There comes a point when students complete secondary school and make the decision to pursue higher education. Many follow a traditional path and complete their degree within four to five years. This article does not center those students. Instead, it focuses on those who were once dismissed or placed on academic probation, as well as adults returning after time away, many of whom now balance full time work, parenting, or caregiving responsibilities.
Students who return to higher education after academic probation or dismissal have already demonstrated persistence. Yet many institutions continue to treat them as liabilities rather than learners, forcing them to navigate bureaucratic barriers instead of receiving meaningful support. Higher education must look beyond deficit-based assumptions and adopt practices that recognize growth, lived experience, and readiness for renewed academic success. They came back ready; the system was not.
Returning students are often labeled and assumed to be risks rather than recognized as resilient. The simple act of returning after failure or interruption demonstrates perseverance and determination. Instead of acknowledging this resilience, it is often perceived as continued failure, revealing a systemic flaw in how institutions
These students are more than their past academic records. They are more than how they may initially present. With meaningful support and equitable opportunity, their potential can extend far beyond what is often assumed. Yet while their past performance is heavily scrutinized, their current growth and readiness are frequently overlooked. More often than not, returning is a deliberate choice rather than a decision made out of convenience, signifying a commitment to growth. It is a choice made in spite of the stigma attached to prior academic records. A choice made after accumulating significant lived experience, and often with the willingness to begin again, even if it means starting from zero.
For many returning students, the decision to come back is accompanied by significant personal risk. Returning may require financial sacrifice, rearranging family responsibilities, or confronting the fear of failing again in environments where they once struggled. Yet despite that determination, the challenge often extends far beyond simply reentering the classroom. Advising structures and financial aid processes frequently remain rooted in past academic performance, treating prior records as permanent indicators of present capability rather than snapshots of a former version of the student, one that may no longer exist. The process of proving that yesterday is not today can become emotionally and administratively exhausting before the student even has the opportunity to fully begin again. Waiting periods, excessive approvals, nonmatriculation requirements, and rigid advising structures can unintentionally create an environment where returning students feel monitored rather than supported. What is intended to function as a second chance can instead begin to feel like a prolonged test of worthiness.
An overreliance on past performance can cause institutions to overlook the very minds capable of driving future change.
The impact of these barriers extends beyond the individual student. Some returning students will seek opportunities elsewhere, while others may abandon higher education entirely. In both cases, institutions risk losing individuals who may have otherwise contributed significantly within academic, professional, and community spaces. The loss is not only personal, it is societal. Potential innovators, advocates, caregivers, educators, and leaders may never fully realize their goals because the process of reentry became more discouraging than developmental.
The system, as it stands, often assumes failure rather than growth. Despite such, there will be a few that will push through the adversity to prove their worth. But what about those who are discouraged because the system does not see or acknowledge years of change and growth? Is that worth the lower graduation rates or the future decline of qualified professionals?
Adult learners also carry a unique form of influence that is often underestimated. Their return to education can model resilience and possibility for others around them, including peers, coworkers, children, and entire communities. Seeing someone return after interruption or failure can reshape what others believe is possible for themselves. The visibility of perseverance has the potential to inspire across generations. If institutions are serious about retention, equity, and student success, reentry support systems must evolve. Many institutional structures were designed around the realities of traditional-aged students entering college directly from secondary school with fewer competing responsibilities outside of academics. Adult learners often navigate a very different reality, balancing employment, caregiving, financial obligations, and significant life experiences while attempting to rebuild academic confidence. Strengths-based assessment models offer a more equitable framework by recognizing present readiness, growth, and lived experience rather than relying solely on past performance. While individualized support for every student may be unrealistic, institutions can create more flexible pathways that acknowledge adult learners are not a one-size-fits-all population. Some students may benefit from structured, hands-on advising, while others may require greater autonomy. Recognizing these differences is not about lowering expectations, but about creating systems that support persistence without unnecessarily compounding barriers.
Many institutional systems were originally designed around the assumptions and realities of traditional aged students, individuals often entering college directly from secondary school with fewer competing responsibilities outside of academics. Adult learners frequently navigate a very different reality. They may be balancing employment, caregiving, financial obligations, or reentry after significant life events, all while attempting to rebuild academic confidence. Yet despite these differences, they are often expected to navigate reentry through structures that were not designed with their lived realities in mind. Recognizing these differences is not about lowering expectations, but about creating systems that are responsive enough to support persistence without unnecessarily compounding barriers.
A strengths-based approach does not guarantee success for every returning student, nor does it eliminate the need for accountability and academic standards. Some students may still determine that higher education is not the right path for them. However, every student deserves a fair opportunity to discover that for themselves rather than being prematurely defined by past performance alone.
Recognizing returning students as capable and prepared rather than deficient is not a matter of lowering standards, but an evolution of them. When institutions shift from deficit-based assumptions to strength-based approaches, they not only support student success, they strengthen their own communities. Students who return are not asking for an exception, they are demonstrating commitment. The responsibility now rests with institutions to meet that commitment with structures that reflect growth rather than punish the past.
Tamika DeShields, MSW, is a social work professional whose work focuses on higher education, systems barriers, community wellbeing, and human-centered approaches to institutional change. Her writing explores how policies and institutional practices shape opportunities for growth, resilience, and long-term success for individuals and communities.
