an expansive movement of one greedy institution (family needs and domestic chores) to fill the vacuum left by the retreat of another greedy institution (education) at the end of the academic year or upon graduating. Standards of parenting or being a student were not redefined, but were shifted (Edwards, 1993).

From these studies, a picture of being a non-traditional student attending college emerges in terms of family relationships. Attending college, having children or partners, and/or being poor increased the complexity of their lives. Some universities have made attempts to facilitate women’s experiences in college, and the supportiveness of family relationships can also be important. The remainder of the literature review focuses on the separate spheres of parenthood, university attendance and poverty and their interconnectedness.

Single-Parent Families in the United States

In 1994, there were 9.9 million single-parent families headed by mothers, representing 86% of all single parents (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). Before World War II, many single (white) mothers became so as a result of the death of or desertion by their spouse (McLanahan, Garfinkel, & Ooms, 1987). Currently, divorce and birth to never married parents are more commonly cited reasons for most single-parent families. The U.S. Bureau of the Census categorized the origins of single-parenthood as follows: 37% of children lived with a divorced parent, 36% lived with a never married parent, 18% lived with a separated parent, and 4% lived with a widowed parent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).

Feinberg and Knox (1990) looked at court records of custody cases and noted that more often than not when when couples divorce, men become single and women become single parents. In a divorce, women typically undergo marked declines in income even in measures of economic status that take family size into account, while men undergo minimal income loss and even experience improvements in family size-adjusted measures of economic status (Feinberg & Knox, 1990). These declines in income appear to be very sharp for per capita income as opposed to personal income, and are directly related to custody of the children, which usually goes to women (Smock, 1994). Women’s roles as primary child caretakers is the major factor in the economic toll of marital disruption on women and children (Smock, 1994).

McLanahan, Garfinkel and Ooms (1987) suggested that the occurrence of divorce leaving females as heads of households correlate to these families living in poverty and to being dependent on public assistance. No matter the route to being a female-headed household (i.e., divorce, non-marital birth, etc.), when a family with children is headed by a woman, the odds that the family is living in poverty approach one in two; 46% of female headed families with children were poor in 1993 (The American Woman 1996-1997, p. 316).

By assuming that all characteristics and events following divorce are products of divorce, rather than looking at associated patterns of dislocation, poverty, or the stress of mourning loss, divorce has been blamed for causing a large portion of our societal ills (Morrison, 1994). This may result from the idea that single-parent families are viewed as broken, deviant, disrupted, dysfunctional, and pathological, and are evaluated against a largely mythical "norm" of the two-parent family (Abramovitz, 1996; Dowd, 1997; Polakow, 1994; Sidel, 1996). Polakow (1994) examined the fact that the concept of "family" did not exist as a word in Central Europe before the eighteenth century. Rather the term "paterfamilias" (father of the family) was used, and meant not a genealogical bond with a man’s wife or children, but a structure of authority, in which the male was given title to his wife, his children, his servants, and their children. The "norm," then, of the nuclear family with a husband, wife and their children associated by genealogy has not been ever-present in society.

Family forms in the United States have always differed, but a uniform image, or "norm" of family has persisted, traceable to the patriarchal structure of the Puritans (Polakow, 1993). Even during early colonization there were no ideal family forms, rather, there was much diversity. Since these times, however, social welfare policies have treated women differently based on their compliance with the family ethic (Abramovitz, 1996). The industrial revolution and its separation of the workplace and the dwelling place also affected the romanticized notion of family, making it something to be longed for but which was never the only family structure occurring (Abramovitz, 1996; Dowd, 1997; Polakow, 1993).

Single mothers have been viewed as individually responsible for their economic circumstances by policy makers, and various agencies and organizations (Dowd, 1997; Polakow, 1993). On the other hand, researchers like Thomson, Hanson, and McLanahan (1994) attributed lower incomes of single-mother families to effects of divorce or nonmarital births, rather than individual women. Policymakers have ignored these assertions and welfare programs have been viewed as a favor, as "begrudged and limited public assistance to incomplete women and mothers that legitimates the regulation of their suspect lifestyle and the invasion of their privacy, since we are giving money to them [emphasis in original]" (Polakow, 1993, p. 54).

This history of the way policy has dealt with single parents and the notion that a two-parent household is the norm encourages a deficit view of single-parent families, which may be held by both the public and researchers. This view may prevent the growth of comprehensive knowledge about single-parent families. According to Morrison (1994), the perpetuation of the idea of single-parent families as broken, deviant or dysfunctional families is made possible by a lack of a comprehensive understanding of single-parent families.

Research done with single-mother families is inconclusive and often contradictory as to whether or not this particular family composition is detrimental to children’s well-being (Thomas, Farrell, & Barnes, 1996). In an attempt to account for this, several researchers tried to pinpoint where the problem may lie. Morrison (1994) asserted that most research has been done in the first few years after divorce, and she cited Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) who found that the average length of time it takes single-parent families to adjust to divorce is three years. The mothers in Morrison’s study confirmed that the adjustment to being a single parent was lengthy, and estimated that it took from two to nine years, with the most frequent response being four years. One of her informants said: "To adjust to the divorce, it took me two weeks. To adjust to being a single parent… took me four years" (Morrison, 1994, p. 214).

Thomas et al. (1996) identified other factors besides family structure as contributing to the problems these families face, and concludes that problems with research in this area includes small convenience samples, inconsistent ages of participants, different ethnicity, and differing levels of paternal involvement as being a possible point of divergence that may explain the inconsistent results. In addition, poverty is often seen as more of a cause, or at lease a powerful variable contributing to problems arising in the social worlds of single-mother families, than family composition per se (Calhoun, Light & Keller, 1996; Dowd, 1997; Polakow, 1993; Sidel, 1996; Thomas, et al., 1996). Flowers, Schneider, and Ludtke (1996) identified additional variables, such as financial burden, time constraints, lower occupational status, reduced educational opportunities, and social isolation stemming from changed social networks and diminished emotional support, as being possible explanations for the increased stresses on single-parent families.

Integration of individual parental behavior and the economic effects of family composition have not been considered together to form a theory to explain social problems that affect these families. Thomson et al. (1994) indicated that income plays a major role in accounting for the negative consequences associated with single-mother families (up to 50%), and parental behaviors play an insignificant role in accounting for disadvantages associated with single-parent families. In addition, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that negative outcomes suffered by children in single-parent families as compared to two-parent families are strongly associated with poverty, and that social capital (i.e., inadequate parental guidance and attention, lack of ties to community resources, etc.) had a strong relationship with poverty. However, income is often inextricably intertwined with social capital, which still may lead to determination by economic forces (Dowd, 1997).

Social support may also mediate the stresses of single-parent families, increasing coping options and behaviors through enabling cathartic ventilation, practical assistance, advice, information, and services (Flowers, Schneider, & Ludtke, 1996). In the past, the presence of social support in general populations was positively linked to confidence, self-esteem, and psychological adjustment and health in single parent families. Flowers et al (1996) surveyed single, married, and divorced mothers with children under 3 years of age and found that single and divorced mothers utilize friends and coworkers more than family for support, probably because their coworkers were more likely to be objective and empathetic in their perspectives (Flowers et al., 1996). Also, in Morrison’s (1994) qualitative study of successful single-parent families, parents developed extensive support systems that they could use for emotional, physical and financial support for themselves and their children, and identified these systems as part of their success. Dowd (1997) identified social support networks as essential to parenting.

When middle class single-parent females with elementary school-aged children are employed, there is a tendency to increase recreational orientation within the family environment, to find increased self-esteem in children, to see more of an inclination to participate in social and recreational activities together, and to report higher global evaluations of self-worth (Kurtz & Derevensky, 1994). Duffy (1994) collected data one year after divorce from 148 women with dependent children, finding that 44% of the women reported practicing more health behaviors since their divorce. Factors associated with divorce that the women in Duffy’s study believe facilitated this change included less stress around the house, more control over one’s time, higher levels of self-esteem, and adequate social support. For these women, divorce resulted in a positive outcome (Duffy, 1994). However, education and economic resources influence the practice of health behaviors, and this study was done with well-educated women (Duffy, 1994).

Morrison (1994) interviewed 12 families who defined themselves as "successful" single-parent families. See Table 2.1 for factors she found to contribute to the perceived success for these families.
 
 
 
 

Table 2.1 Factors Morrison Identified Relating to Successful Single-Parent Families
*higher than average incomes	*higher level of education
*less tension and conflict in the home	*more warmth, love and cooperation
*increased bonding as a result of coping with and overcoming crises	*increased flexibility and adaptability to change
*more consistent parenting practices	*more time to spend with each child
*developing strategies that enabled them to make decisions easier	*increasing confidence and pride that they were able to manage being a single parent

 

Some of the perceived results of these factors included the development of increased independence, responsibility, and self-esteem in their children (Morrison, 1994). This qualitative study reflects research in general that has found single-parent families to be less hierarchical, more autonomous, and more supportive of egalitarian attitudes in their children (Dowd, 1997).

Although the families in Morrison’s (1994) qualitative study defined themselves as successful, they were at time affected by stress. The most frequently reported difficulty was the constant pressure of all the adult responsibilities with no relief immediately available from another adult, and that single parents have to work harder to become successful. The women in Morrison’s study indicated that they have to be more flexible in managing schedules more efficiently; they have to be more organized, finding ways to meet all the needs of the family that have to be handled by adults; and they have to be more creative, developing new and uncharted coping skills (Morrison, 1994). Every mother cited numerous time management skills she had developed including reorganizing routines, rearranging priorities, and eliminating less important activities. Mothers consistently built morning and evening routines which combined family togetherness and chore completion, and planned car time as intensive listening and discussion periods with their children (Morrison, 1994).

Some of the important highlights of this literature that inform the current study are that single-parent families headed by females are likely to be poor; that negative consequences that are often blamed on family composition are more likely related to poverty, and that higher educational levels increase the chances for success of children raised in this type of household. In general, higher educational levels lead to greater incomes, so education may be vital to the success of this particular family composition.

Education and Upward Mobility

It is a preliminary assumption of this researcher that one of the primary motivations for the women in this study to obtain a college degree is to increase their economic status. In 1991, 78% of first year students reported that getting a good job was their main purpose for being in college (Calhoun, Light, & Keller, 1994).

Increasing income also means that poor single mothers gain freedom from the governmental control of their lives and enables them to support their families in a way that makes them accountable to no one but themselves. This phenomenon has permeated social policy that regulates the lives of women, especially poor women (Abramovitz, 1996). It is a common belief in society today that all people, not just poor women, have used or intend to use higher education as a means to increase their economic status (Dujon & Withorn, 1996; Gladieux, 1996; Jacoby, 1994; Kates, 1993; Lucas, 1994; Sidel, 1996a).

The next relevant question seems to be, Does increasing educational levels work? According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994b), in 1990 the average earnings for a person with a bachelor’s degree was $32,629, compared to $18,737 for a person with a high school diploma. In another publication of the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994a), a clearer picture of the advantages of increasing amounts of education for women evolves, as lower levels of education and being female are directly related to a higher chance of being a low earner. Among women, the percentage of year-round full-time workers in 1992 with low earnings (less than $13,091) was 53.1% for those without a high school diploma, compared to 6.9% among those with a bachelor’s degree. The implications of low earnings for these families are that paying for basic services, like housing, child care, education and medical care, may be difficult or, more likely, impossible.

In an astonishing look at a 20-year history of median family incomes for female headed households, the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1993 reported that in 1973, the median family income for female-headed no spouse present households was $17,747, dropping in 1993 to $17,413 (The American Woman 1996-1997, p. 308). Female-headed families often fare worse than male-headed families and married white males with a nonworking spouse. In 1993, the median income of white female-headed families was $19,962; for male-headed families, it was $28,269; and for white married males with a nonworking spouse, it was $30,867 (The American Woman 1996-1997, p. 309).

The research reviewed in this section demonstrates the necessity of higher education for female heads of households to survive economically in the United States today. However, the question remains if education is related to greater economic success, why are all women not more educated by formal institutions? The history of women in higher education can reveal some of the challenges women face in academia, and may show that access may not always come swiftly or easily for women, especially women with children.

History of Women in Higher Education

Coleman-Burns (1989) discussed the meaning of higher education for African-American women, citing that the purpose of education for all women in the patriarchal American society, as determined by most analyses, has been socialization for her future occupations of wife and mother. She noted, as does Lucas (1994), that in the 1880s and 1890s medical experts even warned that exposure to higher education could jeopardize women physically, possibly leaving them incapable of performing their "normal reproductive functions."

Overt attitudes have changed since that time and blatant statements like these are normally no longer made. However, the history that has shaped social institutions in the United States, including higher education, have often contributed to perpetuating certain attitudes, and as a result, have helped shape policies regarding women’s lives (Abramovitz, 1996; Dowd, 1997; Hartmann & Spalter-Roth, 1996; Polakow, 1994). Although the overt attitudes may have changed, covert attitudes may still exist, materializing most often in the form of behaviors like discrimination against female faculty, rape on campus and reactions to it, and sexual harassment of female students by male faculty (Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1993; Lucas, 1994; Sidel, 1994).

Between 1965 (with the passage of the Higher Education Act by Lyndon Johnson) and the mid-1970s there were modest gains in college enrollments among low-income students. However, these gains were lost during the 1980s, and a student today whose family is in the bottom quarter of the income range is only about a tenth as likely as an affluent student in the top income quarter to complete four years of college by the age of 24 (Calhoun, Light, & Keller, 1994).

Kates (1993) reported that evidence shows that short-term education and training programs have little impact, yet they continue to be developed, while other options, like higher education, continue to be ignored. Often, women are the primary attendees of community colleges or vocational schools, channeling them into jobs for which benefits are limited and little opportunity exists for advancement, and these women may not be able to find a job in their particular fields. These students do not experience significant upward mobility and are far less likely than those who enter a four year school to eventually get an undergraduate degree (Calhoun, Light, & Keller, 1994).

Community colleges were designed to help give students all the benefits of a college education in a more affordable way, and were to be used as a stepping stone to a university. These schools, however, were often captured by local business interests, who used them as a way of getting the government to pay for job training that the businesses would otherwise have to pay for themselves (Calhoun et al., 1994). More vocational courses began to be offered, and it became more difficult to transfer credits to a four-year university, rendering the initial purpose of stepping stone to a four-year degree impossible, and channeling the attendees into working class occupations (Calhoun et al., 1994). According to Trow (1992), the university is the chief avenue of entry into middle-class, and oftentimes into modest lower-middle class, occupations. Thus, when thinking about raising income levels of women to a standard that might enable success without as many struggles as being poor, a four-year degree from a university is one of the best, if not the only, way to achieve this.

Affordability of Higher Education

Accessing and persisting in an institution of higher education seems to require adept financial maneuvering, especially when combined with single parenting. Compounding matters further, then, is the fact that college is becoming less affordable and has been for the past decade and a half, with prices charged by both public and private four-year institutions rising on the average by at least twice the rate of inflation since 1980 (Gladieux, 1996).

Sidel (1994) observed that the educational system is centrally important in determining who will be able to participate fully and meaningfully in a democratic society. She wrote "the structure, funding, and admissions policies of our colleges and universities determine which students will be given a chance to survive economically, which will have the opportunity to work their way into the middle class, which might be able to develop the skills that will, in turn, enable them to live relatively comfortable lives and pass on not only material but also social and cultural advantages to their children" (pp. 24-25).

Financial aid may be one of the most important contributors to enabling access to and persistence in higher education. Observations by Gladieux (1996) regarding the impact of using loans as a source of financial aid for at-risk students in general may also apply to and be even more detrimental for the informants in this study. According to Bruno (1996), half of all students in 1994 in higher education received some form of aid while attending college. The most common form of aid was student loans, and the most common form of multiple-source financial aid was in the form of Pell grants (need-based grants given to low-income students by the federal government) and student loans. If students who are unable to continue their education have used student loans to finance any part of their education, they may be left worse off: no degree, no skills, and in debt (Gladieux, 1996). From personal observation, I have come to know poor female students who have dropped out of school because of the difficulty in maintaining their families, keeping up with studies and fulfilling work requirements imposed by national or regional welfare policies. For these women, it is possible that they are indeed worse off if they have borrowed money to finance their education.

Rosen (1988) outlined specific obstacles for single parent students, including lack of affordable childcare, lack of information about financial aid and support services, and lack of financial aid. Many times child care costs are not considered in estimating financial need, which may be of importance when considering the fact that financial aid distribution is not necessarily taking into account the invariable differences between financial circumstances of traditional students and non-traditional students with families (Rosen, 1988).

Lack of financial aid may be the primary reason for the low numbers of African-American and poor women in higher education, because the amount of financial aid available has not risen as quickly as have the costs of attendance (Gladieux, 1996; Young, 1992). Young (1992) cited Vaughn (1985) who stated that "the cutbacks in financial aid for students is the most flagrant expression of the national attitude toward the declining importance of maintaining open access to higher education" and "the most serious threat (to open access) comes from a national mood which promotes the survival of the fortunate and puts less emphasis on helping those who, for whatever reason, are unable to participate fully in the American dream of opportunity" (p.56).

Assuming that women can and often do find a way to access higher education, what are the implications of doing so for their families? Besides possible economic gains, what are the psychosocial and pragmatic consequences of higher education? Literature regarding higher education often outlines the advantages of higher education for women and their children. The next section looks at some of the many benefits to families of single-parent students.

Implications of Higher Education for Women and Children

A Census Bureau study conducted in 1994 (Bruno & Curry, 1996) stated the fact that children of mothers who are college graduates are substantially more likely than others to attend nursery school; 62.3% compared to 26.8% of mothers who did not attend high school. Attending preschool may give children a head start on education, and numerous studies have shown the benefits of early education for children. Additionally, if a college education raises women’s earnings, it can have important implications for their children during the high school years. In 1994, 8.4% of high school students whose parents earned less than $20,000 dropped out of high school, as compared to 1.4% of students whose families earned $40,000 or more (Bruno & Curry, 1996).

A college education for a single mother can be successful in decreasing her use of federal safety nets (Gittell, Schehl, & Fauri, 1990). Women often report positive changes in their child-rearing practices as a result of attending college (Edwards, 1994; Young, 1977 ). Women who have experienced higher education have increased incomes and increased levels of satisfaction with their children and their lives in general, and often become prime motivators in improving the lives of others (Kates, 1993, 1996).

In regard to single-parent female-headed families, the number of hours women work in paid employment and their educational level are the best predictors of income adequacy two years after a divorce (Dixon & Rettig, 1994). The best predictor of economic status for children is the status of their parents (Sidel, 1994). The women in Edwards (1993) study became more confident and action-oriented when dealing with their children’s teachers and the education system generally. They felt that their academic knowledge had affected the way they brought up their children, and they gained a new awareness or experience of diversity, confidence, and increased ability to express their views (Edwards, 1993).

Poehlmann and Fiese (1994) evaluated the cognitive stimulation of toddlers aged 18 to 41 months, and found that regardless of marital status, maternal education level was one of the strongest predictors of increased cognitive stimulation. They explained: "mothers with higher levels of education typically have more exposure to information about appropriate levels of social and cognitive stimulation required by young children than mothers with less education" (p. 133). In addition, increased income levels not only provide food, shelter and clothing, but also high quality neighborhoods and schools, and opportunities for experiences that foster cognitive and social development (Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994).

A skeptic may ask, are welfare recipients qualified to attend a university? Many poor women on AFDC have the basic requirements to attend college. In 1994, 57% of welfare recipients had completed high school and 13% had attended some college (McFate, 1996). In Massachusetts, Werner (1989) found that 13% of the campus population was receiving AFDC benefits and attending college. In a similar study done by Nash, Das, Kampa and Hawkinson (1987), 4 to 29% of the campus population of students were receiving AFDC (depending on campus surveyed). Nonetheless, poor women on AFDC still lag behind qualifications of the general population, where 85% of women aged 24-35 years have a high school diploma, and almost 25% have a college degree (McFate, 1996).

For the 43% of the welfare population who do not have a high school education, their labor market prospects are low due to low levels of educational attainment, which severely restricts the types of jobs these women can obtain. Almost two in five AFDC recipients are maids, cashiers, nursing aides, child care workers, or waitresses, which are low wage occupations with high rates of part-time work and are contingent forms of employment (McFate, 1996)

Informing this study, then, the benefits to female-headed poor families can be dramatic, and AFDC recipients can and do attend college, as evidenced by previously cited studies and by the fact that there is a sample for the current study. Social policy, however, is often a powerful mediator in poor women’s lives, and the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act may be intervening in a negative way. The policy has strong work requirements, so for women who are using education as a means to escape poverty and low-paying employment, and whose lives are being regulated by social policy, their efforts may become more difficult to maintain. The next section looks at welfare reform and some of its possible effects on poor female-headed households.
 
 
 
 

Welfare Reform

Current welfare reform proposals argue that strict time limits and imposing work requirements are the only way to end welfare dependency, ignoring the fact that many welfare recipients already work and the vast majority of recipients cycle on and off welfare (Dowd, 1997; Hartmann & Spalter-Roth, 1996; McFate, 1996). To promote long-term self-sufficiency among families headed by lone mothers will require, among other things, major changes in our educational system (Kates, 1993; McFate, 1996).

For students on welfare, this work requirement can have especially damaging effects on their attempt to use education as a means of upward mobility. In Edwards’ (1993) qualitative study of women with partners and a child in the home under the age of three years, work in addition to family responsibilities and getting an education was found to be too much to cope with for the students who attempted to add this sphere to their lives. As a result, the women who needed additional finances put work off until holiday breaks. The complexity of their lives was already too much to deal with, so the women had to make the choice to delay work (Edwards, 1993).

However, the income provided by AFDC to poor female heads of household is necessary to basic survival, so women using this safety net do not have the same luxury of delaying work, forcing them to work in addition to going to school, to accept employment that will not support them and their families, or forcing them to give up school partially or completely. A mandatory work program would mean that adult heads of households with little education or work skills would be consigned to working at 70% of the poverty rate instead of engaging in activities (i.e., education and training) that could potentially improve their chances of obtaining unsubsidized employment at better-than-minimum wages (McFate, 1996).

Family Experiences of Non-Traditional Students

Qualitative studies have been used to discover the experiences of women with dependent children attending college (Edwards, 1993; Pascall & Cox, 1993) and poor women attending college (Hammons-Bryner, 1995). Pascall & Cox (1993) interviewed women in England returning to higher education after at least a five-year lapse of time since last attendance. The marital status of the informants was unclear, but family situations were major factors in making the decision to return to higher education. Edwards (1993) did a longitudinal qualitative study, also in England, of students identified as having a child under the age of 3 years and who were involved in a long-term relationship. Hammons-Bryner (1995) took an ethnographic approach to studying eight African-American women from low-income rural backgrounds to discover role models and motivation. These studies will be reviewed here extensively because of their similarity and relevance to the current study and population.

Factors that precipitated the return to higher education were frequently family-based, and the most common single factor in one study of older students was decreasing demands from children (i.e., children attending school), with another large group identifying divorce or the cessation of husbands’ economic support as the precipatator. Education is often seen as the resolution to financial or personal crisis (Edwards, 1993; Hammons-Bryner, 1995; Pascall & Cox, 1993).

A common finding in these studies of students with familial responsibilities, was that female parents, regardless of marital status, felt guilty and were preoccupied with feeling selfish because of the demands of both the family and the university, as well as the uncommon nature of their student status (i.e., students are not supposed to have children) and their maternal status (i.e., mothers are not supposed to go to school) (Pascall & Cox, 1993; Edwards, 1993). Economic needs of the family often legitimated parents return to higher education, and several mothers commented that education fit better than work with the continuing demands of young children (Edwards, 1993; Pascall & Cox, 1993). Mothers often felt the need to legitimate being a student by explaining the necessity in terms of protecting their children from poverty or in terms of finances (Edwards, 1993; Pascall & Cox, 1993), but felt that they alone shouldered the burden for seeing to it that the family did not suffer because of their "choice" to attend a university (Edwards, 1993).

Common findings indicated that education was seen as a route away from domesticity, as a source of identity when relationships ended and as a means of independence (Edwards, 1993; Hammons-Bryner, 1995; Pascall & Cox, 1993). The women spoke of wishing to extend their understanding of society in general, with some of the women feeling that higher education would give them status in the eyes of others and would lend more weight to their opinions. Some women felt unsure as to whether they were really capable of degree level study; they felt that the traditional social life of a college student was not available to them because of family commitments and their age, and often wishing they had gone right out of high school (Edwards, 1993).

Supportive family networks were a key factor in their decision to attend and persist in college (Hammons-Bryner, 1995; Pascall & Cox, 1993) and some spoke warmly of encouragement when confidence might otherwise have failed (Pascall & Cox, 1993). One intriguing finding in the study by Hammons-Bryner (1995) is that older brothers played a major role in the motivation of their younger sisters’ to attend and persist in college. Poor parents in the family of origin who could not set an educational example were still able to facilitate the education of their daughters by offering support in whatever way they could. For example, they provided abstract verbal support for the usefulness of education, furnished students without cars transportation to and from the college campus, supplied babysitters, and insisted that students complete assignments (Hammons-Bryner, 1995).

The families of origin in Hammons-Bryner’s study placed a high value on education for their daughters, while not prioritizing other personal goals, like marriage and family, and actively worked both at home and within the school system to help their children acquire a good education. They were active in PTA and made frequent visits to the school, and provided continual reminders to their daughters about their talents and skills. Negative example in the family of origin also contributed to these women’s achievement. These low-income students often saw their parents work hard in their lifetimes for relatively little compensation and enjoyment of life, and the students saw higher education as a way to avoid this in their own lives.

Higginbotham (1985) also explored the role families of origin have played in facilitating their daughters’ college education. Higginbotham identified race and class barriers to African-American women’s college attendance and found that the African-American parents in her study, when raising their daughters, emphasized the importance of honesty and hard work, encouraged them to remember their families, and suggested that they seek a secure base when being threatened. Parental insistence on excellence in everything was a common finding, as was self-direction. Parents taught their daughters to use the values taught in the home and in church to think for themselves and act accordingly. This value proved helpful for coping in poor communities where these women may have faced competing value systems, and the women in her study often had to choose behaviors that differed from their peers.

Families of procreation may have a decidedly different effect on women’s higher education. Education was often seen as unambiguously the route away from domesticity and out of low-paid part-time jobs, as a source of identity, and a route to independence (Pascall & Cox, 1993). It was also viewed as a means to escape the kind of bad or abusive relationships women had in the past, with the women having no interest in forming new relationships while in school (Hammons-Bryner, 1995).

Universities play a unique role in the lives of and have a duty to respond to low-income single-parent mothers who attend their campuses, which can be demonstrated in two ways. First, in the United States, people with college degrees are valued more as indicated by the higher pay rates they are given, and many experiences that may improve cognitive processes and resulting educational attainment for children in families are obtained almost exclusively through economic means. The United States has been proclaimed to be a democracy, which, by definition, implies equality of treatment, opportunity and rights. Literature has been reviewed that suggests that the federal government has failed to assure economic opportunity to poor students with families (i.e., federal financial aid has decreased, and students with families receive the same amount of financial aid as students without parenting responsibilities). However, the federal government is not solely responsible for ensuring these three equalities to low-income single-parent students. Because public universities receive funds from a democratic government, universities are also required to ensure equality of treatment, opportunity and rights. This, in combination with this particular university’s mission "to serve the community, state and nation" who "offers access to higher education" and strives to "develop the potential of each student" indicates the acceptance of the responsibility to ensure equal access, opportunity and rights to all students, including those with financial hardships and families. This relates to training professors to understand students from diverse backgrounds (including socioeconomic diversity, as well as diversity of familial obligations) so that the individual student is not blamed or penalized for their seeming lack of motivation when factors associated with their life situation may be mediating their "performance".

The second way that a university can be viewed as having a responsibility to low-income single-parent students is defined by the capitalistic nature of the United States. A student purchases a college education, implying that a student is also a consumer, or customer of the universities they attend. Being such, students have the right and universities have the responsibility to ensure that the needs of this particular consumer are being met. In general, adult students cannot, because of familial obligations or financial considerations, choose a college that they prefer because it may offer more services, rather they are more geographically limited in their choice (Gladieux, 1996). Additionally, the fact that students who pay a general fee that goes to support student activities, in addition to tuition expenses, has a right to have her/his needs met through the activities they are paying for.

Nonetheless, universities have often responded to women with dependent children by placing the responsibility for combining domestic responsibility and education on the individual (Edwards, 1993). This may occur because much literature in education, when dealing with this population of students, is organized around the idea of roles, role strain and role conflict, which is limiting. According to Edwards:

Successful programs have been implemented to assist nontraditional students in adjusting to college life (Rice, 1991; Steltenpohl & Shipton, 1986). Nonsupportive college cultures and demands of family life contribute to nontraditional students not finishing their undergraduate careers (Kuh & Sturgis, 1980; Reehling, 1980). Yet, despite increasing rates of entry and reentry of adult learners to universities, most recruitment and retention methods continue to focus on the needs of the traditional high school age cohort (18-22 years), whose enrollment numbers are decreasing relative to the increasing population of non-traditional age adults (25-40 years) (Edwards & Person, 1997). "Keep in mind that progress must be evaluated not just by participation rates, but by educational attainment. What’s important is not just getting students in the door but helping them persist and finish their degrees" (Gladieux, 1996, p. 7).

In 1979, Adrienne Rich noted some difficulties that are still applicable for single-parent families involved in higher education:

Edwards and Person (1997) note that it is important that the college environment is welcoming, and they suggest a first year orientation program, including classroom activities and on-going counseling (one on one) with admissions counselors. One of the best ways to retain adult learners is through mentor or "helping hand" programs, ideally utilizing second-year adult learners (Edwards & Person, 1997).

Through support groups, one can demystify the higher education process (Edwards & Person, 1997). The women in Edwards’ (1993) study wished to be able to develop or did develop relationships with other women who were in similar positions to themselves as mothers at least, if not also as partners, and Flowers et al. (1996) found skills that focus on developing and maintaining peer/co-worker/friend relationships should be improved and encouraged for single mothers with children (Flowers, Schneider, and Ludtke, 1996).

Kates (1996, pp. 344-345) offers several ideas (presented in Table 2.2) for universities to aid low-income single-parent students while attending school.
 
 

provide free or subsidized on-campus childcareprovide a women’s center or lounge (which reduces feelings of isolation and encourages the development of an active support network)	seek compromises and negotiate with caseworkers, especially regarding counting study and travel time as part of work requirements	form communication networks between welfare offices and colleges, within individual colleges, and among colleges
resist unacceptable welfare/work requirement policies that are contradictory to fundamental principals and values of educational institutions (for example, refusing to provide a monitored study hall for welfare recipients so that study time can be monitored)	encourage the participation of community groups and businesses to take on projects to help students and their children - these groups contribute clothing for mothers, food and holiday packages, sports equipment and camp scholarships for children, and direct financial support (which not only helps the families of the students, but also helps to dispel the stereotypes of welfare moms)

 

Research has offered many tools with which to support non-traditional students in higher education. The amount of supportiveness is not one of the most important factors in choosing a university for most non-traditional college students, which has important implications for the current study. What happens when women attend a university that has limited support for students with children? How do women persist in college in the face of this unsupportive environment?
 
 

"Women will remain a disadvantaged group so long as their education is restricted, which will limit their participation in government, in work and in self-confidence" (Edwards, 1993, p. 2). This statement captures the importance of education for the low-income females in the current study and in the United States today. It also demonstrates some of the important findings this literature review has identified.

Female-headed single-parent families represent a large proportion of the United States population. In spite of the fact that they are often marginalized through poverty and viewed as deviant by the public, lawmakers, and researchers, these families often experience success in terms of happiness, cohesiveness, and self-confidence for all members. Despite the positive aspects of living in a single-parent family, a trend in research has been to relate the family composition of single-parent families as a primary cause of poor outcomes and anti-social behaviors of children, further perpetuating the idea of a single-parent family in a negative light. However, a more recent trend in research examines poverty as a mediating factor in the outcomes of their children, and poverty is one of the most important contributors to undesirable outcomes.

In the capitalist economy of the United States, the value of higher education is permeating. One cannot obtain a job that will support a family without an education, yet financial barriers often stand in the way of accessing educational institutions. This is typically more true for poor students. Because they are often poor, women often experience more difficulty in higher education, and social policy may encourage forms of education that are not in the best financial interests of poor students.

Upward economic mobility may not be the only benefit of attending college. Students often gain a sense of independence, increased self-esteem and self-efficacy, and better communication skills. Children of parents with higher educational levels are also likely to realize benefits, such as increased cognitive stimulation, better educational experiences themselves, healthier lifestyles, and more role models for attending college. So, what is impeding women from increasing their educational levels?

Because women who are single-parents are likely to be poor, they and their children are often put in a position of powerlessness over their actions and destinies. Being poor often requires them to rely on government income support services, which in turn determines many of their behaviors through regulations and laws. Single-parent families have been stigmatized and seen as deviant in this society, further perpetuating the struggles the parents and children may face. Institutions that are unsupportive may be the only choice for some students, and social policy may interfere even further in students’ persistence.

The studies highlighted here reiterate the positive outcomes of obtaining an education (i.e., improved child-rearing skills; increasing independence) and have voiced the experiences of these women. On the contrary, the educational experiences of the women interviewed for the qualitative studies reviewed here shared many common negative features (i.e., feeling guilty, frustrated, overwhelmed). The concept of greedy institutions seems to be pervasive, and women often experience stress and guilt as a result of attending a university and maintaining a family.

The current study expands the research reviewed here by focusing on a different population of students - low-income, female single-parents with dependent children. By looking at the experiences of these students, a better understanding of how being a single mother with dependent children, being poor and reliant on governmental income supports, and being a student come together to form their experiences. The next chapter will summarize the methodology undertaken for this study.