University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

(USC Thesis Other)

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN APPLICATION OF CLARK AND ESTES’ (2002) GAP ANALYSIS MODEL:
CLOSING KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL GAPS THAT
PREVENT GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENTS FROM
ACCESSING FOUR-YEAR UNIVERSITIES

by

Danny Young Kim

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Danny Young Kim
ii

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my wife and best friend, Linda.
And, to Natalie and Olivia, who bring me so much joy.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I give thanks to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for giving me the opportunity,
resources, strength, guidance, and vision to pursue this work. I pray this dissertation, and
all the work of my hands and feet may be pleasing to my God.
I thank my father, Chang Un Kim, for modeling leadership, consistency, and a
disciplined life- all of which was necessary to complete this work. Thanks to my mom,
Yunok Kim, who never fails to share in actions and words how much she loves me.
I thank my parents-in-law, Taek Kwon and Jae In Pak, and Grandma Pak for
always cheering me on and for taking care of my girls on those long weekends while I
was writing.
I thank the mentors in my life- past and present- who, in their wisdom,
experience, and work have modeled for me the qualities of effective leadership: Reverend
Jimmy Han, Mr. Russell Lee-Sung, Mr. Dave Schmid, Dr. Nancy Hogg, Dr. Kent
Bechler, Dr. Greg Plutko, Dr. Michael Lin and Dr. Robert Taylor. I thank Walnut High
School and River Heights Intermediate School. I completed my secondary education
nearly 15 years ago, but I have continued learning and gathering insight from the teachers
and staff members of these two schools.
I thank my faculty dissertation chairs, Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda.
Their knowledge and expertise in the areas of education, learning and leadership are
world-renowned. I am fortunate to have spent the past three years learning and growing
as an educational leader, practitioner, and researcher under their guidance.
iv

I thank my fellow educational practitioners, Dawn Cassady and Zim Hoang, who
partnered with me as joint authors to several sections of this paper. I also thank the
thematic dissertation group that I had the opportunity to undertake this journey with
together. Fight on!
I thank my wife, Linda. You mean everything to me. This work could not have
been accomplished without you. I love you.
I thank my two beautiful daughters, Natalie Rose Kim and Olivia Taylor Kim.
This, and every other work I do, is for you two. I promise to give my very best in life so
you can always be proud of your daddy. Now, let’s go to the playground!

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Overview of the Gap Project 1
Chapter Two: Analyzing the Roots of the Problem 10
Section 2A- Review of the Literature 10
Section 2B- Methodology (joint authorship) 30
Section 2C- Findings (joint authorship) 57

Chapter Three: Proposed Solutions Bases on Best Practices 85
Section 3A- Review of the Solutions Literature 85
Section 3B- Proposed Solutions Summary 117

References 134
Appendices
Appendix A: Scanning Interview Protocol 142
Appendix B: Stages of Concern Interview Protocol 144
Appendix C: Email Interview Protocol 145
Appendix D: Executive Summary of Findings 146
Appendix D: PowerPoint Presentation to GUSD Leadership 168

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project Timeline 46
Table 2: Coding of Root Causes 49
Table 3: Stages of Concern Model 50
Table 4: Project Timeline 150
Table 5: Glendale Unified UC ‘a-g’ eligibility rates 154

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: College Readiness Dashboard Samples 94
Figure 2: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample 96
Figure 3: Solutions Matrix 118
Figure 4: College Readiness Dashboard Samples 123
Figure 5: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Samples 124

viii

ABSTRACT

This alternative capstone project examined and analyzed the four-year college
access and participation problem in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) through
Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis Model. A three-member team of USC doctoral
students assisted GUSD- an urban school district in north Los Angeles- by using the Gap
Analysis process to unearth root causes to the four-year college participation gap. Clark
and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance are caused by three distinct factors: lack
of knowledge and/or skills; lack of motivation; and, organizational/cultural barriers.
Our project team was brought in by GUSD to serve as a consultative/assistance
team in helping the school district better understand and analyze the root causes that
prevented certain student subgroups from entering four-year universities. The project
team conducted extensive interviews to determine these root causes and organized our
findings into three emergent themes: a lack of explicit goals; persistent barriers for
specific minority students; and, systems that prevent students from maximizing the two-
year to four-year college transfer pathway. In addition, research-based solutions to close
respective gaps were identified. The solutions centered around the creation and
communication of explicit goals regarding four-year colleges; increasing the overall
number of four-year eligible students and providing strategic intervention for
underrepresented minority students; and, maximizing the success rate of community
college to four-year university transfer students. The findings, along with solutions for
effective change, were presented to the GUSD Superintendent of Schools and his
Cabinet.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE GAP PROJECT
“Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the
conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.” – Horace Mann, 1849

Background

Penned over 150 years ago by the great educational reformer Horace Mann, the
words above still hold true today. The quantity and quality of education an individual
receives is a strong predictor of his future economic and social well-being, and a
mechanism for creating a more egalitarian society (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009).
Historically, education in the United States has been on the forefront of our nation’s
political, economic, and social discourse, with increased focus on improving the
educational outcomes and opportunities of all students. Part of modern school reform
includes increasing college participation rates for all subgroups of students, which
undoubtedly would contribute to an improved economic and social populace. The
following section is an overview of modern education in the United States, including its
historical, political, and social evolution, which will provide a context for better
understanding present-day college participation and access issues.

Ensuring Equity and Excellence: Federal Involvement in Public Education
The 20
th
Century witnessed a profound shift in federal oversight and authority
over education policies and protections. Since the Constitution is silent on the topic of
education, it has long fell under the auspices of State authority based on the reserved

2
rights guaranteed unto them by the 10
th
amendment of the Constitution. Despite the
intensely local nature and administration of our public schools, the Federal government
has played an increasing role in ensuring two fundamental outcomes within our schools:
excellence and equity (Hochschild and Scovronick, 2003; Sergiovanni, Kelleher,
McCarthy and Fowler, 2008; Wirt and Kirst, 2005).
The mid-1900’s witnessed the nation’s escalated participation in a heated Cold
War abroad, a growing public school system at home, and the continued mistreatment
and discrimination of minorities within those systems. The international competition
between world superpowers played out in American classrooms as the Federal
government placed stronger expectations for schools to raise standards of academic
excellence in order to stay on par with our Cold War adversaries (Wirt and Kirst, 2005).
The issue of excellence of our schools emerged concurrently with issues of equity: as
social injustices and inequalities became more apparent, so too did the need for a strong,
centralized federal presence to protect individuals’ rights to an education (Strunk, 2009).
Landmark cases presented before the highest level of American courthouses and
their subsequent rulings helped pave the way for a stronger Federal presence in public
schools. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ended legal segregation of our
schools on the grounds that separate facilities were inherently unequal. In fact, the
Brown decision ushered in the importance of applying the Equal Protection Clause under
the 14
th
Amendment to safeguard against discriminatory practices and prevented
conditions that were inevitably worse for minority students (Hochschild and Scovronick,
2003; Zirkel, 2009). A slew of federal mandates- the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the

3
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1975- continued the push for federal
involvement in creating more equitable conditions in our schools for minority and
disadvantaged students (Wirt and Kirst, 2005; Zirkel, 2009).
The past half-century also ushered in increased expectations for schools to raise
the academic excellence of the nation’s schools. Sparked by external forces born of Cold
War competition and the modern threat of international outsourcing, schools have
increasingly faced intense internal pressure to raise its educational achievement so that
students are best prepared for global competition. The expectations for excellence, along
with the standards and testing movement, were sparked by the 1983 publication of A
Nation at Risk which found America’s schools seeped in a “rising tide of mediocrity”
(Ryan, 2009). Federal centralization continued into the latter part of the 20
th
century as
Goals 2000 and the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act pressured
States to develop challenging academic content standards, with the latter legislation
attaching federal Title I funds towards meeting those standards (Wirt and Kirst, 2005).
The case for raising standards of excellence in schools has been made stronger by
the nation’s growing investment in education, and looming global competition. Today,
the United States invests well over $500 billion dollars on K-12 public education (NCES,
2009) while its annual education expenditure per student exceeds all other industrialized
Group of Eight (G-8) nations (Miller et al, 2009). Despite our continued economic and
social investment in education, various sources of data (Indicators of National Education
Systems (INES); the Progress in International Student Assessment (PISA); and the

4
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)) point to the United
States’ comparatively weaker academic performance against her international
counterparts in areas of reading, mathematics, and science (Miller et al, 2009).
Federal involvement in public education for the purposes of raising standards of
excellence reached its pinnacle with the passage of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act
(Ryan, 2009). This federal mandate increased levels of accountability on States and their
schools (in the form of funding) by raising the stakes of those schools who failed to meet
adequate yearly progress for all students, particularly educationally disadvantaged
subgroups (Wirt and Kirst, 2005; Ryan 2009; Cross, 2004; Kim and Sunderman, 2005).
Despite the radical nature of the No Child Left Behind Act’s goal to “end the soft bigotry
of low expectations” (U.S. Department of Education, 2003) and reach 100% student
proficiency in math and reading by 2014, it has largely been an extension and evolution
of past policies, particularly Title I mandates to support the achievement of low-income,
disadvantaged students (McDonnell, 2005).

Accountability under NCLB
NCLB raised levels of accountability across national education. This federal
mandate placed high academic expectations for all students, including raising levels of
proficiency for traditionally disadvantaged students. The closing of the academic
achievement gap between racial/ethnic minorities and their White counterparts became a
key focal point of this legislation and placed sanctions on those schools and districts that
failed to meet annual performance expectations (Goldberg and Morrison, 2003). NCLB

5
also set expectations for teacher quality by placing requirements for schools and districts
to place strictly-defined, highly-qualified teachers throughout our nation’s classrooms.
Throughout the nation, local districts and schools are required to meet stringent
federal adequate yearly progress (AYP)- a status model- in math and reading until 100%
of students reach proficiency by 2014. In addition to AYP status, local schools and
districts in California are assessed by a growth model- the Academic Performance Index-
that sets annual growth targets for these institutions and acknowledges as successful those
schools that meet or exceed their targets. Altogether, both AYP and API requirements
come with increasing levels of consequences for low-performing districts and schools,
from increased professional development for teachers to complete restructuring of school
sites.

The Changing Role of the American High School
High schools in America operate within the confines of both State and Federal
accountability measurements. Today, America’s high schools are expected to prepare
students for colleges and careers by increasing the academic achievement of all students.
Long considered the breeding grounds for meeting students’ academic, athletic, social
and/or vocational needs, the American high school has slowly evolved into its current
version: an institution for raising the academic ability of all students, including non-
traditional, underrepresented students of color and socioeconomic status.
The American high school began as a mechanism for the literacy education of
America’s industrial era factory workers, but soon shifted to a systematic means of

6
tracking students into advanced education, skilled trades, or basic factory work (Marsh
and Codding, 1999). Harvard University educator James B. Conant championed the
creation of the modern comprehensive high school, which included vocational programs
alongside traditional academics (Eurich, 1982; Marsh and Codding, 1999). In effect, the
comprehensive high school perpetuated the tracking of students into certain classes,
which in turn cast a student’s place in the social hierarchy for the rest of his life.
In today’s comprehensive high school, those students sitting on the wrong track
face unfortunate outcomes: students find it pointless to focus and study hard because of a
fixed outcome; society measures intelligence as inherited ability further perpetuating
classist and racists beliefs; casts vocational and trade programs as dumping grounds
instead of skilled training; withholds from many a rigorous and challenging curriculum;
and, closes opportunities for many to receive the social, intellectual, and economic
benefits of a college education (Marsh and Codding, 1999; Oakes, 2005). It is this last
outcome- barriers to college participation- that poses significant problems for many
school districts, including the Glendale Unified School District.

Statement of the Problem
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is a high-performing, large, urban
school district that serves an economically and culturally diverse population. GUSD
serves its students under the present day context of school accountability while pursuing
educational equity and excellence for its students. The school district’s mission is to
provide excellence in teaching, quality educational programs, and the enrichment

7
necessary for all students to learn and develop with a primary focus on student
achievement.
Glendale Unified School District educates its students within the context of both
federal and state accountability expectations. GUSD’s 842 Academic Performance Index
(2010) demonstrates a high achieving culture. However, gaps in achievement exist
within each comprehensive high school site, and between each school site. For example,
at Crescenta Valley High School (CVHS), Asian subgroups’ API score topped at 918,
while the Hispanic subgroup scored at 831- nearly a 90-point difference between student
populations. Also, while CVHS (883 API) and Clark Magnet High School’s (889 API)
rank as two of the highest performing in the State, Hoover (772) and Glendale High
School’s (754) API rankings are both separated by over 110-points from their two high-
performing sister schools. This differentiation in achievement is also evident in 2009
AYP targets: while CVHS and Clark Magnet both met AYP status, Hoover and Glendale
High School failed to do so.
The district is committed to preparing all its students not only for graduation, but
also for successful matriculation into college. GUSD students prepare for advancement
to postsecondary institutions by successfully meeting all graduation requirements,
including passage of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), enrollment in
college prep and advanced placement courses, and participation in college entrance
exams such as the SAT. Despite GUSD’s preparation of students for postsecondary
studies, a college participation gap exists and is often based on students’ race/ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and/or English language proficiency. This college participation

8
gap poses a problem for GUSD and her students. An analysis of the root causes to these
problems was undertaken using Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis model. The Gap
Analysis and the ensuing project served as a model for assisting school districts in closing
gaps in college participation.
In the Winter of 2009, a group of professional doctoral students from the
University of Southern California (USC) met with the Superintendent of GUSD, along
with his Cabinet, to capture a contextual understanding of the college participation gap at
GUSD. The district enlisted the support and assistance of a three-member team to
undertake a project that investigated college participation rates amongst GUSD student
subgroups and analyzed factors that prevented some student subgroups from accessing,
pursuing and/or matriculating into college. For our purposes, the USC team specifically
looked into GUSD students’ participation and access to a four-year university education.
This project applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework to determine
existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational barriers
that prevented all GUSD students from pursuing a four-year university education. Clark
and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals achieved
when these three causes are properly addressed.

Purpose of the Project
The purpose of applying the gap analysis model was to frame GUSD’s
educational problem in a manner that identified root causes and provided effective
solutions in order to achieve performance goals. Specifically, this project critically

9
examined the work of various role groups and analyzed the following three factors that
cause some GUSD students from not participating in college. Upon completion of our
analysis, our team produced a set of findings based on the follow areas:
• Knowledge and/or skills gaps about pursuing and participating in college;
• Motivational gaps in pursuing and participating in college;
• Organizational barriers within GUSD that prevent some students from pursuing
and participating in college.

Our team presented to the Glendale Unified Superintendent and his Cabinet an
executive summary of findings, along with a set of explicit solutions and
recommendations to close existing gaps. A range of solutions to performance gaps was
offered in hopes of improving four-year university access for all GUSD students. The
purpose of this project in general, and application of the gap analysis model in particular,
were to partner with GUSD by helping them understand why goals are not achieved, and
offering a dynamic proposal of solutions that will lead to goal achievement. In the end,
our team presented these findings to serve as a workable manual for helping the district
offer an improved educational experience and route more underrepresented subgroup
population of students to college. Still, an even larger goal and importance of our work
was to model an effective partnership with a school district and apply a successful
problem-solving model in hopes of creating a framework for others to easily translate and
apply in their respective organizations or schools.

10
CHAPTER TWO
ANALYZING THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM
“The truth is, we are in a crisis now, but it is a crisis that is unfolding very slowly and
very quietly. It is a ‘quiet crisis’.” -- Thomas Freidman

CHAPTER 2A: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As discussed in Chapter One, the purpose of this project was to identify and
analyze the root causes to Glendale Unified School District’s college participation issue,
specifically access to four-year universities. This project applied Clark and Estes’ (2002)
gap analysis framework: a proven problem-solving model that generates effective
solutions to performance gaps by identifying and analyzing existing knowledge/skills
gaps, motivation gaps, and/or organizational barriers. Clark and Estes (2002) contend
that organizational goals will only be achieved when the gap between optimal
performance and actual performance is closed. This project applied the gap analysis
model by determining the root causes to GUSD’s college participation problem that
prevents all graduating students from accessing and matriculating into four-year
postsecondary schools.
The focus of Chapter Two is to present a review of literature to frame the college
participation problem as a whole, and provide specific insight to the particular problem as
it affects Glendale Unified. Chapter One detailed the development of the 21
st
century
comprehensive high school, along with the increasing roles and measures of
accountability installed to ensure the delivery of positive student outcomes, including
access and success in college. This Chapter will provide a literature review of issues and

11
barriers as it relates to college access for our nation’s students, including effective reform
of today’s high schools.

The Case for a College Education
In an era of accountability and increased global competition, the case for
reforming the American high school is even stronger. Schools and students live in a
globally competitive world, and the advantages of a college degree are clearly evident.
Today, schools are expected to uphold high academic standards for all students and pay
particular attention to the “academic needs and low college enrollment rates among
economically disadvantaged and minority students” (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
The myriad of school reforms, educational policies, and increased federal
oversight over decades underscores the important role education plays in our nation. To
be sure, education is vital to our national economic security. A highly educated society
leads to a stronger economy and higher standards of living, demonstrating the importance
of developing intellectual capital for competition in today’s high-tech, global economy.
The collective education of individuals will result in improved outcomes for our nation,
including higher rates of invention, improved productivity, and the development of new
products and technologies (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). In terms of dollars,
projections reveal that improving the educational quality and quantity of our American
citizenry could result in billions more in per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
(Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). Our nation certainly stands to gain economically by
increasing the educational attainment of our citizenry, particularly education and training

12
beyond high school (Ruppert, 2003).
For individuals, a strong relationship exists between a person’s educational
attainment and his economic status: 21% of adults with less than a high school education
live under the poverty level compared to 4% of adults with a college degree (Hanushek
and Lindseth, 2009). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008), an individual’s
average annual earnings are nearly double for those with a Bachelor’s degree compared
to those who complete a high school education only. In fact, a person’s lifetime earnings
increase dramatically with a postsecondary degree, making nearly twice as much in a
lifetime than a high school graduate (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). In addition to the
economic advantages of a college education, an individual stands to gain socially in a
variety of ways, including better outcomes for children, more leisure time, a more
optimistic outlook on the future, and an improved quality of life (Cunningham, 2007;
Porter, 2002; Tierney and Hagedorn, 2002). Although a postsecondary education
presents a clear pathway to a more prosperous and productive life, there are signs that a
gap in college participation continues to persist.
Another challenge presented before today’s high schools is the effective
preparation of a highly skilled and nimble workforce. The reality of a non-college going
student population necessitates an even more purposeful educational program that
provides students a “professionalized education to non-college bound students to prepare
them for their trades and to ease their school-to-work transition” (National Center on
Education and the Economy, 1990). In comparison to our international counterparts, the
United States’ approach to education falls short of preparing students for high educational

13
standards and successful transition into a complex and productive work force (NCEE,
1990).
Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate with
varying rates between subgroups: White 76%, Asian 79%, Hispanic 55%, African
American 51%, and Native American 50% (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009).
Of those students who graduate from high school in four years, only 57% of graduates
continue their education in college (Ruppert, 2003). In California, graduation rates are
similar to national averages, yet only 48% of CA high school graduates go on to college.
This gap in college participation is particularly alarming for minority Hispanic and Black
student subgroups who historically participate less than their white, non-Hispanic
counterparts (Ruppert, 2003). The continued persistence of this college participation gap
poses significant problems for the social and economic outlook of these underrepresented
individuals and our nation.
Altogether, the United States has slowly immersed itself in a “quiet crisis”
(Friedman, 2005, p. 252) of intellectual erosion that will inevitably challenge our
economic preeminence in this world. Gaps in American education have contributed to
greater parity between nations, resulting in a slow deterioration of American superiority
over the global economic landscape (Freidman, 2005). Recent publications (NCEE,
2007; The American Diploma Project, 2004) speak of this crisis in our American
educational system, and cite examples to underscore this reality, including high school
graduates’ lack of basic skills for employment, increased rates of remediation for entering

14
college students, and American students’ dismal performance in comparative studies
between industrialized nations.
Put against developed countries around the world, evidence suggests that the
United States continues to fall short of their competition in critical subject areas such as
reading, math and science (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). Despite our nation’s
achievement woes, American students are not short on optimism: our perceptions of
economic mobility are higher compared to other nations when in reality mobility rates are
comparatively low in the United States (Isaacs, 2009). Simply put, an American born
into poverty stands a greater chance of remaining there compared to his Swede
counterpart.

School District and High School Reform Efforts
The slow erosion of American dominance over the global intellectual and
economic landscape coupled with the superior benefits of obtaining a college education
provides just cause for school districts and their high schools to raise achievement levels
that will adequately prepare all students for successful entry into college and careers.
Facing increased pressure and accountability from the Federal government, States and
school districts have refocused their efforts on raising the academic achievement of all
students in hopes of improving their postsecondary outlook. In fact, the No Child Left
Behind Act created a legal mandate for districts and schools to ensure all students-
including numerically significant subgroups in a school population- were making
adequate progress towards content standard proficiency and gaps in achievement between

15
student subgroups were gradually being closed. Ultimately, the work of improving the
academic achievement of all students, particularly traditionally underachieving minority
students, has become a moral imperative for America’s schools (Togneri, 2003).
School districts face the daunting challenge of improving student performance for
all. Consequently, a variety of solutions and reforms strategies have been implemented to
reach this goal. In large urban school districts, pockets of excellence have been
evidenced in some schools. However, high performance across an entire school district is
scant. Unfortunately, many school districts across the nation “wind up with a slew of
unrelated initiatives that collectively consume massive resources and go nowhere fast”
(Childress, Elmore and Grossman, 2006, p. 58). As a result, schools are fractured with
underachievement, insufficient resources, and poor student outcomes.
Effective school district-led reform efforts have been centered on moving towards
district-wide solutions and away from “islands of excellent schools” (Togneri, 2003, p.
1). These solutions include: improved governance and redefined leadership roles; data-
driven decision making; increased accountability of poor performance; a vision for
student learning and professional development towards that end; and, a commitment to
sustaining the reform effort (Togneri, 2003; Wong, 2007).
Although the comprehensive American high school has been operating in an era
of accountability, it continues to be saddled with problems that prevent students from
reaching their academic and social potential, including: a lack of clear purpose; low
student expectations; low parental aspirations; low academic standards; no common
standards; weak student engagement; student anonymity and alienation; and ineffective

16
curriculum and instruction (Marsh and Codding, 1999). The condition of American high
schools has had profound effects upon student outcomes, including inadequate
preparation for postsecondary studies. For decades, high schools have operated as the
final stop for students’ educational journeys instead of a place where “all students are
prepared with the knowledge and skills necessary to enter postsecondary education and
pursue meaningful careers” (Duncan, 2010).
Several studies (Ed Trust, 2005; Martinez and Klopott, 2005; Togneri, 2003;
Williams, Kirst, Haertel et al, 2005; Marsh and Codding, 1999) have examined the
elements of effective high school reform. When measured against less effective high
schools, high performing schools are those that have demonstrated significant and
greater-than-expected growth over time, and have been successful in closing the
achievement gap. As well, many successful high school reform movements include the
creation of a positive and safe school culture with a clear and consistent vision that
focuses on student achievement. An effectively redesigned American high school also
makes use of data-driven practices as a means to identify, disaggregate, and make
informed decisions for instruction and student intervention (Williams, Kirst, Haertel et al,
2005; Togneri, 2003). By instituting and effectively using data-driven practices, schools
will inevitably improve the teaching and learning process, and make progress in closing
the achievement gap (Boudett, City, and Murnane, 2008). Although many high school
reform movements do not necessarily focus on college preparedness as one of its core
elements, there are two common elements found in reform efforts that invariably support

17
students’ successful entry into and success in a postsecondary institution: rigorous
academics with strong social and academic support (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
Several comprehensive school reform movements have taken shape in the past
few decades that have addressed low achievement in today’s urban schools and sought to
fundamentally restructure schools to ensure success. Although the organizational
arrangement and design of these reform movements may be different, there are several
common elements to these new learner-centered schools, including: “a collective set of
goals, commitments, and practices enacted throughout the school; small continual
learning groups for students and teachers, shared governance coupled with teaching
teams, time for teachers to collaborate and learn together, and a rich array of learning
opportunities for all members of the school community” (Darling-Hammond, 2002, p.
150). Comprehensive school reform movements are typically affiliated with universities,
nonprofit organizations, or companies and are purchased by school districts as a means to
raise student achievement through whole-school change (Datnow, 2005).
Smaller learning communities have been sprouting throughout urban school
districts as a means to break up the large, impersonal environments typically found in
today’s comprehensive schools. Schools that restructure into smaller learning
communities place a premium on increasing student personalization, raising the level of
rigor and relevance in coursework, and building time and opportunity for teacher
collaboration (David, 2008). The small schools approach can take on a variety of forms,
including the creation of several sub-division, or sub-schools- each having their own
principal and staff- within a school building; “schools-within-a-school” model that take

18
an existing school and break it into smaller units developed around a theme or academy;
and, freestanding small schools that enroll a small number of students and focus primarily
on core academic courses (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been instrumental in providing over
$2 billion of funding to support smaller learning communities in America’s schools with
the goal of preparing all students for college, career, and life. Schools that restructure
into smaller learning communities have increased graduation and college-readiness rates,
promote high expectations for all students, and nurture caring relationships between
teachers and students (Gates Foundation, 2008). One study of the small schools
movement in New York City public schools found several positive findings: by their first
year of high school, students enrolled in small schools had a 10% better chance of
graduating than their non-small school counterparts; small schools resulted in better
overall graduation rates than non-small schools; and, positive effects have been noticed
upon historically underrepresented minority students of color (Bloom, Thompson, and
Unterman, 2010).
America’s Choice is another comprehensive school reform effort that is based on
designing small schools, or house systems (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). This federally
funded program focuses on promoting an expectation of college for all students and
prepares students by providing a core academic curriculum with strong college- and
technical-preparation programs. A key component of American’s Choice schools is the
installation of a safety net intervention program that identifies struggling students in

19
literacy and mathematics and helps them get back on the right track (America’s Choice,
2010).
Many high schools have restructured their programs by adopting Achievement
Via Individual Determination (AVID) into their curriculum. AVID is a college-readiness
system that is designed to increase college participation for non-traditional, historically
underrepresented minority students (AVID, 2010). Schools that have adopted an AVID
program identify underachieving students and place them in classes and provide
instructional strategies that promote rigor and provide basic learning strategy skills.
Studies show that students enrolled in AVID programs or schools often take more
rigorous coursework, including Advanced Placement classes, and have higher rates of
meeting four-year university eligibility (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
Beyond the restructuring, many schools have redesigned curriculum, instruction,
and professional development with evidence-based practices that lead to improved
student achievement. The focus on these areas underscores the important role teachers
play in ensuring student achievement and success (Haycock, 1998; Marzano; 2003). In
fact, research points to the fact that “more can be done to improve education by
improving the effectiveness of teachers than by any other single factor” (Marzano, 2003,
p. 72). Moreover, specific qualities have been found in the most effective teachers,
including strong verbal and math skills, deep content knowledge, strong use of
instructional strategies, effective classroom management and curricular design (Haycock,
1998; Marzano, 2003).

20
In his seminal work, Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based
Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, Marzano (2001) highlights nine
instructional strategies that have demonstrated a positive affect on student achievement.
Those strategies include: identification of similarities and differences, summarization and
note-taking, reinforcement of effort and providing recognition, homework and practice,
nonlinguistic representations, cooperative learning, setting objectives and providing
feedback, generating and testing hypotheses, and use of questions, cues, and advance
organizers (Marzano, 2001).
The Professional Learning Communities (PLC) movement has also ushered in a
focus on school structures and instructional practices that lead to improved student
achievement. PLC’s are comprised of “collaborative teams whose members work
interdependently to achieve common goals linked to the purpose of learning for all”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many, 2006, p. 3). The work of PLC’s is centered around
implementing researched-based practices that lead to improved student achievement,
including the use of data and common formative assessments, a focus on student results,
and an emphasis on teacher collaboration. Research indicates that schools that
effectively weave in a professional learning community exhibit the following
characteristics: shared values and vision, collective responsibility for students, reflective
professional inquiry, collaboration, and group learning (Bolam, McMahon, Stall,
Thomas, and Wallace, 2005).

21
Barriers to College Participation and Success
Instituting a specific high school reform effort and addressing classroom
instructional practices may improve student achievement within school sites, but a more
concerted effort needs to take shape to acknowledge and address the gaps in equity that
quietly, and sometimes invisibly, exist in many of today’s high schools. Student
aspirations for college participation are high and minority college participation has
increased over the years. In fact, differences in race, income, and living situation have
slowly become a non-factor in determining student aspiration for college: almost all high
school graduates aspire to more education (Tierney and Hagedorn, 2002). Despite the
existence of student plans for college, several factors create barriers for students from
making a more seamless transition into postsecondary studies, including insufficient
social and cultural capital of minority students; disconnected coursework between high
school and college; and, the social construction of power and merit (Oakes, Rogers,
Liptin, and Morrell, 2000; Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio, 2003; Tierney and Hagedorn,
2002). Thus, underrepresentation of minority students continues to persist (Tierney and
Hagedorn, 2002).
The continued underrepresentation of minority students in colleges today
demonstrates on-going inaccessibility to the economic and social benefits that are
procured through a postsecondary education. In effect, minority students, particularly
African-American and Hispanic students, lack equitable access to institutions of higher
education. Issues of equity that translate to underrepresentation in postsecondary schools

22
begin at the secondary school level, and are evidenced by practices within the
schoolhouse.
In many of our nation’s classrooms, a lack of equity pedagogy and fair
educational opportunities available for minority students exist (Bennett, 2001). In order
to transform schools into equitable institutions, a reexamination of the “hidden
curriculum that is expressed in teacher attitudes and expectations for student learning,
grouping of students and instructional strategies…and classroom climates” (Bennett,
2001, p. 183) is necessary. In essence, there is a departure of the applied curriculum from
the intended curriculum when teachers intentionally, or unintentionally, hold decreased
expectations, incorrect beliefs, and misguided attitudes about the academic achievement
abilities of minority students.
In addition, the persistence of academic tracking within America’s high schools
pose a significant barrier to underrepresented minority students. Students of color are
predominantly represented in lower-level, non-college preparatory courses, while there
White and Asian counterparts are enrolled in higher-level college preparatory or
advanced placement courses. The consequences are severe: students in lower-level
courses often receive curriculum differentiation and less instruction involving higher-
order thinking skills (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato, 2002; Bennett, 2002).
Conversely, students in higher-level courses often receive instruction from more
experienced and effective teachers, with lower student to teacher ratio, while minority
students are taught by less-qualified or inexperienced teachers (Garcia, 2002).

23
The separation of high-performing White and Asian students into higher-level
courses, and minority students of color into lower-level courses, has been described as a
form of academic or intellectual resegregation (Valencia et al., 2002). Although the
landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case ruled schools segregated by racial lines
as inherently unequal, desegregated schools ‘resegregate’ classrooms by racial lines
through a “system of academic tracking or ability grouping resulting in a stratified and
hierarchical structure in the delivery of instruction” (Valencia et al., 2002, p. 94). Studies
have shown that “structural factors of tracking, resegregation…and reliance on
standardized tests scores…contributed to an environment” (Bennett, 2001, p. 185) where
minority students’ opportunities for success were limited, including advancement to
postsecondary studies. In this system of tracking and resegregation, underrepresented
minority students face insufficient access to those courses that will best prepare them for
success in college coursework. Since high school course-taking patterns are the greatest
predictors to college-going behavior, these types of structural conditions have certainly
affected minority students who presently face an inequitable distribution of benefits and
outcomes that come from a rigorous college preparatory education (Venezia, Kirst, and
Antonio, 2003).
School structures can also affect teacher attitudes, practices, and expectations
(Bennett 2001). Many teachers assigned to lower-level, non-college preparatory classes
are younger teachers with less years of experience. Lower expectations are held for
students in these classes, including the belief that students cannot comprehend difficult-
to-understand concepts or lectures, therefore needing more basic or rudimentary activities

24
to engage and teach them. The reverse is true in higher-level, college preparatory
courses: teachers will provide more directed instruction and cover challenging content
with the assumption that students will be able to master the material. This teacher
mentality only further exacerbates student stratification into low and high-level courses:
if teachers do not prepare minority students to develop higher-order thinking skills
needed for successful engagement in college preparatory courses, then these students’
advancement will be limited and placement in non-college preparatory classes will only
perpetuate.
Not only can structures within a particular school site create inequitable
conditions for minority students, but the lack of opportunity between affluent schools and
neighborhoods and their urban counterparts can present another set of inequalities.
Typically, urban schools face unequal access to neighborhood resources, inferior
instructional offerings, less qualified teachers, poor counseling services, unequal family
resources, and a lack of peer support (Tierney and Hagedorn, 2002). In essence, minority
students of color from low poverty, urban neighborhoods do not have the same level of
access to higher education as their more affluent suburban student counterparts.
The challenge of improving minority students’ access to college is thwarted by
the issue of merit itself. The ideology of merit as it relates to college access posits that
those who have proven themselves eligible are most worthy of college entrance.
However, merit is socially constructed and institutionalized by those in the mainstream
culture, thus creating disadvantages for qualified minority students who aim to pursue a
college education (Tierney and Hagedorn, 2002). Since merit has been traditionally

25
constructed by upper-class, White Americans, qualified minority students who have
battled through the challenges of social stratification and poverty will still be measured
by the same previously set standards of merit, thus perpetuating gaps in college
participation. In fact, should constructions of merit remain the same, improving overall
college outreach strategies for students will allow upper-middle class students to be one
step ahead of the college entrance game compared to their minority student counterparts.
Besides a school structure that tracks students into tiered classrooms, there are
other causes that create inequitable access to a college preparatory education. For one,
minority students lack the “social distribution of possibilities” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997)
necessary to navigate through and properly access institutional agents who have influence
over institutional resources. Ethnic minority students may differ in their “norms of
behavior, language usage, cognitive styles, and other aspects of personal and
interpersonal functioning” (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001) from the dominant, Anglo-
European mainstream culture. Some have positioned these differences as deficit
explanations for the low achievement of minority students (Gallimore and Goldenberg,
2001). However, minority students’ low achievement is more attributable to their lack of
social capital, or access to institutional agents, which translates into “differential access to
highly valued institutional resources, opportunities, and privileges” (Stanton-Salazar,
1997, p. 5). In other words, cultural differences from the dominant culture could very
well be preventing minority students from accessing school personnel who will help
integrate them successfully into the school system, which in turn, can better route these
students to a higher education college pathway.

26
Minority students’ lack of social capital can materialize in different ways. For
example, otherwise capable minority students’ language barriers could prevent them from
properly communicating their interests in challenging coursework with school
counselors, who could in turn help steer them towards higher-level, college preparatory
coursework. Or, because of cultural differences in social networking, some minority
students might not be aware of how or which school officials or peers to interact with that
could potentially aid their access to academic social groups. As Bennett (2001) points
out, “ethnic minority students often experience mismatches between home and school
cultural expectations that may impair school success” (p. 183). Altogether, minority
students’ lack of social capital results in limited funds of knowledge, or understanding of
institutionally sanctioned discourse, organization, networks, etc. (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Were minority students in today’s high schools to possess sufficient funds of knowledge,
they would be able to maneuver and navigate mainstream institutional culture, and utilize
its agents to their academic advantage.
Because of their lack of social capital, underserved minority students clearly face
barriers in accessing certain school agents and advanced level courses. A second, yet
equally important, issue that emerges from an inequitably accessible school environment
is the impact on those minority students who do persist and achieve despite these barriers.
The disproportionate number of minority students in higher-level, college preparatory
courses can have severe effects on those few minority students who can be perceived as
“token” minorities. This token status can give students “undue attention, visibility, and

27
distinctiveness, which can lead to greater stereotyping by majority group members”
(Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin, 2002).
Another effect on minority students is the impact on their self-efficacy and self-
worth. Self-efficacy is the confidence in one’s ability to accomplish a certain task, while
self-worth is the confidence one holds in themselves (Rueda and Dembo, 1995).
Minority students who have been unable to access higher-level, college preparatory
courses may either believe they cannot accomplish tasks in higher-level courses (low
self-efficacy), or they may believe they possess low intelligence and ability to even be
enrolled in higher-level courses (low self-worth).

Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Educational Systems
Although barriers within the secondary schoolhouse exist to prevent minority
students from successfully accessing a college education, there are barriers- both socially
and physically constructed- outside the confines of the classroom that are exacerbating
minority students’ access to a postsecondary education. These barriers include
disconnectedness and misalignment between K-12 and postsecondary institutions, which
prevent minority students from taking full advantage of their K-12 learning opportunities.
K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions are disconnected in a variety of ways,
including differences in curricular goals, standards, and assessments. K-12 public
schools and postsecondary institutions lack vertical curricular alignment and sequencing,
which provides poor links to learning for graduating seniors entering their first year of
college. In fact, what students are expected to know and be able to do in high school is

28
dramatically different from the learning expectations and standards in college (Venezia,
Kirst, and Antonio, 2003). In California, high school students take end-of-course exams-
the CA Standards Tests- that measure students’ knowledge of rigorous content standards,
yet are expected to achieve well on specific standardized placement tests (i.e. the SAT)-
which does not assess content standard mastery- in order to enter prestigious universities.
Of course, public high schools will invariably emphasize preparation for K-12
standardized tests at the expense of college entrance exams and other ancillary services,
including counseling and academic advisement (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio, 2003).
This lack of preparation is particularly damaging for minority students of color who have
traditionally been challenged by college entrance high-stakes tests serving as gatekeepers
to their higher education (Rueda, 2005).
The gap in learning expectations bodes poorly for many students as evidenced by
the large number of entering postsecondary students who enroll in remedial coursework
in their first year of college. Approximately half of all entering four-year university
students are enrolled in remedial coursework demonstrating a lack sufficient academic
preparation (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio, 2003). Unfortunately, the greater the number
of students in remedial coursework, the greater chance of those students ultimately failing
to complete or prolonging their postsecondary studies.

Conclusion
The review of literature presented here made a case for the importance of a
college education, and the extant barriers that prevent minority students of color from

29
fully accessing these institutions. Although the social and economic benefits of a college
education are evident, there still remains a gap in college participation, invariably based
on students’ racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. The subsequent
Methodology section seeks to examine college access issues that affect students in a large
urban school district- Glendale Unified. As well, the ensuing section describes in detail
the Gap Analysis model, which will be applied to analyze the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District’s students from
accessing four-year universities.

30
CHAPTER 2B: METHODOLOGY
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Project Team Members
A three-member team of graduate student professionals from the University of
Southern California (USC) undertook a project that investigated college participation
rates amongst Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) student subgroups and analyzed
factors that prevented some student subgroups from accessing, pursuing and/or
matriculating into college. This project applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis
framework to determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers that prevent all GUSD students from participating in college.
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals
achieved when these three causes are properly addressed.
Each member of the project group offered a distinctive set of skills, come from
diverse backgrounds, and have unique professional experiences that lent insight to the
college participation problem as a whole, and how it affects GUSD specifically. Danny
Kim served recently as an administrator at a comprehensive public high school located in
an affluent area of east San Gabriel Valley. The school graduates nearly 100% of its
students and consistently ranks as one of the top high schools in all of Southern
California in terms of API (882) and similar schools rankings. There is a distinct cultural
model of high college participation at this school with roughly 55% of each graduating
class matriculating into a four-year university. The internal and external school
community places a high value on seeing its students accepted into the top universities in

31
the nation, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Cal Tech, and all of the
University of California schools.
Dawn Cassady served as a high school administrator at a private institution
located in the large urban area of Long Beach. The school services a small population of
students and aims to support non-traditional college participants by providing the
appropriate teaching and counseling services necessary for college preparation and
admittance. Roughly 25% of each graduating class in this college preparatory private
school successfully matriculates into a four-year university.
Zim Hoang served as the Coordinator of Assessment and Evaluation for a large-
urban school district in Los Angeles County. This individual oversees the entire testing
program for the eighteen schools in the district. Schools in this district face increasing
levels of both Federal and State accountability as students continue to perform poorly on
standardized tests. In fact, most schools in the district are on Program Improvement
status and a low percentage of students go onto four-year universities upon high school
graduation.
All three members of this project team share a particular interest in researching
and understanding college participation gaps that exist in many high schools today.
Although each team member works in unique organizations with varied successes in
graduating students to four-year universities, there is a common element of certain
student subgroups that have historically been underrepresented in the college-going
experience in our respective schools. The project team gained valuable insight on the
successes and challenges of closing the college participation gap at Glendale Unified, and

32
used gathered information, best practices, and offered solutions as a springboard to
solving similar gaps in our respective workplaces. As well, it is the hope of the authors
that the findings and subsequent solutions offered in this project will result in improved
access and equitable opportunities for all students to pursue high education at four-year
universities. We desire to see K-12 schools and districts provide high student
expectations and academic rigor for all student subgroups, and to ensure that historically
underrepresented and underperforming students have the necessary interventions in place
so that their higher-education dreams are realized.
The work undertaken by this three-member team included the joint authorship of
the following common sections:
• Chapter 2B: Methodology
• Chapter 2C: Findings
• Chapter 3A: Review of the Solutions Literature
• Chapter 3B: Executive Summary of Solutions

Partnership With Glendale Unified School District
The USC project team created a partnership with the Glendale Unified School
District in analyzing their college participation gap. Glendale Unified School District
(GUSD) is a high-performing, large, urban school district that serves an economically
and culturally diverse population. The school district’s mission is to provide excellence
in teaching, quality educational programs, and the enrichment necessary for all students
to learn and develop with the primary focus being student achievement. GUSD schools

33
include twenty elementary, four middle, four comprehensive high schools, and one
continuation high school.
The district services students residing primarily in the City of Glendale, and the
smaller foothill communities of La Crescenta and Montrose. The City of Glendale is
located nearly 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, and hosts growing financial,
entertainment, retail and commercial centers within its suburban residential borders.
Glendale is home to nearly 74,000 Armenians-Americans, who make up 37% of the
entire city population.
Glendale Unified School District educates its students within the context of both
federal and state accountability expectations. GUSD’s 842 Academic Performance Index
(2010) demonstrates a high achieving culture. However, gaps in achievement exist
within each comprehensive high school site, and between each school site. For example,
at Crescenta Valley High School (CVHS), Asian subgroups’ API score topped at 918,
while the Hispanic subgroup scored at 831- nearly a 90-point difference between student
populations. Also, while CVHS (883 API) and Clark Magnet High School’s (889 API)
rank as two of the highest performing in the State, Hoover (772) and Glendale High
School’s (754) API rankings are both separated by over 110-points from their two high-
performing sister schools. This differentiation in achievement is also evident in 2009
AYP targets: while CVHS and Clark Magnet both met AYP status, Hoover and Glendale
High School failed to do so.
In order to address both State and Federal accountability measurements, the
school district implemented a reform initiative called Focus on Results: an organizational

34
reform model that helps school administrators and teachers focus on teaching practices
and culture in order to improve student achievement across the district. According to
GUSD school district officials, Focus on Results has helped shift the district to data-
driven practices resulting in improved academic performance over time. The Focus on
Results reform model is rooted in seven defining principles:
1) Identification of school-wide instructional focus based on assessment of
student needs;
2) Development of an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a
guiding coalition for the school;
3) Selection of three to five high-quality, research-based strategies used
consistently by every teacher;
4) Provision of targeted professional development to ensure all teachers are
implementing those three to five practices with fidelity;
5) Realignment of school to support the instructional focus;
6) Implementation of an internal accountability system using assessment
measures that benchmark progress in the focus area;
7) The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting focus through
classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocation of resources and support.

Along with overall academic achievement gains, the district is committed to
preparing all its students for graduation and successful matriculation into college and
careers. GUSD students prepare for advancement to postsecondary institutions by

35
successfully meeting all graduation requirements, including passage of the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), enrollment in college prep and advancement
placement courses, and participation in college entrance exams such as the SAT. Despite
GUSD’s preparation of students for postsecondary studies, a college participation gap
exists and is often based on students’ race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or English
language proficiency.

GUSD Comprehensive High Schools
Glendale Unified School District boasts four comprehensive high schools, each
with its own set of unique characteristics and tradition. All four high schools offer a
college preparatory curriculum and Career Technical education that prepares students for
higher education and/or success in the workplace.
Clark Magnet High School sits atop a hill in an affluent and well-maintained
neighborhood in the city of La Crescenta, California and serves approximately 1,000
students. The school opened in 1998 as a science and technology magnet that focuses on
strong academic achievement as evidenced by its 2010 Growth API of 889. In addition,
the school prepares its students with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in our
technological world. All Clark Magnet students are required to take technology courses
for graduation, and nearly 70% of its students enroll in a Career Technical education
course. Clark Magnet offers both Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
courses, which prepares students for rigorous college preparatory level studies. The
school graduates nearly 100% of each class, and roughly 64% of Clark Magnet graduates

36
meet the minimum eligibility requirements for entrance to the University of California
(UC) and California State University (CSU) school systems. Although many Clark
Magnet students meet eligibility requirements for four-year universities, nearly 57% of
the 2007 graduating class subsequently enrolled in a two-year college.
Glendale High School has served students since 1906. Today, the school serves a
diverse student body of approximately 3,000, with 28% Armenian, 25% White, 0.6%
Black, 17% Asian, and 20% Hispanic/Latino. Glendale High’s 2010 Growth API of 754
is the lowest of the four comprehensive high schools. In addition to academic
coursework, the school has several Career Technical education programs, including
Cosmetology, Construction, and Foods Academies. In terms of college preparation, 31%
of Glendale High School students met minimum course requirements for admission to
UC and CSU schools. In 2007, 58% of the graduating class matriculated into community
colleges.
Crescenta Valley High School is a high-achieving California Distinguished
(2005) and National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence (2000). The school of nearly
3,000 students opened its doors in 1946 and its 2010 Growth API of 883 ranks as one of
the highest in the State. Crescenta Valley High prepares its students to meet rigorous
course requirements for entry to four-year universities and offers students a Science and
Medicine Academy. Sixty-three percent of the 2008 graduating class met minimum
course requirements for UC and CSU schools. Forty percent of the 2007 graduating class
enrolled in community colleges.

37
The last of the four comprehensive high schools in Glendale Unified is Herbert
Hoover High, named after our nation’s 31
st
President. The school began instructing
students in 1929 and currently serves a diverse student population of 2,700, with 63%
White (primarily Armenian), 22% Hispanic/Latino, and 10% Asian. Hoover High offers
both academic and Career Technical educational offerings, including the Business,
Engineering, and Technology Academy (BETA), a Virtual Enterprise Business class, a
Police and Fire Academy, and the only Auto Shop program in the district. In 2010,
Hoover High witnessed a 10-point API growth to 772, and saw 30% of its 2008
graduating class meet minimal course requirements for UC and CSU entry. In 2007,
fifty-five percent of the graduating class attended a community college.

Gap Analysis Model
Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis model provides an effective lens for
fleshing out gaps in performance and leading Glendale Unified School District (GUSD)
and high school site leaders in selecting the right solutions for closing those gaps. This
proven problem-solving model has been applied within a variety of business industries,
and offers a framework for school district leaders to solve their own organizational
problems. For this particular project, we applied Clark and Estes’ (2002) framework by
looking deeply at the root causes of GUSD’s gap in student participation in four-year
universities.
The Gap Analysis model is a dynamic process that examines the “active
ingredients” that lead to improved work processes. The model consists of six steps that

38
lead to improved work performance and goal achievement. The steps are as follows
(Clark and Estes, 2002):
1) Identification of key business goals;
2) Identification of performance goals;
3) Determination of performance gaps;
4) Analysis of performance gaps to determine knowledge, motivation, or
organizational causes;
5) Identify solutions to knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational process
causes and implement;
6) Evaluation of results and revision of goals.

In essence, Clark and Estes (2002) assert that business goals are not realized
because of gaps in individual performance. Performance gaps are attributed to three
primary causes: lack of knowledge or skills; lack of motivation; or ineffective
organizational processes or culture. In order to select the right solutions in closing these
performance gaps, it is critical that organizations analyze and determine the correct root
cause(s). Once solutions have been identified, it is important for an organization to
implement and evaluate to see if business goals have been met.
This project utilized the Gap Analysis model to determine performance gaps that
prevent Glendale Unified School District graduating students from accessing four-year
universities. The following section details the Gap Analysis processes our project team
undertook to accomplish this task:

39
Goal Identification:
In order to properly identify gaps in performance a clearer understanding of
GUSD’s organizational- and cascading intermediate and performance- goals needed to be
established. Behind GUSD’s mission of student achievement for all lays a range of key
organizational goals, one of which is access to college participation. During Spring 2010,
our project team examined district and school site goals as it relates to college
participation. The team sought a clear definition of GUSD college participation goals,
and determined if all levels- global, intermediate, and performance- were compatible,
aligned, and measurable. Furthermore, we examined performance or works goals that set
out to increase college participation for GUSD graduating students to determine if they
met the ‘C3’ criteria- concrete, challenging, and current (Clark and Estes, 2002). During
Spring 2010, our project team assessed whether performance goals were clearly defined
so that desired performance could be effectively measured against actual performance.
Upon analyzing district and school’s goals against their actual performance, our
project team settled on analyzing gaps in four-year university participation for GUSD
students. It was clear from our data that a large percentage of GUSD students were
matriculating into two-year community colleges, yet a disproportionate number were
failing to enter four-year universities despite a growing percentage meeting minimum
course requirements for entry. For our purposes, we have defined GUSD’s college
participation gap to mean access to four-year universities.
Although GUSD aims to increase the number of its graduating students
participating in four-year universities, a certain subgroup population of students fails to

40
meet this organizational goal. While the district realizes high graduation rates and
students meeting minimum university entrance requirements, not all student subgroups
are matriculating into universities upon completion of their secondary studies. At GUSD,
levels of income, English language development, and immigrant experience are factors
that invariably demarcate student participation in four-year universities. With the
existence of some students’ non-participation in four-year universities, it is evident that
gaps in the performance of various GUSD stakeholders- students, parents, and educators-
may very well be preventing students from successfully participating in four-year
undergraduate programs.

Performance Gap Analysis:
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that performance gaps are attributed to three causes:
lack of knowledge/skills, lack of motivation, and/or organizational barriers. Once our
team defined organizational goals related to college participation, we set out to complete
the next critical step in Clark and Estes’ (2002) problem-solving model: the identification
of root causes of GUSD college participation gap. Specifically, the work of various role
groups was critically examined and we analyzed various data to determine root causes in
knowledge, motivation, or within the organization that prevented some GUSD students
from participating in four-year universities.

41
Knowledge Gaps:
According to Clark and Estes (2002), performance gaps can be attributed to lack
of knowledge and/or skills. Essentially, individuals in different role groups may not have
the specific knowledge and skills to accomplish a certain task or goal. For our purposes,
this can amount to graduating students not knowing how to access college applications,
or teachers not having the pedagogical skills to deliver rigorous college preparatory
curriculum to her students. In both these examples, a specific knowledge/skill deficit
exists that will inevitably prevent more students from accessing four-year university
education.
There are four different types of knowledge: factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Factual knowledge is knowledge of
concrete pieces of information, including terminology and details. On the other hand,
conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge of more complex ideas, mental models,
schemas, or theories. For example, although an individual might have the factual
knowledge about enrolling in college, his reluctance in applying might be based on not
knowing the conceptual importance of a college education. Procedural knowledge
involves the knowledge of “how-to” do something. This could involve knowledge of
techniques, sequences, or steps that can range in the routine to rather difficult. Finally,
metacognitive knowledge refers to “knowledge about cognition in general as well as
awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition” (Anderson and Krathwohl,
2001, p. 27). Simply put, metagcognition is the knowledge of one’s own self in relation
to learning and solving different tasks, including knowledge of strengths and limitations.

42
Motivation Gaps:
Gaps in performance can also be attributed to a lack of motivation. GUSD
students’ lack of motivation to pursue a four-year university education is based on the
following four roots (Mayer, 2008):
• Interest: students’ value and interest in college;
• Self-efficacy: students perceive themselves as capable of entering college;
• Attribution: students attribute college-going success to hard work and effort;
• Goal orientation: students are most successful when they want to be best
prepared for a college education and perform well to get there.
According to Clark and Estes (2002), there are three types of motivational processes that
come into play in students’ pursuit of college: active choice, persistence and mental
effort. Active choice is the active pursuit of a goal; persistence involves continued
pursuit of a goal despite distractions; and, mental effort is the investment of energy in
pursuit of a goal that is dependent on an adequate level of confidence. Optimal
performance towards a goal is contingent upon these three facets of motivation.
Motivation itself is a critical area of study in the area of education. Students who
lack motivation to succeed in school are apt to fail compared to their more confident
counterparts. In fact, research points to the fact that “people who are positive and believe
that they are capable and effective will achieve significantly more than those who are just
as capable but tend to doubt their own abilities” (Clark and Estes, 2002, p. 82). For our
purposes, motivation problems can manifest itself in a number of ways: students’ lack of
buy-in to the importance of a four-year university education; students’ avoidance of

43
rigorous academic study in preparation for college; students’ procrastination in
completing their college application process; teachers’ refusal to best prepare all students
for college preparatory study based on assumed beliefs about student capabilities, etc.
Altogether, motivation is a powerful force that may be inhibiting GUSD students’ pursuit
and participation in college.

Organizational Gaps:
The third cause of performance gaps can be attributed to barriers that exist within
the organization or its culture. When knowledge/skill or motivation gaps are ruled out, it
is often something within the organization itself that is preventing individuals from
achieving optimal performance. For our purposes, there are organizational gaps that are
preventing some GUSD students from accessing a four-year university education. These
gaps are a result of inefficient work processes and policies, insufficient material
resources, and misaligned value chains and value streams.
Barriers within the organization can be symptomatic of its culture. An
organization’s culture dictates how work is accomplished, and describes the core beliefs
and values of the organization itself. When considering college participation and access
issues within Glendale Unified School District, our team critically examined the culture
of the organization itself to determine if it was conducive for preparing and graduating its
students onto four-year university institutions.

44
Solutions:
Once performance gaps were identified and analyzed to determine causes, our
project team selected research-based solutions to close those gaps. Clark and Estes
(2002) assert that varying causes require specific solutions. For example, a lack in
knowledge or skill will necessitate some form of information aid, training, and/or
education. Our project team determined the root causes to the college participation gap
in Glendale Unified and offered a specific set of solutions to improve overall student
access to four-year universities. The solutions were organized into a written Executive
Summary of Findings and presented as a PowerPoint slideshow to the Glendale Unified
Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet.

Project Timeframe
On November 30, 2009, our Gap Analysis project team made an initial visit to the
district where the Superintendent of GUSD and his cabinet presented an overview of the
district and provided potential problem areas to consider. Following this initial visit, our
three-member team narrowed the problem to college access gaps for GUSD students.
Our team sought to clarify GUSD’s goals as it relates to college participation, and
conducted an unstructured interview with two district administrators on February 18,
2010. Following this interview, our team conducted a final unstructured interview with
the GUSD Superintendent of Schools on March 17, 2010. These two interviews helped
our team to clarify and focus our project on the four-year college participation gap extant
in GUSD high schools.

45
During the early part of this project, our team researched literature that helped
provide context and research concerning the gap analysis model, the high school reform
movement, and issues related to college access and participation. Our project team
successfully passed a qualifying examination in late February that opened the process for
our group to begin conducting interviews and gathering data.
During Spring 2010, the focus of our work was to gather information and data
that helped us diagnose those gaps in performance preventing GUSD students from
accessing four-year universities. In order to determine root causes, our team conducted a
series of interviews at each of the four comprehensive high schools. These interviews
involved various agents within each comprehensive schoolhouse, including
administrators, teachers, and counselors. The first round of scanning interviews were
conducted on the following days at these respective sites: April 1- Clark Magnet; April
15- Crescenta Valley; Glendale- April 1, 13; Hoover- April 15. A second round of
interviews was conducted on the following dates at these respective sites: May 25-
Glendale; May 28- Hoover; June 7- Crescenta Valley. A final round of interviews were
conducted in mid-June. Due to time limitations and the close of the school year, the final
round interview questions were e-mailed to respondents.
During Spring and Summer of 2010, our project team focused on analyzing root
causes to the college participation problem in GUSD. The collected data was organized
into findings along specific gaps- knowledge/skills, motivation, and organization. Next,
the project team organized the findings of the root causes into emergent themes that

46
allowed for chunking of ideas and placement into a presentable fashion. An executive
summary of findings was submitted to the Superintendent of GUSD schools.
In the Fall of 2010, our project team researched literature on best practices to
closing college participation gaps and drafted an executive summary of research-based
solutions. The executive summary was organized into a PowerPoint presentation and
presented to the GUSD Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet.
Table 1: Project Timeline
Fall
2009
• Meet with GUSD leaders to determine the performance goal: college access
for all students
• Data collection on the school district and recent research on college
access and multiple pathways
Spring
2010
• Qualifying exams
• Conduct first and second round of interviews with key district personnel
• Complete Draft of Chapter 2 and address possible findings
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer
2010
• Complete data collection
• Complete Chapter 2
• Provide draft of Chapter 1
• Provide District with Executive Summary

Fall
2010
• Complete Chapter 3
• Present findings to District stakeholders
• Evaluate District’s response to findings and solutions
• Finish Capstone Project
Spring
2011
• Defend Dissertation
• Graduation

Sampling and Instrumentation
In order to diagnose the roots causes to GUSD’s college participation gap, a series
of semi-structured interviews were conducted between the Fall of 2009 until the Spring
of 2010. The interviewees included district administrators, school site administrators,
counselors, and teachers. District administrator interviews were conducted at the

47
Glendale Unified School District administration office, and school site officials were
interviewed at their respective high schools (Glendale, Hoover, Crescenta Valley, and
Clark Magnet High Schools). The purpose of these interviews was to provide unique
insight from those individuals who have direct involvement with students’ college-going
experiences. According to Clark and Estes (2002), interviews provide an opportunity to
learn the beliefs and perceptions of those that are directly involved with the work, which,
for our purposes, is the work of getting students into four-year universities. The
questions were formulated so that responses could be analyzed and categorized into
knowledge, motivation, or organizational barrier causes.

Data Collection Methods:
Data collection methods included different types of informal interviews wherein a
respondent could answer in a conversational way, thus allowing the project team a
glimpse into that person’s point of view as to the problem and what it looks like in their
school and the district.
The first interview was a scanning interview (See Appendix A), which is a semi-
structured interview that contains five broad, open-ended questions, with subsequent
probing questions that allow the project team to gain more insight. For the first round of
scanning interviews, each member of the project team interviewed personnel representing
different role groups at each of the four comprehensive high schools: the principal,
assistant principals, teachers, and counselors. Each interviewee was asked a set of
questions dealing with college participation issues within their school. The five questions

48
were based on gleaning an overview of the topic, the historical perspective on the
situation, identifying formal or informal goals, the interviewee’s perception of the
performance gap and suggestions on improving our project. Each interview was
approximately forty-minutes and was electronically recorded with the interviewee’s
permission and then later transcribed and coded for further analysis by the project team.
The first round of interviews provided key insight into the college participation
problem as it was experienced at each school site. Responses from the first round of
interviews were coded to determine if a root cause to the college participation gap was
found in knowledge/skills, motivation, or organizational barrier gaps. During the coding
process, interviewee responses that indicated a root cause were color-coded in the
following manner: knowledge/skill gaps- green; motivation gaps- blue; organizational
barrier gaps- yellow. The project team grouped responses into categories and charted
them into themes that emerged through our analysis. Interviewee responses were further
coded to indicate a specific type of root cause. This analysis helped the project team
further categorize their findings into specific areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps, which provided greater clarity for analysis. The chart below indicates
the specific root cause coding that was used:

49
Table 2: Coding of Root Causes
Knowledge Gaps:
Factual knowledge Kf
Procedural knowledge Kp
Conceptual knowledge Kc
Metacognitive knowledge Km
Motivation Gaps:
Interest Mi
Self-efficacy Mse
Attributions Ma
Goal orientation Mgo
Active choice Mac
Persistence Mp
Mental effort Mme
Organization Gaps:
Policy/procedures Op
Resources Or
Value chains/value streams Ov
Culture Oc

The second type of interview was a one month interview wherein teachers were
interviewed to determine what the individual role of the school agent (i.e. teacher,
counselor) was in improving college access for all students, whether they believed they
had a role in this process, and, if not, what the school or school district has done to help
realize this goal. Each interviewee was asked one question and one follow-up question to
determine their viewpoints on what has been undertaken to address the college
participation gap, as well as capture their personal level of concern to this problem. The
two simple questions (see Appendix B) that our team asked in this second round of
interviews lasted no more than 10 minutes per interviewee. Interviews were
electronically recorded with the interviewee’s permission and then later transcribed and
coded for further analysis by the project team.

50
The last interview, the stages of concern, was based on the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model created by Hall and Loucks (Bailey and Palsha, 1992). In the Concerns-
Based Adoption Model, there are seven stages of concern, which focus on “describing the
concerns that professionals may have about an innovation” (Bailey and Palsha, 1992).
The seven stages of concern as given by Bailey and Palsha (1992) are listed in the table
below:
Table 3: Stages of Concern Model
Stage 0 Awareness Professional has little awareness of the
innovation; not concerned
Stage 1 Informational Primary concern is to know what the
innovation is and does
Stage 2 Personal Professional will want to know how
the innovation affects them personally
Stage 3 Management Professional focuses on how the
innovation is to be implemented
Stage 4 Consequences Concerned about whether the
innovation will have a positive of
negative affect
Stage 5 Collaboration Concerned about cooperation among
professionals in implementing the
innovation
Stage 6 Refocusing After evaluating the innovation,
concerns are about modifying it to
make it more effective or considering
other innovations

As a result of limited time, the project team had to e-mail the questions (See Appendix C)
to teachers from which they received enough responses to gauge the level of concern
about the implementation and efficacy of college-going interventions in their respective
school sites. Electronic mail responses were coded and reviewed by the project team and
compared to the results from the other interviews in order to discern the roots of the
college access problem facing GUSD students.

51
After the entire set of interview data was analyzed and coded, the project team set
out to find similar or repeated responses within the coded data and chunk them into
themes. From these themes, the project team pinpointed the root causes to the college
participation gap within GUSD. These set of findings were grouped into knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barrier categories. An executive summary that grouped
our findings of root causes into emergent themes was presented to the Glendale Unified
Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet (See Appendix D). The following section of
this Chapter provides in-depth explanations for each finding based on the extant data.

Limitations of the Project
Although this project shows that there are distinctive gaps in the achievement
level of certain underrepresented subgroups, it has several limitations. First, time
constraints caused the period of data collection in the schools to be limited to the end of
the Spring semester, when schools were preparing to administer state tests, Advanced
Placement exams, and finish the school year. Interview times were limited due to
preparation for Spring testing, events, and final exams at the school sites. Interviews
were also cancelled due to unforeseen events such as the death of a student. Considering
that the team was able to interview personnel utilizing three different interview models
over a period of three months, the team determined that the data collected was sufficient
for identification of roots causes to the problem.
A second limitation the project team faced revolved around concerns expressed
by administrators at some of the high school sites. At the beginning of this process, when

52
school sites were contacted to arrange the first round of interviews, administrators were
eager to help, offering assistance in gathering school site data and providing access to the
requested personnel. However, some administrators were wary of the purpose of the
team visits, which led to limited access to personnel and data. The concern was based on
the false belief that the project team was conducting evaluations for the school district
about performance, and repercussions could follow an administrator for their
forthrightness. As a result, the team was unable to arrange interviews with other
administrators, teachers, or counselors at some sites. Instead, interviews were arranged
by the principal or the principal’s assistant. The project team was concerned that selected
interviewees would not be candid with the project team.
A final limitation lied in the project team’s inability to interview students or
parents directly. Since this project was consultative in nature, our team was limited in
who we could contact and glean information from. The limitations on interview
sampling left the project team to rely solely on perspectives shared in interviews with
district administrators, school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. The ability to
interview parents and students directly would enable the team to more fully comprehend
the dynamics and culture of each school site, therefore creating a more thorough
understanding of the root causes and creating a clearer foundation from which to find
solutions.

53
Presentation of Findings
Upon completion of the gap analysis and findings of thematic root causes, a visit
was made to the Glendale Unified School District Superintendent of Schools and his
Cabinet on September 13, 2010 to help clarify any issues or concerns with the Executive
Summary of Root Causes. Finally, a more thorough presentation of findings and
recommendations was made to the Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet on
November 1, 2010 via a PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix E). The presentation
was focused on presenting several areas of strength in regards to GUSD college success,
along with the inquiry undertaken by our project team, and the subsequent thematic areas
for consideration given to address gaps to college success in GUSD. Our presentation
and executive summary offered a range of solutions to performance gaps in hopes of
attaining the goal of college for all GUSD students. Our goal was not to present an
inapplicable set of solutions, but to demonstrate before GUSD leaders that our solutions
were based on a thorough examination of root causes to gaps in college participation.
In the team’s presentation to GUSD leadership team, it was important to
communicate the information in a meaningful way that the district would be able to
utilize the information to address the district’s college participation gap. The
achievement gap of underrepresented students in their ability to access higher education
is an important issue and the district’s ability to close the gap is relevant to individual
students, as well as society as a whole. In order to close the gap, it was necessary that the
district understood the information gathered and that resultant findings were gained from
interviews and data gathered from the district. As well, the project team understood the

54
political ramifications and context in which we presented the information (i.e.
relationships with bargaining units, change of superintendentcy, etc.). Our goal in
presenting our findings and solutions was to be firm in our recommendations while being
sensitive to our audience and climate. Ultimately, our project team aimed to have the
district take ownership of the college participation gap, heed the solutions gained from
gap analysis, and apply these solutions in hopes of closing gaps.
The purpose of this project in general, and application of the gap analysis model
in particular, was to partner and assist GUSD by helping them understand why goals, as it
relates to college access, were not achieved, and to offer a dynamic proposal of solutions
that will lead to goal achievement. In the end, our team believes the presentation and
findings will serve as a workable manual for helping the district offer an improved
educational experience and route more underrepresented subgroup population of students
to college. In essence, the goal of our work was to witness the application of our
proposed solutions so that more graduating students in GUSD will indeed apply for and
matriculate into college.

Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as

55
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
“Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that
objective.”
“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g.,
routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal
management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality
improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted-for
services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However,
some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to populations
or situations beyond that studied.

2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human subjects
research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

56
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge. (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)
Further clarification is provided in the following section:
“Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data
derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of
an institutional practice.” (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4)

57
CHAPTER 2C: FINDINGS
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Introduction
The purpose of this project was to determine whether Glendale Unified School
District (GUSD) high schools had a college-going culture on their campuses and the
degree to which these cultures were supported. The overall goal of GUSD is to improve
the college participation and academic success of their students. Clark and Estes’ (2002)
gap analysis model offers a construct for identifying roots causes to problems. The
following section presents a series of findings that demonstrate clear and compelling
evidence of the roots causes to GUSD’s college participation problem. Data gathered
from two sets of interviews and email responses with district and high school
administration, counselors, and teachers were coded and organized into knowledge/skills,
motivation, or organizational gaps.

Summary of Interviews
During the first set of interviews, it became clear that there was a lack of goal
alignment. Two high-level district administrators agreed that they wanted to improve
college participation success; however, both had a different definition of what college
participation success looked like. One administrator thought that any post-secondary
education was an example of college participation success, and the other thought that
attending a two-year college and transferring to a four-year institution, or going straight
to a four-year institution was the idea of college participation success.

58
In order to further clarify the definition of college participation success, another
interview was conducted with a high-level district administrator. In that meeting, the
administrator stated that a four-year university was desirable but a two-year college with
potential for matriculation to a university could be considered part of the college
participation terminology. Clearly, there are different definitions to the meaning of
college participation within Glendale Unified School District.
Based on these preliminary interviews, it appeared that the district’s goals were
not clearly defined as it related to students’ college participation. In fact, there may
potentially exist a misalignment of goals at the district level, the result of which filters
down to the comprehensive high schools and affects the overall effect of improving
college participation for GUSD students. One of the objectives of this project was to
discover if there was indeed a misalignment of goals that contributed to the low college
participation rate. Based on school data and extensive interview responses, it became
clear our focus narrowed on access to four-year universities.
The following section presents a thorough review of our project team’s findings.
Upon completion of our interviews, it became apparent that knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps existed that prevented GUSD students from accessing a four-year
university education. The following gaps were coded into emergent themes and
presented as an executive summary of findings before the Glendale Unified
Superintendent of Schools and his Cabinet.

59
Knowledge Gaps:
The importance of student, parent, and school knowledge of college admission
requirements and application procedures to insure student success is often
underestimated. The basic assumption that all schools make is that students and parents
have the knowledge to navigate through the college application quagmire. Since
knowledge is gained through familiarity and experience, students who have never been to
a postsecondary institution lack the knowledge to fully understand the pathway to
college. Thus, the assumption schools make puts many students at a disadvantage.
Based on our findings, it is evident that a knowledge gap exists within GUSD that
prevents many students from accessing four-year universities. The following section will
describe our findings in detail and indicate the areas of knowledge within which gaps
exist.

Finding #1: Some students lack knowledge about the American system of education and
college admission requirements causing students from underrepresented groups to be
ineligible for college admission.
Many of the students within Glendale Unified School District are recent
immigrants, or the children of immigrants who either lack modeling at home because
their parents did not attend college themselves, or they have other priorities that take
precedence over education. This is not to say that immigrants and their children do not
value education, but that there are social or financial restrictions that may preclude them
from participating in educational opportunities.

60
In GUSD, there are three main subgroup populations: Armenians make-up the
largest, while Latinos and Asians, respectively, make-up the next largest groups.
According to teachers, principals, and counselors, the Armenians are the largest student
population in each of the four high schools. Additionally, the newer Armenian
immigrants do not appear to value education as much as their older Armenian immigrant
counterparts. One teacher confided that Armenian students are encouraged to go to
school, but most parents encourage them to attend Glendale Community College because
they want them to stay close to home. As many teachers, counselors, and high school
administrators pointed out this phenomenon is especially true of female Armenian
students, with some parents requiring girls to live at home until they marry. One teacher
recounted a story about one of her former students who had been accepted to the
University of Southern California:
One of my former students was accepted to USC, but her parents didn’t want her
to go. She’s a girl, so they (parents) want her home everyday. The only way she
could go to USC was to commute. Otherwise they would’ve made her go to
Glendale Community College.

The Asian students within GUSD appear to have different perceptions than those
of the Armenian population. Asian students are encouraged and even pressured by
family to be successful in school so that they are eligible to apply for four-year
universities. These students’ parents may not have been through the American
educational system, but they recognize that education is a tool that will help them attain
financial stability. These students are encouraged to apply to four-year schools, primarily
University of California schools, including the University of CA, Los Angeles. A high

61
school administrator indicated that more and more Asian students have been going to
Santa Monica Community College instead of Glendale Community College believing
that attendance at SMCC is a guarantee to junior standing at UCLA. One of the high
school principals indicated that about ten years ago, the Asian population in GUSD was
larger and most of that group elected to take more challenging courses so they would be
eligible for UC admission.
The Latino subgroup is the second largest and the lowest performing subgroup
within GUSD. This group underperforms on standardized tests such as the California
Standards Tests (CST’s), the SAT’s, Advanced Placement (AP) exams, and the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). One counselor stated that Hispanic
students usually come from lower socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds. Their parents
usually work in some sort of service-oriented employment and are unlikely to have much
formal education. Often these low SES students have low reading and math ability,
which translates to low test scores. When asked about the likelihood of these students
attending a four-year university the counselor said that if these students continued their
education, they would go to Glendale Community College. When asked why, the
counselor stated: “These students cannot see themselves in school, because no one in
their family has gone.” When these students begin high school it is with the idea that
they are not “college material” or if they do go to college, it will not be a four-year
university, so they self-select out of challenging courses further limiting their
postsecondary options.

62
Finding #2: Many students, parents, teachers, and counselors perceive that the
community college pathway is a better alternative- both financially and academically-
thus limiting student options after high school.
The challenge that modern secondary schools have is the perception that
attendance at a two-year college automatically means that a student will persist and
matriculate to a four-year institution. The common perception of students, parents,
teachers, and counselors in GUSD is that students who attend Glendale Community
College will transfer to a four-year school when according to one of the counselors in a
GUSD high school “the attrition is high and the matriculation rate is less than 35%.”
Teachers, counselors, and parents sometimes focus on community college because
students do not take challenging courses, or underperform in high school, but the
message communicated reinforces student’s fears that they are not prepared for the rigors
of college and that their high school did not adequately prepare them. Although the
recommendation for community college is meant to give students another option for
postsecondary education, it can serve to undervalue student’s high school preparation.
The more alarming part of the community college perception is that the cost of
attendance is more reasonable than a four-year university. Whereas costs at a community
college are lower, the availability of courses and people to teach them has become a
concern in recent years as a result of education cuts in the California budget. This issue,
coupled with a lack of knowledge as to how to finance a four-year education, and the
ensuing fear that this lack of knowledge inspires causes many students and parents to
focus solely on community college as the only viable option for postsecondary education.

63
Finding #3: Some students lack the knowledge of college admission requirements or
University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, which limits their postsecondary
opportunities.
In all GUSD high schools, faculty and staff indicated that school counselors and
teachers speak to students about the ‘a-g’ requirements for college admission and their
importance, but some students appear to lack conceptual knowledge of these
requirements. This lack of knowledge is demonstrated countless times during a student’s
high school career in their choices of academic coursework. Subsequently, many
students have limited their postsecondary options, thus giving them fewer opportunities
to apply to a four-year institution.
Counselors make classroom visits to talk about college admissions, distribute
handouts with college admission and University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, host
college nights, and meet with parents and students to discuss student progress.
Counselors meet with students individually once a year to review their course selections
for the next academic year, graduation requirements to make sure that students are on
track as well as college admission requirements. At several GUSD high schools, posters
delineating UC ‘a-g’ requirements and the difference in income between students who
have a college degree and students who have a high school diploma are displayed in
hallways and classrooms. The expectation at most high schools is that all students will be
able to meet admission requirements for a four year university, or enter a community
college so they can later matriculate to a university. In addition, all faculty and staff are

64
dedicated to providing students with information, support, and guidance so they can
incorporate the “dream of college” into their post-high school goals.
Whereas the district has made college participation success a priority, not all the
high schools have established a college-going culture. One high school principal shared:
“We are hesitant to use the term ‘college-going’ culture because some groups might find
it offensive and we want to be sensitive to the cultures that exist within the school.”
Each high school communicates the importance of students continuing their
education after high school. However, not all the high schools have the expectation that
students will attend a four-year university. Several of the high schools have taken the
position that “students have different directions” and that the high school has to accept
that not all students are suited for college, although they will continue to offer the
students information. One high school associate principal said: “We do not have a
college-going culture for all students. We see it in certain groups, but a great percentage
of them won’t access resources.”
Unfortunately, with recent government and district budget reductions, counseling
services have been reduced and counselors stretched as far as they can be to meet student
needs. As a result of budget reductions within the district, some counselors work part-
time at one school and part-time at another school within the district. Counselors meet
with parents and students when practical to discuss student course selections for the next
academic year, their progress toward graduation, and ‘a-g’ requirements for college
admission. In addition, teachers speak to students about college admission requirements

65
and encourage them to seek out the counselors and speak to them about college, or help
students to go online and look at college websites to get more information.

Finding #4: Some teachers lack knowledge of college admission requirements as well as
knowledge about the sequence of courses within their discipline and the requirements of
those courses, which leaves students unprepared for advancement.
Although GUSD has made college participation a priority, there is no program in
place to help train teachers about college requirements, the differences between public
and private college requirements, application procedures, and financial aid information.
It would appear that this knowledge is assumed since teachers, administrators, and
counselors have been to college. In interviews, both counselors and principals observed
that teachers appear to be unaware of specific UC ‘a-g’ requirements.
Teaching is an isolated activity, often without any interaction with other teachers
during break and lunch, certainly not enough time to discuss at any length the goals and
objectives for course sequencing. Some schools recognize the need for common
planning time so that teachers within departments can meet and discuss course goals and
objectives. One high school teacher remarked, “Teachers are so isolated that they focus
on their own classes and not what comes before or after.” Part of this focus is making
sure that the student is successful in each teacher’s respective class, thus creating a
“narrow” focus on individual class content and assessment. In addition, teachers must
focus on district-wide Focus on Results reform objectives and prepare for standardized
assessments. One pathway for student success is the ability to advance from one level

66
within a subject to another. The only way to facilitate this is for teachers to be aware of
what is necessary at the next course level so they can help students strengthen their skills.
GUSD implemented a program called Focus on Results, which helps schools
focus on one skill across the curriculum with research-based best practices. The program
is being administered in every school within GUSD; however, one high school principal
remarked that there are too many programs being implemented, results are expected
within the first years, and then there is no follow through to see what the long-term
results look like. Because of this lack of follow through, teachers often do not take the
new programs as seriously as they should because they know that there will be a new one
coming in the next year.

Finding #5: A lack of district leadership direction and support on college-going goals
creates a lack of comprehensive knowledge and strategies to improve students’ college
eligibility.
In order to improve overall student success, GUSD implemented a district wide
program called Focus on Results, which is a nationwide intervention program designed to
help schools and districts facilitate student achievement. School or district teams work
with a consultant who helps design an individualized plan for student success; they offer
training and assistance for the team so that they can take the information back to their
site. The overall goal is to improve student achievement across the curriculum. This
intervention is designed to improve student academic achievement in high school, with
an indirect goal being improving the student’s ability to qualify for college.

67
Although this intervention encourages the utilization of research-based best
practices and peer-reviewed journals by school site teams, it is not designed to
specifically address the college participation gap within GUSD. In fact, no district level
goals or direction has emerged from Focus on Results to enable students to meet ‘a-g’
requirements or qualify for college admission. When asked about district-wide goals
related to college participation, several school site officials responded that nothing
explicit existed.

Motivation Gaps:
Lack of motivation can seriously inhibit the pursuit of goals. Motivation itself is
based on four critical areas: interest, self-efficacy, attributions, and goal orientation
(Mayer, 2008). Motivation is then processed through the active choice of pursuing a
task, persistence to follow through on the task, and the requisite amount of mental effort
to complete the task. Based on our findings, it is clear that motivations gaps exist within
Glendale Unified School District’s (GUSD) four comprehensive high schools that
prevent some students from participating in a four-year university education upon
graduation. This ensuing section will describe our findings in detail and indicate the
areas of motivation where gaps currently exist.

Finding #6: Some school officials lack the motivation to raise college eligibility levels for
underrepresented groups of students due to beliefs about those students’ ability to
achieve.

68
District and school site officials hold varying expectations for students. In fact,
one high level district administrator pointed out that a consistent message of high
academic achievement for all is not found at all four comprehensive high schools.
Although some schools have pushed students towards meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility
requirements, there has not been increased pressure from all school sites and for each
individual student. In fact, school officials are resigned to the fact that some students are
not cut out for college. One school site administrator commented:
We don’t think that every student is ready for college. We have a realistic view
about kids. Across the board, there is a belief that not all students will attend
college. During our WASC visit, we came to the conclusion that students will
have different destinations.

District and school officials’ lack of motivation to raise college eligibility is found
in an absence of clearly defined formal goals related to four-year university access and
participation. As well, there appears to be varying degrees of belief regarding raising
student access to four-year universities. While a high-ranking district administrator
claimed the goal of Glendale Unified was to promote all students to enter a four-year
university, either directly or via community college, another district administrator
believed that certain students were better prepared for direct entrance to the workplace.
School site officials also presented conflicted beliefs regarding student ability to enter
college: some pushed and advocated for all students to meet UC ‘a-g’ requirements,
while others were resigned to the belief that some students, particularly those not enrolled
in college preparatory courses, were not able to achieve at a college ready level.

69
Teachers’ perceptions about the ability of students also varied. One teacher
expressed a strong belief that certain students were on the college track- Advanced
Placement students- and those that were not enrolled in such classes were often described
as “regular” kids. Of course, the rigor and approach taken in non-honors classes is vastly
different from the advanced studies and preparation for college presented in Advanced
Placement classes. The “regular” students typically faced a less rigorous instructional
program with the end goal being high school graduation and receipt of a diploma.
Another teacher who worked primarily with English Language Learners was not as
resigned about the inability of certain students to achieve at a college-ready level. In fact,
this teacher felt strongly that students in her English Language Development program did
have the academic ability to achieve, yet faced roadblocks to advancement because of
language barriers or inability to access certain coursework.

Finding #7: Some students’ familial and cultural framework creates motivation gaps in
pursuing a four-year university education.
GUSD students’ motivation to pursue a four-year university education is stunted
by a variety of cultural factors, including parental value, consent, and goal orientation.
Some students fail to actively choose or persist in college preparatory high school
coursework because parents have dictated their pathways for them. Several interviewees
pointed out that some students fail to find value or lack engagement in the academic work
because they are resigned to attending a two-year college upon high school graduation.

70
Armenian and Armenian-American students who have met rigorous college
preparatory coursework and have been accepted to a four-year university face roadblocks
due to parental demands or concerns. These students have met UC ‘a-g’ requirements,
completed the SAT or ACT testing requirement, and enrolled in rigorous Advanced
Placement courses. For all purposes, they have met secondary educational goals in
preparation for a four-year university education. However, many parents discourage their
student’s motivation to advance. For these students, college-going access is ultimately
attributed to parental consent and not on their efforts.
The large Armenian population that resides in the greater Glendale area holds
strong cultural and gender expectations for their children. One counselor, who also
happens to be an Armenian immigrant herself, shared that parents expect young
Armenian females not to go away to college. The counselor explained an experience
with one particular counselee:
I actually had a student, that really wanted to go to UCI [University of California,
Irvine] and she got into like four UC’s and the parents said the only way I’m
going to let you go to UCI is to commute day in and day out. And that’s what the
student was doing. I had a meeting with the parents explaining the danger of just
being on the road versus staying there.

Cultural factors related to college access are affected by patterns of immigration.
One administrator shared a historical overview of the Armenian immigrant experience,
and differentiated between the “old guard,” well-educated immigrants with the more
recent Armenian immigrant population. The former held high expectations for the formal
educational processes and believed it to be a gateway for economic opportunity.

71
Conversely, the new wave of Armenian immigrants appeared to value college far less
than the previous generation.

Finding #8: Some GUSD students’ lack of interest and self-efficacy result in a failure to
actively choose a four-year university educational route.
A lack of student interest and value in a four-year university education exists
within GUSD high schools. There are several indicators that support this finding,
including the existence of non-graduating dropouts and fifth-year high school students.
Low student achievement at this level demonstrates a lack of individual interest in the
high school academic learning process. If students demonstrated more willing attention
to the learning process rather than forcing themselves just to complete their requisite
coursework for graduation, improved matriculation to four-year universities would
assuredly occur. One principal described these types of students as “capable
underachievers.” Another principal indicated that:
We have a high failure rate in certain areas. So, I’ll ask the teachers, ‘Why are
these kids failing?...Is it [a lack of] skill or motivation?’ And, 99% will say it’s
motivation; it’s a lack of work ethic. It’s not that they can’t do the work, but they
choose not to.

Some GUSD students fail to actively choose the goal of a four-year university
education. These students lack the motivation despite the organizational changes made
within schools sites to push more students to meet minimum eligibility requirements. For
example, one high school has created a movement to raise overall UC ‘a-g’ requirements

72
for their student body. Although many barriers have been removed to create better
access, there are still students who do not actively choose this pathway.
Self-efficacy is also a motivation issue faced by GUSD students. Self-efficacy is
the belief in one’s abilities to accomplish a particular task. When students lack self-
efficacy in their ability to attain a four-year university education, it can impair their
motivation to pursue this goal. One administrator at a GUSD high school pointed to the
fact that students are given the curricular opportunities, including meeting University of
California ‘a-g’ requirements, yet some students seem to lack the beliefs to actually
realize this curricular goal. Although students are given full opportunity to pursue the ‘a-
g’ college preparatory track, students are self-selecting themselves out of this academic
pathway. As one high school administrator pointed out:
We’re going to provide access to kids. I want kids to be prepared to go straight
into a four-year. Go to Harvard if they so desire, go to Glendale Community
College, go to trade tech, go to Cal Tech. Wherever their interests lie. What I
struggle with is that kids make that decision in 9
th
grade. We’ve got to work
harder to help kids keep their options open longer so in the end you can do
whatever you want… ‘a-g’ gives you the most options.

Students’ lack of self-efficacy about college outcomes appears to be a shared
belief by some high school teachers and staff members. One administrator indicated that
that not all students were capable of or ready for a four-year university education. One
teacher referred to this as a “realistic” view that students will have different destinations
and that some are not capable of attending a four-year college. Still, another district
administrator pondered whether all school agents’ held the same expectations for all
students to continue on to a four-year university.

73
Finding #9: Student motivation to pursue a four-year university and school officials’
willingness to support this pursuit is often stunted by the common and comfortable
practice of entering Glendale Community College.
In Glendale Unified high schools, an inordinate number of students choose to
attend two-year community colleges upon graduation. Many GUSD students are fixated
on following this community college track, particularly continuing their studies at
Glendale Community College (GCC). Student interest in four-year universities is
tempered by the reality of this easy and reliable track that has been accessed by previous
GUSD graduates. In fact, one high school principal recounted the tale of a graduating
student that was accepted to the University of California, Riverside yet ultimately
enrolled in Glendale Community College.
Students that enter community colleges with the intent of transferring to a four-
year university face an uphill climb in actually transferring. The percentage of students
who do transfer to a four- year university is low. Despite this reality, GUSD students
choose to enter the community college setting. One counselor described the Glendale
Community College corridor as having evolved into a “way of life” for many GUSD
students, particularly Armenian and Armenian-American students.
The community college pathway affects students’ motivational choice to
participate in rigorous high school curricular work. For example, some students who
were eligible to take rigorous Advanced Placement course chose not to because it was not
a required course for entrance to Glendale Community College. One disgruntled
counselor described her feelings about this situation:

74
When I see there are some very capable students that have good GPAs, they have
taken the higher level rigorous classes and they end up going to a community
college, not that I have anything against community college. But one of the
things that I think that they miss most is being part of that culture.

For some other GUSD students, the motivation to persist through a rigorous
academic coursework is halted at a certain point in their high school career. One
counselor indicated that some students will enroll in challenging courses up until a
certain point whereby they revert to less challenging courses that will meet minimum
graduation requirements. When pressed why this occurs, the counselor stated: “Because
they do not see themselves in college.”
Still, other students enter Glendale Community College because they limit their
choice of potential four-year universities to attend. For many Armenians in the Glendale
area, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is the sole attractive destination
for postsecondary studies. Unfortunately, denied entrance to UCLA amounts to
community college matriculation with the rationale that the student will eventually be
able to transfer to UCLA. Altogether, GCC has become the “default destination” for
many GUSD students.

Finding #10: Some GUSD students’ goal orientations and how they attribute failure has
negatively affected their prospects of entering a four-year university.
Although many students have been informed about the economic and social
benefits of a four-year university education, some GUSD students have poor goal
orientations that ultimately affect their prospects of pursuing this route. For example,

75
many GUSD students operate with a performance-avoidance approach: instead of a
curricular outlook to master the content, students will work hard to avoid failing a class.
One English teacher described the work submitted by a student that lacked the depth and
insight of another student. For this teacher, the former student approached coursework
and learning with the goal of “passing the class.”
Also, parents’ goal orientations for their students do not always amount to
mastery of rigorous curricular work in preparation for a four-year university education.
Instead, parents’ school goals for their students may be limited to ensuring appropriate
student behavior or a safe school environment.
Many GUSD students attribute their inability to enter a four-year university to
causes outside their locus of control. For example, instead of hard work and rigorous
preparation leading to successful matriculation into a university, students hold to a
variety of uncontrollable causes that will inhibit their chances. These causes could
amount to lack of financial support, familial desires to stay closer to home, or ease of
access to GCC.

Organizational Gaps:
Organizational barriers can limit the pursuit of performance goals. Lack of
efficient and effective organizational work processes and material resources may
discourage the most motivated, knowledgeable and skilled person in the organization
(Clark and Estes, 2002). Organizational gaps are based on: work processes, material
resources, value chains and value streams, and organizational culture. According to our

76
findings, there exists in GUSD organizational barriers that prevent students from
matriculating to four-year university institutions.

Finding #11: Organizational resources that promote college access have been cut,
including counseling positions and hours, and financial grants, such as GEAR UP.
Organizations require material resources to achieve goals. The placement of
available resources determines the organization’s emphasis in ensuring the needs of the
programs are met. There were two major areas of spending cuts that affected the
development of a college going culture in GUSD: the elimination of the Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant and the
counseling personnel in the district. GEAR UP was a six-year discretionary grant
program that awarded GUSD funding to provide services and intervention programs to
promote college attendance to low-income secondary level students. The district’s grant
extension request was denied due to lack of evidence of program effectiveness.
The reduction of counselors at each of the four comprehensive high schools in
GUSD creates a challenge for many of the students to receive the kind of services needed
to receive college information or assistance in the college application process. In the last
year, ten counselors were cut from the district, thereby distributing much of the
responsibilities and workload to the remaining counselors. In all of the schools, student
to counselor ratio increased and some services that were previously provided by the
counselors were eliminated. For example, due to the increase number of caseloads, at
some of the schools in GUSD, the counselors are only able to meet with students to

77
discuss course requirements and college information, whereas before, counselors met
with students and their parents at least once a year, if not more, to plan, schedule and
counsel students about choices. Not only has quality and time in meeting with students
and parents been affected, at some schools, parent and student conferences are only
conducted upon request. To add to this problem, certain high school counselors must
split their hours between two schools sites.
The overall concern with site administrators and teachers was the number of
counselors cut and the responsibilities that had to be subsequently distributed to the
remaining counselors. These responsibilities include dissemination of college
information to all grade level students, providing assistance with college applications and
financial aid applications, and assisting students with their personal statement letters and
writing letters of recommendations. As the only certificated staff to receive dismissal
notices, counselors questioned their value and the perception of the importance of their
role in GUSD and promoting the college going culture. As one of the counselors
indicated: “Counseling is not perceived as important or a priority. Counselors work hard,
however, the perception is that it’s an easy job.”
Counselors play a critical role in developing the school’s response to college
planning and create an organizational worldview of different options of college choices.
Through increasing workload on site counselors, counselors are unable to effectively
respond to providing the kind of support needed to ensure students are on the right path to
four-year institutions.

78
Finding #12: There are no explicit district or school wide goals that address four-year
university access, thus creating a misalignment of work processes.
All students will achieve is an explicit message that has resonated in the GUSD
community, however, what that achievement looks like is more implicitly communicated.
In order to increase the participation rate of qualified GUSD students into four-year
institutions, the district must clearly state what its goals are promoting a college going
culture. Districts must clearly communicate concrete and clear expectations for student
achievement, including goals related to postsecondary studies. There is a lack of clear
goals and values for GUSD graduates with conflicting views regarding participation in
four-year institutions, community college, or vocational careers. By providing a clear
expectation of a college going culture, the work processes will be better aligned to the
performance goals of the stakeholders.
While GUSD seeks to increase the college participation rate for their students,
work processes do not communicate that same message. According to more than one
administrator, there are no formal goals on developing a college going culture from the
district. School sites have their own plans, but there is no formal goal or message that is
communicated from the district level. This is further evidenced by the lack of discussion
at district level meetings around goals for college success and the lack of professional
development around increasing college participation. According to one administrator, “I
don’t feel we get the message from the board or the superintendent [that the goal is] the
college going culture, only the achievement gap and reducing the gaps through CAHSEE
and STAR results…those are the goals set for the schools, not college going culture.”

79
Once organizational goals are clearly stated and work processes are developed to support
those goals, performance goals may be more readily achieved.

Finding #13: Many GUSD school officials do not reach out to various cultures despite
knowledge that other cultures lack the social capital to access the American Higher
Educational System, thus further exacerbating the gap in college participation.
Glendale Unified School District is a large urban school district that services a
diverse student demographic population. The differences are evident in the linguistic,
cultural and racial, as well as economically diverse student population. The majority of
GUSD’s student population is white (56%), many of whom are Armenian descendants,
22% are of Hispanic or Latino background, 13% Asian and 7% Filipino. The district has
over 26% of its students identified as English Learners, and even more students identified
as Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient students at 31%. Throughout the district at least
43% of the students come from low-income families as indicated in their National School
Lunch Participation rate. At least 46% of GUSD parents report having a college or a post
graduate degree.
Many of the administrators, counselors and teachers attribute the low college
participation rate to the students and the parents’ lack of understanding of the American
educational system. This is further affirmed by a veteran teacher’s statement, “Some
students lack modeling at home because they are first generation. Students lack
knowledge about requirements for college and do not know how to get the information.”
Many attribute certain groups’ cultural beliefs and values as the reasons for the lack of

80
interest or knowledge in navigating through the difficult college application process
without offering concrete support systems to help students and parents negotiate through
the myriad of hoops needed to meet those requirements. In an interview with a counselor
in regards to parent groups and equitable distribution of information on college access to
parents, a statement was made that certain subgroup populations “must motivate
themselves and empower themselves” and seek out college information for themselves.
A teacher interviewed, also concurred, “The onus is on the parents, not the school.”
There are individuals who are willing to help as evidenced by teachers who stay
after school on their own time to assist students with their personal statements. However,
the current organizational culture is such that there are no concrete plans to overcome the
cultural differences of each of the student subgroups. This is detrimental to the
achievement and aspirations of many minority students as the majority of the student
population does not fit the traditional “college going” student demographic: White,
middle class, and educated. If the organization does not change its view in the current
interaction with its student and parent population, then the end result will be the
persistent, if not increasing, low rate of four-year college participation rate.

Finding #14: Some schools’ inability to raise the academic rigor and achievement level
for all students.
High school graduation and even college access is not only a high school issue,
but also a K-12 education issue. The outcome of student success lies in the culmination
of their years of education in the comprehensive school system. Students will be more

81
readily successful in the ‘a-g’ requirements if they have the foundations and skills
necessary to access the curriculum. When students are prepared and proficient with
primary grade standards, they will not have to take remedial courses at the secondary
level that diminishes their opportunity to access college bound courses. According to an
administrator at one high school, over 586 incoming freshmen class students have been
identified as possible candidates for remediation based on middle school grades and test
scores.
GUSD can improve its four-year college participation rate by ensuring academic
rigor in all of its classes and ensuring student mastery of the content. There is evidence
of a lack of district wide expectation to ensure all students receive ‘a-g’ courses that will
ensure entrance to four-year colleges, regardless of student background or linguistic
ability. Some high schools do have the expectation that all students should be on the ‘a-
g’ program, however, it is not a district wide expectation. For example, high schools must
ensure all students have the opportunity to complete their ‘a-g’ requirements, even for
English Learners and students enrolled in vocational programs. In more than one
instance, more than one staff member interviewed reported the exclusion of certain
student groups from ‘a-g’ requirement courses. Teachers reported “the Academy
students were previously tracked out of ‘a-g’ courses and were not eligible [for college],”
and, “12
th
grade English Learners are disappointed because they know they will not
graduate from high school because they need at least one year in regular English classes.”
A counselor also noted: “Another reason [students] go to GCC is language issues,
English language learners not completing ‘a-g’ courses.” And an administrator went on

82
further to say: “Preparation for college isn’t offered to all students…the [school] culture
creates a different kind of access.”
It would benefit the district if all of the schools were able to apply the mindset of
one principal who realized that, “fourteen year old students were making life altering
decisions… [and] it was decided that every kid was going to be programmed as though
they were going to four-year colleges.” Students must be given every opportunity to
succeed, regardless of their demographic characteristic and it is the responsibility of the
organization to ensure equal access is provided.

Finding #15: The design of GUSD comprehensive high schools and instances of
continued school-wide tracking limits underrepresented students’ access to four-year
universities.
Tracking has been an educational practice for many years, especially in senior
high schools. According to Jeannie Oakes (1986) tracking is the practice of curriculum
placement by dividing students into separate classes for high, average, and low-
achieving, thus placing students into different pathways for college and workplace. She
further contends that tracking “contributes to mediocre schooling for most secondary
students. And because it places greatest obstacles to achievement in the path of those
children least advantaged in American society – poor and minority children – tracking
forces schools to play an active role in perpetuating social and economic inequalities as
well” (Oakes, 1986, p. 13).

83
GUSD high schools have made changes in recent years to align course offerings
with “a-g” requirements, however, the district has not made it a requirement that the
district’s minimum graduation requirements meet the “a-g’ coursework. This may create
obstacles for students if they are tracked early on into the curriculum path to graduate
from high school and not the college path. This is especially true for EL students in
GUSD. In schools with the largest numbers of EL students, more than one district
personnel has stated, “English Language Learners are not completing “a-g” courses.”
Meaning, the district’s EL population- 26% of the district’s entire student population-
will not be on track to meet college admission requirements.

Finding #16: District leadership’s perceptions of each comprehensive high school creates
expectation gaps between each of the four schools.
District leadership’s perceptions about a college going culture will affect their
expectations for each of the high schools. The current organizational culture regards the
two higher-performing schools “up on the hill” as college-going, whereas the remaining
two high schools lack a college-going culture. This gap in perception may affect the
allocation of resources and the district’s ability to support each school to persist in
nurturing a college-going culture. For example, several district administrators remarked
that the two under-performing high schools had an absence of a college-going culture.
However, officials at these school sites shared evidence of an emerging college-going
culture, with increased allocation of human and financial resources in creating this

84
culture. The gap in perception between district and school level officials may affect the
school’s attempts to improve their image to be a college preparatory high school.

85
CHAPTER THREE
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS BASED ON BEST PRACTICES
***
CHAPTER 3A: REVIEW OF THE SOLUTIONS LITERATURE
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Glendale Unified School District is a high-achieving educational institution that
exists to serve the students of the greater Glendale community. The District’s simple, yet
powerful, mission of student achievement for all resonates across school sites and affects
classroom practices, decision-making, allocation of material and human resources, and
professional development. GUSD’s culture of high achievement, as evidenced by its
recent 842 Growth API (2010), should be praised and considered a model for neighboring
urban school districts.
Currently, GUSD affords their students a multitude of postsecondary
opportunities, including access to trade schools, community colleges, and four-year
universities. Based on existing data, graduates from GUSD are entering two-year
colleges at a strong rate (52%). Although, GUSD graduates are entering four-year
universities at a comparably higher rate (~23%) against State averages (~19%), the
overall need for witnessing more GUSD graduates matriculating into four-year colleges
is important, particularly for underrepresented minorities.
Based on extensive interviews with various GUSD agents- district/school
administrators, teachers, counselors- our project team found gaps to college access and
success in GUSD. The findings (see Chapter 2C) unearthed roots to the college access

86
problem and were analyzed to determine what types of gaps- knowledge/skill,
motivation, organizational culture- were contributing to the college access problem. The
roots to the problem were coded into sixteen specific findings and further organized
around emergent themes. The three emergent themes below are applicable across the
district’s four comprehensive high schools, and serve as areas to focus on in order to
close Glendale Unified School District’s college participation gap.
1) Four-Year University Education: A Lack Of Explicit Goals.
Academic achievement at Glendale Unified School District has steadily improved
over the years. However, district-wide achievement goals, and professional
development related to those goals, do not include explicit goals pertaining to
student four-year university education. In fact, variance in defining college
success for GUSD students exists amongst district and school site administrators,
teachers, and counselors. This lack of clarity in student postsecondary education
goals creates misaligned work processes, varied expectations, and perception
issues regarding the college-going success rates at each comprehensive high
school.
2) Persistent Barriers To College For Certain Student Subgroups.
Glendale Unified comprehensive high schools have made significant steps in
aligning coursework to meet four-year university eligibility, and improved
knowledge gaps concerning college entrance requirements. However, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps continue to persist presenting barriers for

87
specific subgroups of students (i.e. Hispanic, Armenian) in pursuing a four-year
university education.
3) Systems That Prevent Extension Of Student Postsecondary College Pathways.
Although Glendale Community College presents a viable postsecondary option
for graduating Glendale Unified students, this postsecondary pathway has become
commonplace and comfortable for many GUSD students, thus creating gaps in
students’ pursuit of a four-year university education. Instead of opening doors to
four-year access, or maximizing the two-year to four-year college route,
community college has become the default and final destination for many GUSD
students.
The following section of this chapter will present a review of literature that offers
research-based solutions in closing gaps to college access.

Solution Summary For Emergent Theme 1: The Need For Explicit Goals Focused On
Improving Four-Year University Education Access And Success
Through extensive interviews with Glendale Unified School District agents, it
became evident that explicit goals pertaining to students’ four-year university access and
participation did not exist. District and school site administrators gave varying
perspectives about both the benefit of emphasizing a four-year college-going goal, and
the abilities of all students to actually achieve it. In effect, the college and career
readiness mantra appeared to be defined differently for different people: while some
advocated for preparation of all students for a variety of postsecondary pathways (i.e.

88
workforce, two-year college, four-year college), others argued that the four-year college
pipeline was inexplicably narrow for certain student subgroups and needed increased
attention to close participation gaps.
Altogether, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) either lacks specific
organizational goals that address four-year university participation and access, or have
not thoroughly and explicitly communicated extant goals, which has misaligned certain
practices and communicated unclear expectations across the four comprehensive high
school sites. This was evident in interviews with teachers and counselors: while some
were committed to seeing more students reach four-year eligibility goals, others were of
the opinion that some students were not fit for the four-year college route. When asked
about the existence of college-going cultures at their school sites, administrators,
teachers, and counselors held varying beliefs about whether it existed on their respective
campuses. It was evident that a college-going culture was not established district-wide.

Goal Setting
In order to align work processes and hold expectations for all students, there is a
need for clear and explicit goals to be set as it relates to improving the overall number of
students pursuing and matriculating into a four-year college. By establishing district-
wide goals, school sites and their agents will have a common base and hear a common
message regarding their work to increase access and create college-going cultures. In
effect, there will be greater clarity regarding the importance of improving the four-year
college pathway.

89
Research indicates that goal setting is a critical component of workplace
motivation and behavior. Greater workplace performance occurs when goals are specific
and challenging, given that performers are committed to the goal, possess self-efficacy in
accomplishing those goals, and do not have conflicting goals (Locke and Latham, 2006;
Karakowshky and Mann, 2008). Goal setting itself is the admission of discontent with
present circumstances and a desire for a specific outcome. Even more, specific and
challenging goals increase the motivation of workplace performers by inducing greater
effort and persistence, and directing attention and work-related behaviors (Locke and
Latham, 2006).
The type of work goals established in an organization, along with how well those
goals are communicated are critical components to goal achievement. According to
Clark and Estes (2002), clear and compelling organizational goals cascade down to work
processes and clarify the tasks and objectives that employees must set out to accomplish.
When organizational goals are undefined or unaligned with work processes, gaps in
performance can occur and stunt achievement of organizational goals. Thus, it is
imperative that performance goals are clearly defined for individuals in the organization
so that work processes can improve.
Effective performance goals are concrete, challenging and current, and support
achievement of organizational goals. In fact, workplace performance is more effective
when goals are well understood and individuals can determine the cause of gaps between
current and desired performance (Clark and Estes, 2002). Based on extensive interviews,
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) lacks clearly defined goals as it relates to

90
graduating students’ postsecondary educational aspirations, particularly advancement
towards a four-year university education. In addition to GUSD’s powerful goals related
to student achievement via the Focus on Results initiative, powerful goals related to
raising eligibility, participation, and success rates to four-year universities need to be
created.
The research on Professional Learning Communities contributes to the work of
goal setting by indicating the critical components of effective goals: results-oriented;
helps clarify priorities; establishes indicators of progress; and, embeds continuous
improvement throughout the organization (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many, 2006). In
fact, goals are most effective when they are few and focused. For example, a multitude
of initiatives coming from the district office can be daunting to school sites, whereas a
clearly designed and articulated goal emanating from a compelling purpose can have
profound impact on student achievement.
The production of SMART goals has contributed to greater clarity in defining and
setting organizational goals (Dufour et al, 2006). SMART goals follow a simple
acronym: Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and
Timebound. Altogether, effective SMART goals that address four-year college access
will create greater clarity across the organization in regards to the importance of
increasing postsecondary access for students. In effect, work processes (i.e. counseling
services, enrollment in rigorous coursework, outreach programs, etc.) stand to take
priority and improve when school agents have a clear mandate to follow as to who and
how many graduating students are expected to enter four-year universities.

91
Organizational Culture and Change
Clark and Estes (2002) substantiate the importance of a clear vision and goals in
order to close organizational gaps. As well, they assert that organizational culture is a
powerful force that inevitably shapes beliefs, practices and processes. An organization’s
culture is shaped over time and the cognitive learning that shapes a culture’s perceptions,
language, and thought processes will determine the feelings, attitudes, actions and
behaviors of members of the culture (Schein, 1990). One GUSD high school was found
to preach a four-year college-going mantra by suggesting that all their students will “get
on the ‘a-g’ bus.” In essence, agents within the school site built a culture that promoted
students’ meeting rigorous requirements to attend a four-year university. This type of
symbolic and explicit communication of desired results creates a culture that shapes the
work processes within that particular school site.
In addition to establishing clearly defined goals, there is a need to create a
college-going culture (specifically, four-year colleges) for all GUSD schools and
students. In order to create culture change within an organization, certain dysfunctional
elements need to be unlearned and leaders need to bring the organization through a
process of guided evolution (Schein, 1990). Meaning, leaders within the organization
need to take stock of present circumstances, and emphasize the threats to the organization
should no change occur. In the case for GUSD, leaders need to see how a non-college-
going culture only perpetuates extant inequities certain student subgroups face in gaining
access to four-year colleges.

92
Clark and Estes (2002) provide the following features to effective organizational
change programs:
1) Alignment of structures and processes with organizational goals. Meaning,
the work at both district and school sites will address the need to improve
four-year college participation.
2) Communication to all stakeholders about plans and progress. From the
Superintendent’s office down to the classroom, all facets of the work chain
must be explicitly communicated to about organizational goals related to four-
year college participation and its importance.
3) Top management must be continually involved in the improvement process. A
high degree of involvement and accountability must come from top-level
district officials back to the school sites regarding improvement of four-year
college participation.
4) Provide adequate knowledge, skills, and motivational support for everyone.
The organization needs to assess current practices and determine gaps in
performance. Subsequently, management needs to provide the requisite
support to close those gaps.
5) Take caution regarding change processes as different sites have different
needs. Four-year college improvement plans are not canned approaches with
a one-size-fits-all model for all school sites. Instead, the district will need to
take stock of needs and support at each site, and act accordingly to the unique

93
gaps and conditions that exist at each site without excusing certain sites from
pursuing their desired targets.

Organizational Improvement: Academic and Diversity Scorecards

In addition to establishing explicit goals for four-year colleges, organizations such
as GUSD need to closely examine and monitor overall college readiness factors. There
are several quantifiable factors that can be monitored through the development of an
academic scorecard or dashboard that measures college-readiness factors. The scorecard
and dashboard concepts derive from research on quality control and institutional
accountability (O’Niel, Bensimon, Diamond, and Moore, 1999). This innovation
provides organizational leaders “metrics of excellence” (O’Niel et al, 1999, p. 34) to
determine, monitor and set growth targets for specific factors, which in turn helps an
organization accomplish its strategic goals. Although the academic scorecard was
designed to improve the overall quality of a higher education institution, the concept
itself can be applied in a variety of organizations, including schools districts that aim to
improve four-year college participation. The current performance in the following
college readiness factors can be measured against benchmarks for growth:
• Graduation rate
• Enrollment and grades in higher-level coursework (i.e. Honors, AP, IB)
• Early Assessment Program (EAP) English (11
th
grade) participation and ‘ready
for college’ percentage

94
• EAP Math (11
th
grade) participation and ‘ready for college’ conditional
percentage
• Number of Advanced Placement enrollees and exams taken
• Percentage of Advanced Placement exams passed (scoring 3+)
• SAT number tested and total score > 1,500
• ACT number tested and total score > 21
• Percentage of graduates completing UC ‘a-g’ courses

A college readiness scorecard or dashboard provides visual graphics focusing on
those metrics that support college-going behavior. In essence, organizations identify
those indicators that predict or promote college-going behavior. By charting indicators
along with benchmarks for growth, organizations will be able to view overall
effectiveness and progress in college readiness for their students. The following are
examples of college-readiness dashboards:
Figure 1: College Readiness Dashboard Samples

UC ‘a-g’ eligibility SAT participation
Each dashboard above represents an indictor of four-year college participation. The red
arrow represents current performance, while the green arrow represents desired
20%
60%
80%
40%
10%
30%
50%
75%
100%

95
performance. For example, currently 47% of GUSD students meet UC ‘a-g’ course
eligibility requirements. The district could then map a goal of 75% of its students
meeting those requirements over a specific period of time. Similarly, SAT participation
stands at 46% with a target dash pointed at 80%.
Altogether, this management instrument provides a practical and visual tool to
plan and accomplish organizational goals (O’Neil et al, 1999). For GUSD, college
readiness scorecards or dashboards can be instrumental in plotting and forecasting
college readiness indicators and providing district and school site agents various metrics
of excellence towards meeting their organizational goals.
In addition to a baseline college-readiness scorecard or dashboard, the use of
diversity measurements will help ensure that organizational goals are intentional and
strategic in closing achievement and opportunity gaps for minority students of color. The
diversity scorecard was developed with the purpose of raising “increased recognition of
the existence and scope of inequities for students of color among faculty members,
administrators, and counselors…[to] remove the conditions that deny or impede equitable
outcomes for all students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45, 46).
In practice, the diversity scorecard has been previously implemented in colleges
and universities to measure equity within those institutions. The framework
disaggregated data based on race and ethnicity to determine the extent of positive
outcomes and close of gaps for underrepresented students of color. For example, instead
of looking at overall student access to financial aid or gateway courses, the scorecard
broke down data by race/ethnicity to determine the level of access per subgroup

96
(Bensimon, 2004). This type of valuable information presents indicators of current
performance and leads institutions to identify targets for growth for specific student
subgroups.
The diversity scorecard presents a powerful opportunity to identify and target
current and expected performance on a variety of college-readiness metrics disaggregated
by subgroup. The following example looks at one college-readiness factor- Advanced
Placement enrollment- and includes a diversity component by indicating the current and
expected performance per subgroup:
Figure 2: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample (NOT based on actual
percentages)

In the example above, the Yellow bar indicates the Baseline, or current percentage of
students enrolled in Advanced Placement. The Green bar indicates the Target, or
expected growth for the subgroup. Once targets have been reached, notice that the level
of Yellow and Green bars combined per subgroup creates a more equitable situation
across the site. Meaning, gaps in opportunity closed from a high of 30% (between Asians
and Hispanics) to a more equitable gap of 15%.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%

White
(Armenian)

White
(non-‐Armenian)

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Current
Subgroup
Enrolled

Expected
Subgroup

Enrollment
Growth
Target

Subgroup
NOT
enrolled

97
Diversity scorecards provide school and district officials an opportunity to
measure those college-readiness metrics with a diversity lens. This approach will reveal
those equity gaps that prevent all subgroups from successfully accessing four-year
universities. As well, diversity scorecards will help target and apply resources that will
improve educational outcomes for underrepresented student populations (Bensimon,
2004).

Solution Summary For Emergent Theme 2: Close Persisting Barriers That Prevent
Specific Student Subgroups From Accessing Four-Year Universities And Increase
Overall Four-Year College Access For All Students
Glendale Unified high schools have worked hard and made significant strides in
aligning coursework so that more students will be eligible for a four-year university
education as well as ensuring students feel supported and are aware of college admission
requirements. GUSD has made significant progress in closing some achievement gaps;
however, as in many urban school districts, achievement gaps continue to persist in
GUSD. Of course, the achievement gap invariably affects the level of access certain
student subgroups (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic) have to college, particularly four-year
universities. The lack of access for certain subgroups is symptomatic of specific
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that exist within GUSD. To a great
extent, underrepresented students from GUSD lack the social capital to effectively
navigate through traditional educational systems and structures. Research points to

98
several areas that need to be addressed in order to close persisting barriers that prevent
certain student subgroups from accessing four-year colleges.

Academic Preparation and Rigor
Students are best prepared for the challenges of college courses when their
secondary courses have provided sufficient preparation and rigor. Academic rigor in the
high school classroom is the strongest indicator of a student’s overall academic
achievement, graduation from high school, and a further indicator of enrollment in a
postsecondary institution (Martinez and Klopott, 2005; Perna, 2005). Most college
preparation programs are geared towards offering component services, such as college
awareness, counseling and campus visitations (Swail and Perna, 2002). However, the
greatest predictor of college-going behavior, preparation, and success is found in a high
level of rigor leading to student achievement at the secondary level (Perna, 2002). A
more rigorous core curriculum for all students contributes to equity in educational
opportunities and better preparation for the challenges of postsecondary schooling. One
longitudinal study found that students on an academic track that rigorously prepared them
for postsecondary studies were more apt to aspire to, apply for, and be accepted into a
four-year college (Perna, 2002).
In addition to reviewing the rigor of academic coursework, the work of increasing
the number of students taking higher-level coursework in math is critical to improving
college access. Student participation in higher-level math courses such as Algebra II or
above is the strongest predictor of college preparedness and success as well as college

99
completion (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Math placement and preparation for higher-
level math is certainly not determined at the high school level, but predicated upon the
preparation and success students receive while advancing from Kindergarten through 8
th

grade. Hence, a systems-wide approach to college preparedness by taking a K-12
perspective is necessary in order to close the college participation gap.
A variety of model programs that address issues related to access to traditional
academic “gate-keeping” courses exist that serve as a model for school districts. For
example, students involved in EQUITY 2000 are expected to complete Algebra by 9
th

grade and Geometry by 10
th
grade, and teachers in the program use standards developed
by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (College Board, 2000). The Urban
Systemic Initiative (USI) was designed to give low-income and minority youth access to
higher-level math and science courses that were traditionally closed to minorities.
Additionally, the USI program also strives to build partnerships and provide support for
schools, staff, and students (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).

Connecting Secondary and Postsecondary Institutions
Not only does a lack of academic preparation and rigor contribute to poor college-
going outcomes for students, so too does the fractured and disconnected system between
secondary and postsecondary educational systems (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio, 2003).
Increasing the level of rigor in classrooms must coincide with improved alignment of
coursework between high schools and postsecondary institutions in order to close barriers
to students’ college aspirations. Unfortunately, most standardized assessments (the results

100
of which schools are held accountable for), measure minimum competencies that
demonstrate knowledge gained for a specific subject and by a specific grade level
(Venezia et al, 2003). One study found that the skills measured on state content tests do
not adequately measure the math and language arts skills that students need for college
and workplace readiness (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
The research literature points to several steps that can be initiated in order to
create a more seamless transition between secondary and postsecondary institutions,
including: examining postsecondary placement exams against K-12 standards and
assessments; sequencing senior-level high school work with undergraduate courses;
expansion of dual enrollment programs; and, effective use of data to determine progress
(Venezia et al, 2003). Creating a common set of expectations that delineates what
students should know and be able to do in order to transition from high school to higher
education, in addition to standards which delineate what students should know and be
able to do in each grade level, would enable educators to more clearly define goals and
objectives for classes at each level and best prepare students for postsecondary education.
Another successful strategy to bolster students’ college readiness is to reexamine
the nature and design of the American high school itself. In their seminal work, The New
American High School, Marsh and Codding (1999) describe a radical high school
curricular program that abolishes the tracking and sorting of college- and non-college
bound students that exist in today’s comprehensive high schools. All students are
required to take a rigorous course of study in their initial years of high school, and
demonstrate learning of challenging standards through end-of-course assessments,

101
submission of a portfolio of work, and completion of a capstone project (Marsh and
Codding, 1999). All students who have accomplished these high standards are awarded
with a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). The awarding of a CIM guarantees that all
students are prepared for the rigor of college coursework, but provides students the option
to continue on their secondary studies based on the career pathway they have selected
(either further academic studies or participation in a professional or technical education
program). This dynamic high school model provides leaders in Glendale Unified both a
philosophical and practical framework that signifies the importance of rigorous education
for all students, while providing student choice towards their postsecondary pathway.

Raising Underrepresented Students’ Capital
Research indicates that increasing the participation of minorities in higher
education is crucial to their participation in the economic and social aspects of society
(Goldrick-Rab and Shaw, 2005). The reality of high poverty in minority communities,
coupled with the high cost of college tuition, leads many students feeling left out of the
college picture, instead pursuing the workforce and wage earning (Bohon, Johnson, and
Gorman, 2006). The current design of today’s comprehensive high schools facilitates
low student expectations and achievement. In addition to increasing the academic rigor
of a school program, raising the level of expectations for student achievement and the
restructuring of relationships between students, faculty, and staff must occur in order to
realize a greater participation of minorities in higher education. This is accomplished
through a variety of means, including provision of requisite social support; access to

102
information; parental involvement and knowledge about college; and, provision and
information on financial aid (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
A capital one gains certainly benefits from a monetary standpoint. However,
underrepresented minorities need to raise a variety of non-monetary capital in order to
successfully navigate the American system of education. Academic capital is gained
when students are exposed to academic rigor, which is the result of participation in a
college-preparation track, including Advanced Placement (AP) courses (Hagedorn and
Fogel, 2002). Cultural capital is the result of everyone’s shared beliefs, social values,
worldviews, and preferred standards of living (Bennett, 2001). On the other hand, social
capital is created as a result of actual or potential resources connected to a durable
network of institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition
(Bourdieu, 1986; Dika and Singh, 2002). Often the most challenging form of capital to
develop in students is linguistic capital, which is an individual’s ability to communicate
effectively and comprehend mainstream language. Possessing both cultural and
linguistic capital is necessary for success because both enable a student to successfully
“decode” mainstream language and are needed in order to successfully navigate the
educational environment (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
The implication for a student is clear, in order to access the information that will
lead them to higher education, one must possess different forms of capital, and if that
capital is not available at home, then schools must help to provide it. Typically, low
socioeconomic, minority, and immigrant students lack the cultural, linguistic, and social

103
capital to successfully navigate the educational environment in order have the knowledge
and skills to gain college admission.
Schools can facilitate the development of academic, cultural, and linguistic capital
by creating a college-going environment where the expectation for college is attainable
and all students are expected to go. To create a college-going environment that
encourages and supports all students, especially those student who traditionally are
underrepresented in higher education, schools must directly address certain school
cultural factors such as teacher expectations, race-based assumptions, and students’
lowered expectations (Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002; Hagedorn and
Tierney, 2002). When building a strong college-going culture it is necessary to address
the cultural barriers that prevent certain underrepresented subgroups from participating in
higher education.
Status socialization theory proposes that future educational success amongst
underrepresented adolescent groups must be related to current beliefs about such success
being likely (attainable) and desirable (Haller and Portes, 1973; Bohon, Johnson, and
Gorman, 2006). Moreover, this theory serves to clarify the difference between aspirations
(desire to achieve high levels of education) and expectations (the assessment of one’s
ability to personally achieve high levels of education), with aspirations being higher and
expectations being lower and more “realistic” (Bohon, Johnson, and Gorman, 2006).
Schools can raise student’s expectations and aspirations by ensuring that all students are
highly engaged in the classroom, that student’s diverse backgrounds, both ethnically and
linguistically, are addressed in the curriculum, and teacher-student interactions are more

104
personalized (Jones, Yonezawa, Ballesteros, & Mehan, 2002; Datnow, Borman,
Stringfield, Overman, & Castellano, 2003)

Strategic Intervention For Underrepresented Minority Subgroups

College preparation programs that simultaneously focus on academic preparation
and cultural enrichment provide the best possible postsecondary outcomes for minority
students of color (Villalpando and Solorzano, 2002). Students’ cultural capital is raised
when a concerted effort is given to recognizing that minority students’ culture brings a
wealth of value and is considered an asset to their college-going aspirations. The
following programs that effectively link academic preparation with a cultural wealth
worldview have brought improved college-going outcomes for minority students:
placement of underrepresented students into college prep academic tracks; promises of
financial aid; ethnic-specific college prep and mentoring programs; and, summer bridge
programs that link students of color with colleges (Villalpando and Solorzano, 2002).
Although it is the practice of counselors, teachers, and administrators to talk to
students about college and college requirements, many low socioeconomic, minority, and
immigrant students are not college familiar and are unlikely to have participated in
activities that would get them college ready (Hagedorn and Tierney, 2002). Creating
opportunities for these students to participate in higher-level coursework, visits to college
campuses, and early identification of skill deficiencies could help to alter student self-
efficacy and improve student achievement.

105
Because these student subgroups are deficient in academic capital, they may avoid
full participation in their academic endeavors because they either believe that there is no
future for them in academia or they believe that they will be unsuccessful. These learners
have low academic self-efficacy (i.e. the belief in their ability to prepare for exams and
write terms papers), causing some students to avoid homework, tutoring, or asking
teachers for help (Margolis and McCabe, 2004; Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade, 2005).
Implementing a professional development program for teachers and counselors to help
identify students who have low-level skills or skill deficiencies will provide teachers and
counselors effective solutions to raising student self-efficacy and achievement. Teachers
and counselors can implement strategies such as linking new work to recent successes,
teaching needed learning strategies, reinforcing effort and persistence, peer modeling,
identifying and creating personal goals as ways to raise student academic capital
(Margolis and McCabe, 2004).
Other strategic interventions that support underrepresented minority students are
peer evaluation, tutoring, and mentoring. By implementing these interventions, students
are receiving help and guidance from peers: a potentially powerful strategy considering
research indicates that peers have almost as much or more influence over adolescent
decision-making. Peer collaboration can be a powerful tool in creating students
friendships with like-minded students, sharing of similar interests, and most importantly,
creating respect amongst peers (Dodge and Kendall, 2004). Students may become more
involved academically and socially, thus further enhancing their academic self-efficacy
and motivation. Additionally, peer tutoring can bring content to a more accessible level

106
for a struggling student, provide learning and strategies for learning to the struggling
student, while simultaneously enhancing the learning of the peer tutor.
Currently, established programs, such as America’s Choice or the Coalition of
Essential Schools, raise minority students’ expectations and improve student academic
and social capital, through a focus on smaller learning communities. America’s Choice
provision of small schools increases rigor in the core academic curriculum and provides
strong college and work-based technical preparation, thus leading to a greater expectation
for students to attend college (Sizer, 1986; Malloy, 1997; Martinez and Klopott, 2005;
May and Supovitz, 2006). The creation of smaller learning communities can help foster a
sense of community and belonging within the school environment. The purpose of these
smaller learning communities is to increase student achievement by increasing the
student’s academic, social, cultural, and linguistic capital while at the same time
strengthening student, faculty, and staff relationships.
In order to create and implement these smaller learning communities, faculty must
collaborate daily or weekly, create assignments and assessments, attend each others
classes, team teach, participate in projects and field trips to enhance curricular objectives,
and enhance student learning and success (Dodge and Kendall, 2004). One study shows
that earlier implementation of this model in elementary school or middle school has
shown to be more successful than at the high school level, and has longer-lasting effects
on the development of students’ social and academic capital (Juan and Colyar, 2002).
Another study conducted by May and Supovitz (2006) indicated America’s Choice

107
schools helped reduce the minority achievement gap with significant improvement
amongst Hispanic and African American students.
The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) was designed to create strong
relationships between students and adults, which ultimately raises the level of social
capital for underrepresented minority students (Sizer, 1986; Malloy, 1997; Martinez and
Klopott, 2005). CES provides strong academic and social support, and places a high
value on family participation and teacher collegiality (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
Studies done on the first five years of CES’ implementation in New York City show that
graduation and college-going rates were higher, and dropout rates were lower than the
rest of the city (Martinez and Klopott, 2005).
The Schools-within-Schools model is yet another smaller learning community
model that can also be created or applied to existing career academies with the intent on
raising students’ social capital. By increasing academic rigor and expectations, academy
students are assured of acquiring subject mastery and skill attainment and improved
prospects of continuing their postsecondary education. Students who participate in
learning communities can develop strong goal orientation, motivation, and self-regulation
(Dodge and Kendall, 2004).

Solution Summary For Emergent Theme 3: Improve The Two-Year Community College
To Four-Year University Pathway For GUSD Students.
In order to effectively address the issue of college access for all students, high
school reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence students’

108
preparedness or college readiness. A student’s accessibility and sustainability in college
is due in large to their experience in high school (Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Haycock,
Barth, Mitchell, Wilkins & Somerville, 1999). Although the 1980’s high school reform
movement has contributed to an increase in college participation, there remains gaps in
college participation and degree attainment for certain ethnic minority groups,
specifically African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians. As previously
mentioned in this chapter, effective reform must focus intentionally on how to address
factors that influence student’s preparedness for college, particularly for underrepresented
minority students of color.
Another area of concern as it relates to students of color is the poor transfer rates
between two-year colleges to four-year institutions. Glendale Unified School District
witnesses a large percentage of their student population matriculate into a local college-
Glendale Community College (GCC). Recent reports indicate that transfer rates for
students from a two-year to a four-year institution are abysmal: 70% of students seeking
degrees or wanting to transfer to a four-year college failed to do so (Rivera, 2010). In
fact, rates were even worse for minority students of color: only 26% Black students and
22% Latino students successfully transferred to a four-year school compared to 37%
Whites and 35% Asian. The disparity in transfer and success rates for specific student
subgroups underscores the importance of addressing the two-year to four-year college
pathway between GUSD and GCC.
In order to maximize the success for community college transfer rates to four-year
institutions and colleges, an innovative program is needed in which a K-12 school district

109
works collaboratively with a local community college by monitoring student progress and
achievement. The foundation of this relationship can be established through an
articulation between K-12 and two-year colleges, and the effective use of data to identify
and monitor student postsecondary success. A collaborative relationship between K-12
public schools and two-year community colleges will ultimately result in a more seamless
transition for high school students and lead to improved transfer rates to four-year
institutions.

Improving Vertical K-16 Articulation
Research demonstrates that a lack of articulation between K-12 and higher
education institutions undoubtedly affects minority students’ transition from high school
to college (Gandara, 2002). In fact, greater coherence in content, knowledge and skills,
and assessments between K-12 school districts and institutions of higher education is
needed in order to see student success in postsecondary education. Unfortunately, once
students are accepted into college- two- or four-year institutions- far too many students
are not prepared for the advanced work required of them. Almost half of all incoming
college freshmen take at lease one remedial course (Haycock et al, 1999), which results
in a large percentage of students prolonging their start to core general education courses,
and potentially stunting their prospects for transferring to a four-year institution. In
essence, students’ inadequate preparation for college contributes to a high percentage of
dropouts: a full one third of freshmen in four-year colleges won’t make it to their

110
sophomore year, while nearly half at community colleges will not return for their
sophomore year (Haycock, et al., 1999; Haycock and Huang, 2001; Carey, 2004).
Martinez and Klopott (2005) highlight several programs that address K-12 and
postsecondary curricular alignment, and provide students the best opportunity for
postsecondary preparation and success. Dual enrollment offers high school students the
opportunity to concurrently enroll in college courses. Students enrolled in dual credit
courses are exposed to rigorous college curricula that serve as a continuum between high
school and college level coursework. Dual enrollment programs can be advantageous for
students because college credits can be earned without passing an examination, as
required by Advanced Placement courses (Dowd, 2003). Studies show students who
participated in dual enrollment programs have, on average, a higher GPA, higher
postsecondary aspirations, higher participation in postsecondary education, as well as
higher retention rates in postsecondary education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Dual
enrollment programs offer the least threatening (to school systems) path to providing
opportunities for students to learn (Adelman, 2002). Schools use dual enrollment
programs to encourage college preparedness and to help reduce the cost of remedial
courses in higher education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). The dual enrollment programs
with the community colleges will provide valuable skills and knowledge to students prior
to their enrollment in college. Furthermore, it provides the students with a seamless
transition from high school to college.
Another program that benefits the K-16 vertical pipeline is Tech Prep 2+2
Articulation, which awards college credit to students enrolled in a high school course that

111
contains the same agreed upon course content with an equivalent college course. Studies
indicate that underrepresented students involved in Tech Prep are more apt to benefit
because the academic program is tied to real-world learning experiences (Martinez and
Klopott, 2005). A third program- GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Programs)- is a federally funded intervention program that helps
increase the number of low-income minority students entering a postsecondary
institution. The uniqueness of this program is found in its early outreach: students in the
middle grades are targeted for support and provided mentoring, tutoring and guidance
opportunities.
In addition to programmatic concepts that seek to best prepare high school
students for college, a partnership between K-12 and two-year institutions is needed to
help facilitate this outcome. In 2003, the California State University (CSU) Board of
Trustees launched the Campus Actions to Facilitate Graduation initiative in order to
improve the transfer process for students from the California Community Colleges
(CCC), and provide a way to help students complete their bachelor’s degree (Engle and
Lynch, 2009). As part of the process, a memorandum of understanding was established
between CSU and CCC that all CSU institutions will accept courses completed at the
CCC within the Lower Division Transfer Pattern (LDTP): courses which clearly
delineated statewide and campus-specific requirements (Engle and Lynch, 2009). This
type of program between the CCC and CSU provides a rich model for school districts and
community colleges to follow: a memorandum of understanding between two institutions
who share common students with the common goal of successfully transferring students

112
out- a secondary to two-year to four-year college pathway. Top leadership within both
institutions could come to the table and discuss how a partnership between both
institutions could mutually benefit their stakeholders. For one, the school district could
see a greater number of their students better prepared for the community college setting,
and more “transfer-ready” to a four-year school. Likewise, the community college stands
to gain by receiving better prepared students that need less remediation in their first year.
Across the nation, states and colleges are working together to develop a coherent
system of expectation and transfer for all high school students. For example, in
Massachusetts, two- and four-year colleges are using the English Language Arts section
of the state high school graduation assessment in place of writing placement exams
(Haycock et al., 1999). This practice can certainly be implemented in California. As an
example, while the California High School Exit Exam may have minimal cut scores for
high school graduation, two-year colleges can require a higher cut score for both the
English Language Arts and Mathematics sections to meet college entrance requirements
for non-remedial or credit bearing courses.

Create learning and data systems to improve student transfer rates to four-year
institutions
One of the driving forces behind No Child Left Behind was the need for states to
develop a comprehensive data system to track student performance across grade levels.
The use of data has been successful in identifying specific areas of need for different
subgroups, and to identify overall school and district performance in meeting a set of

113
achievement criteria. The use of data systems has helped schools and districts to better
identify the needs of individual students and subgroups. Similarly, colleges and
universities need to know where they stand, where they are going, and how to measure
progress along the way to produce a better educated and more diverse work force- work
that can be accomplished through the gathering and analysis of data (Engle and Lynch,
2009).
The 2009 Digest of Educational Statistics, produced by the National Center for
Educational Research, offers a limited purview on retention and transfer rates of students
by publishing only the number of students who have obtained an Associate’s Degree
from community colleges. This lack of information provides little insight on the level of
success underrepresented minority students (African Americans, Hispanics and American
Indians) may or may not be finding at the community college level. Furthermore, while
colleges and universities are improving their assessment of progress using data, most of
the data published by government agencies and higher education institutions report on
progress made in college access, and not necessarily on student transfer success rates.
Budgetary constraints and general resource issues has made it even more difficult for
community colleges to have institutional researchers who can gather and analyze the
effects of their programs and their policies. The only data community colleges have
available to them are those collected from K-12 institutions or from neighboring four-
year institutions (Venezia, Kirst and Antonio, 1997).
A recent publication by the Institute for High Education Leadership and Policy
exhorted the State of California to adopt data systems as a means to understand student

114
success/failure rates at the community college level and application of that knowledge
towards institutional change and responsiveness (Moore and Shulock, 2010). To that
end, data systems that will track graduates’ progress in transferring to four-year
universities, and assess current and future institutional practice need to be created so that
information is available to make strategic decisions that will produce positive results for
students.
Of course, data use needs to be grounded in institutional learning that effectively
frames diversity and equity outcomes. Despite increased focus on educational
accountability and diversity, there has historically been a lack of attention on procuring
equitable outcomes for traditionally underrepresented students of color. The University
of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE) has focused on shaping
institutional learning and data systems to confront and change the “educational outcomes
for students with a history of exclusion, discrimination, and disenfranchisement (i.e.
African Americans and Latins/os)” (Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, and Harris III, 2007, p. 4).
CUE’s Equity for All theory-based model assists institutions in framing inequitable
outcomes that undoubtedly exist, and helps shape organizational learning in closing
disparities and improving outcomes for underrepresented students of color (Bensimon et
al, 2007). Altogether, the Equity for All model provides an effective lens by which to
make sense of and use data for maximizing college outcomes for students of color.
By viewing outcomes with an equity lens, the creation and implementation of a
Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004) can be a valuable data analysis tool used to
address issues of college access and success. K-12 and community colleges can identify

115
quantifiable data that will be used as metrics of excellence in seeing more students
successfully transfer to four-year institutions. The diversity scorecard was developed out
of CUE and used by higher education institutions to measure the level of equity in
educational outcomes for underrepresented students of color (Bensimon, 2004).
The scorecard helps measure equity around four areas: access, retention,
institutional receptivity and excellence. For example, the access perspective was used to
determine the extent to which underrepresented students had access to an institution’s
programs and resources (Bensimon, 2004). The diversity scorecard has three
measurements: current baseline data, an improvement target, and an equity mark to
determine the point at which it is attained.
The diversity scorecard serves as a useful framework for K-12 and community
colleges systems to use in measuring the level of achievement and successful transfer
rates for minority students. Leaders from both institutions can determine together the
data to measure in hopes of closing gaps in student access and transfer rates. As an
example, the retention perspective can be used to measure the current level of
underrepresented students’ participation/retention in rigorous programs, such as math and
engineering (i.e. retain only 20 out of 100 students), and place an improvement target to
see growth of underrepresented students in this area (i.e. improve retention to 40 out of
100 students). Finally, the equity point could be represented as a percentage of
underrepresented students who are successfully retained in the program proportionate to
their population both in the program and school-wide.

116
Altogether, the diversity scorecard will create opportunities between a community
college and K-12 school district to utilize existing data into actionable knowledge that
will mutually benefit both institutions’ students. For our purposes, this framework allows
institutional leaders at GUSD and GCC to develop evidence-based practice to evaluate
the condition of GUSD students’ matriculation into GCC and to provide concrete data on
specific areas of improvement to enhance student success at GCC and beyond.

117
CHAPTER 3B: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SUMMARY
Jointly Authored by Danny Kim, Dawn Cassady, and Zim Hoang
Glendale Unified School District is a high-achieving educational institution that
exists to serve the students of the greater Glendale community. The District’s simple, yet
powerful, mission of student achievement for all resonates across schools sites and
affects classroom practices, decision-making, allocation of material and human resources,
and professional development. GUSD’s culture of high achievement, as evidenced by its
recent 842 Growth API (2010), should be praised and considered a model for neighboring
urban school districts.
Our three-member project team took on this project to offer support to an issue
that faces all urban school districts- improving college access for all students, particularly
to four-year universities. Currently, GUSD affords their students a multitude of
postsecondary opportunities, including access to trade schools, community colleges, and
four-year universities. Based on existing data, graduates from GUSD are entering two-
year colleges at a strong rate (52%). Although, GUSD graduates are entering four-year
universities at a comparably higher rate (~23%) against State averages (~19%), the
overall need for witnessing more GUSD graduates matriculating into four-year colleges
is important, particularly for underrepresented minorities.
Based on extensive interviews with various GUSD agents- district and school
administrators, teachers, counselors- our project team found three emerging themes that
presented gaps to more students accessing four-year colleges:
1. A need for explicit goals related to four- year university education.

118
2. Persisting barriers preventing specific student subgroups from accessing four-year
universities.
3. Improving the two-year community college to four-year university pathway for
GUSD students.
Our project team offers the following set of solutions that aim to close gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture preventing all GUSD student
subgroups from realizing four-year college success. Each set of solutions is organized
around specific themes and are substantiated by research and current best practices. Our
solutions are best captured by this graphic:
Figure 3: Solutions Matrix

119
Thematic Solution 1: Create And Communicate Explicit Goals
Solution: Create SMART organizational goals related to four-year college participation,
which will lead to improved alignment with work processes.
Through extensive interviews with Glendale Unified School District agents, it
became evident that explicit goals pertaining to students’ four-year university access and
participation did not exist. District and school site administrators gave varying
perspectives about both the benefit of emphasizing a four-year college-going goal, and
the abilities of all students to actually achieve it. In effect, the college and career
readiness mantra appeared to be defined differently for different people: while some
advocated for preparation of all students for a variety of postsecondary pathways (i.e.
workforce, two-year college, four-year college), others argued that the four-year college
pipeline was inexplicably narrow for certain student subgroups and needed increased
attention to close participation gaps.
Altogether, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) either lacks specific
organizational goals that address four-year university participation and access, or have
not thoroughly and explicitly communicated extant goals, which has misaligned certain
practices and communicated unclear expectations across the four comprehensive high
school sites. This was evident in interviews with teachers and counselors: while some
were committed to seeing more students reach four-year eligibility goals, others were of
the opinion that some students were not fit for the four-year college route. When asked
about the existence of college-going cultures at their school sites, administrators,

120
teachers, and counselors held varying beliefs about whether it existed on their respective
campuses. It was evident that a college-going culture was not established district-wide.
In order to align work processes and hold expectations for all students, it is
recommended that GUSD create and communicate explicit goals to improve the overall
number of students pursuing and matriculating into a four-year college. By establishing
district-wide goals, schools sites and their agents will have a common base and hear a
common message regarding their work to increase access and create college-going
cultures. In effect, there will be greater clarity regarding the importance of and
improving four-year college pathway.
The research on Professional Learning Communities indicate that effective goals
are results-oriented, help clarify priorities, establish indicators of progress and embed
continuous improvement throughout the organization (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, and Many,
2006). Clear and compelling organizational goals cascade down to work processes and
clarify the tasks and objectives that employees must set out to accomplish. When
organizational goals are undefined or unaligned with work processes, gaps in
performance can occur and stunt achievement of organizational goals.
Effective performance goals are concrete, challenging and current, and support
achievement of organizational goals. In fact, workplace performance is more effective
when goals are well understood and individuals can determine the cause of gaps between
current and desired performance (Clark and Estes, 2002). Based on extensive interviews,
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) lacks clearly defined goals or targets as it
relates to graduating students’ postsecondary educational aspirations, particularly

121
advancement towards a four-year university education. In addition to GUSD’s powerful
goals related to student achievement via the Focus on Results initiative, it is
recommended that powerful goals be created to raise eligibility, participation, and
success rates to four-year universities.
This can be accomplished through the production of SMART goals, which will
contribute to greater clarity in defining and understanding organizational four-year
college goals (Dufour et al, 2006). SMART goals follow a simple acronym: Strategic
and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and Timebound. Altogether,
effective SMART goals that address four-year college access will create greater clarity
across the organization concerning increasing postsecondary access for their students. In
effect, work processes (i.e. counseling services, enrollment in rigorous coursework,
outreach programs, etc.) stand to take priority and improve when school agents have a
clear mandate to follow as to who and how many graduating students are expected to
enter four-year universities.
A well-designed SMART goal that addresses four-year college participation can
juxtapose GUSD’s current reality against goals for closing four-year college gaps. Below
are two examples of specific SMART goals to address college participation:
Reality: In the 2008-2009 school year (based on SARC data), 47% of GUSD
graduating students met UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements.
GUSD Goal: In the next three years, GUSD will increase the percentage of
students meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements to 75%.

Reality: In the 2008-2009 school year, 23% of GUSD students matriculated to
UC/CSU out of a total 47% graduating students who met eligibility requirements.
GUSD goal: This year, GUSD will close the eligibility-matriculation gap (the gap
between those students meeting UC eligibility and those students who
successfully matriculating into UC) by 5%.

122
Solution: Create and utilize scorecards or dashboards to monitor and set growth targets
for college readiness indicators.
In addition to explicit goals, it is recommended that Glendale Unified School
District closely examine and monitor overall college readiness factors through the
development of college readiness scorecards or dashboards. The scorecard and
dashboard concepts derive from research on quality control and institutional
accountability (O’Niel, Bensimon, Diamond, and Moore, 1999). This innovation will
provide district leaders “metrics of excellence” (O’Niel et al, 1999, p. 34) to determine,
monitor and set growth targets for specific factors that improve four-year college
participation. Examples of college readiness factors include:
• Graduation rate
• Enrollment and grades in higher-level coursework (i.e. Honors, AP, IB)
• Number of Advanced Placement enrollees and exams taken
• Percentage of Advanced Placement exams passed (scoring 3+)
• SAT number tested and total score > 1,500
• ACT number tested and total score > 21
• Percentage of graduates completing UC ‘a-g’ courses

A college readiness scorecard or dashboard provides visual graphics focusing on
those metrics that support college-going behavior. The following are examples of
college-readiness dashboards:

123
Figure 4: College Readiness Dashboard Samples

GUSD UC ‘a-g’ eligibility SAT participation

Each dashboard above represents an indictor of four-year college participation. The red
arrow represents current performance, while the green arrow represents desired
performance. For example, currently 47% of GUSD students meet UC ‘a-g’ course
eligibility requirements. The district could then map a goal of 75% of its students
meeting those requirements over a specific period of time. Similarly, SAT participation
stands at 46% with a target dash pointed at 80%.
In addition to a baseline college-readiness scorecard or dashboard, the use of
diversity measurements will help ensure that GUSD’s organizational goals are intentional
and strategic in closing achievement and opportunity gaps for minority students of color.
The diversity scorecard was developed with the purpose of raising “increased recognition
of the existence and scope of inequities for students of color among faculty members,
administrators, and counselors…[to] remove the conditions that deny or impede equitable
outcomes for all students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45, 46)
The diversity scorecard presents a powerful opportunity for GUSD to identify and
target current and expected performance on a variety of college-readiness metrics
10%
30%
50%
75%
100%

20%
60%
80%
40%

124
disaggregated by subgroup. The following example looks at Advanced Placement
enrollment and pass rates overall at GUSD with a diversity component:
Figure 5: AP Enrollment Diversity Scorecard Sample (not based on real percentages)

In the example above, the Yellow bar indicates the Baseline, or current percentage of
students enrolled in Advanced Placement. The Green bar indicates the Target, or
expected growth for the subgroup. Once targets have been reached, notice that the level
of Yellow and Green bars combined per subgroup creates a more equitable situation
across the site. Meaning, gaps in opportunity closed from a high of 30% (between Asians
and Hispanics) to a more equitable gap of 15%.
Diversity scorecards provide school and district officials an opportunity to
measure those college-readiness metrics with a diversity lens. This approach will reveal
those equity gaps that prevent all subgroups from successfully accessing four-year
universities. As well, diversity scorecards will help GUSD school or district officials
target and apply resources that will improve educational outcomes for underrepresented
student populations (Bensimon, 2004).

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%

White
(Armenian)

White
(non-‐Armenian)

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Current
Subgroup
Enrolled

Expected
Subgroup
Enrollment

Growth
Target

Subgroup
NOT
enrolled

125
Thematic Solution 2: Close Persisting Barriers And Increase Four-Year College Access
For All GUSD Students
One of the most significant predictors of academic achievement and college
success is a strong academic program in high school and a variety of social support
offered by the school (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Glendale Unified high schools have
worked hard in closing some achievement gaps, and made significant strides in aligning
coursework so that students will be eligible for a four-year university education, while
ensuring that students are supported and aware of college admissions requirements.
However, the persistence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps continue to
prevent certain groups of students (i.e. Armenian, Hispanic) from accessing a four-year
university education. To a great extent, these underrepresented students lack the social
capital to effectively navigate through traditional educational systems and structures. The
following are a set of solutions to increase access to four-year colleges for all GUSD
students, particularly underrepresented minorities.

Solution: Increase preparation and number of four-year university eligible students.

Academic rigor in high school is the strongest indicator of a student’s academic
achievement and greatly determines whether a student will advance towards
postsecondary studies (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). A challenging core curriculum
required of all students provides access to the same educational opportunities, high
standards, and potentially leads to the highest level of academic achievement (Martinez
and Klopott, 2005). Moreover, by closely aligning these core curricula with college
admissions criteria will lead to improved rates of student eligibility for four-year

126
university enrollment. Some ways in which core curricula can be established and
evaluated to ensure rigorous preparation and improved eligibility is:
1. Evaluate established curriculum and determine its content and rigor
2. In lower level courses, significantly increase academic content and rigor, or
eliminate the course
3. Strengthen all core programs: offer more challenging coursework, increase
number of Advanced Placement courses offered
4. Modify graduation requirements to reflect expectations that all students complete
a rigorous core curriculum and are eligible for college admission
5. Incorporate higher level thinking skills in all courses
6. Encourage student enrollment in challenging coursework
7. In career/vocational tracks increase course content rigor and connect academic
and work-related skills
8. Increase number of college courses offered on high school campuses in
partnership with local community colleges
9. Prepare and encourage students to take algebra II or higher

Solution: Hold high expectations for all students across all school sites, and increase
underrepresented minority students’ social capital.
During the interview process with GUSD administrators and school site officials,
it became clear that high expectations for schools and students were held in two of the
four high schools. In fact, one school was touted for it’s college-going mantra of getting
all students on the “UC ‘a-g’ bus.” In effect, this particular school site held strong

127
expectations for students to pursue four-year colleges. However, the perceptions about
the ability of other school sites and their students from creating the same type of college-
going culture were not as confident. In order to increase the college-going culture within
the district, it is necessary to have high expectations for all four high schools and to
ensure that all four schools have access to the resources that would help create and
maintain a college-going culture.
Studies show that increasing the participation of minorities in higher education is
crucial to ensuring their full economic and social participation in society (Goldrick-Rab
and Shaw, 2005). Strong predictors of college attendance and completion are: academic
preparation; social support; access to information; parental involvement and knowledge
about college; and, access to financial aid (Martinez and Klopott, 2005). Schools can
help encourage student growth and achievement, while holding high expectations for all,
by developing each student’s social capital. Some ways in which to set high expectations
and help increase student social capital include:
1. Increase student social capital by integrating students from different
socioeconomic status, ethnicities, and academic background into peer mentoring
groups
2. Create faculty mentoring groups to augment mentoring/counseling offered by
school counselors
3. Create workshops that are focused on filling out college applications and FAFSA
forms

128
4. Create networking opportunities for students with college admissions counselors
and adult professional mentors
5. Utilize college model for grade rank (magna cum laude, summa cum laude, cum
laude) as opposed to class rank
6. Require all students to take the SAT/ACT as a graduation requirement
7. Upon entry into high school, counselors create a learning plan to help students
meet college admissions requirements

Solution: Provide strategic intervention for underrepresented minority subgroups.

Although it is the practice of counselors, teachers, and administrators to talk to
students about college and college requirements, many low SES, minority, and immigrant
students are not college familiar and are not likely to have participated in activities that
would get them college ready (Hagedorn and Fogel, 2002). It is recommended that
GUSD create strategic opportunities so that underrepresented minority students can
continue to grow academically, intellectually, and personally, leading towards improved
college access. Some ways in which schools can help are:
1. Conduct a needs assessment early in 9
th
grade to ascertain student strengths and
weaknesses
2. Create or restructure existing parent nights to thoroughly address high school
graduation requirements and college admissions requirements
3. Offer outreach opportunities (i.e. parent nights, college fairs, etc.) with native
language speakers, or have college graduates of the same race/ethnicity (i.e.

129
Armenian, Hispanic graduate) present and serve as an effective role model for
parents and students
4. Create a summer bridge program for incoming Freshmen who are below grade
level standards
5. Students receive instruction in study skills
6. Creation of teacher teams that support and help students entering high school
continue to improve skills learned in the summer bridge program

Thematic Solution 3: Maximize Success For Community College Transfer Students
In order to effectively address the issue of college access for all students, high
school reform must focus intentionally on how to address factors that influence student’s
preparedness or college readiness. To that end, K-12 public schools and two-year
community colleges need to develop relationships that will lead to a more seamless
transition for high school students, which will ultimately lead towards improved transfer
rates to four-year institutions.

Solution: Improve vertical K-16 alignment and articulation.
Student course completion has a decisive impact for their future. In fact, one of
the most important factors of college success is the quality and intensity of the high
school curriculum (Haycock et al, 1999). At the same time, there should be coherence in
content, knowledge and skills, and assessments between K-12 and institutions of higher
education. Once students are accepted into college- two-year or four-year institutions-
far too many students are not prepared for the advanced work required of them. Almost

130
half of all incoming college freshmen take at lease one remedial course (Haycock et al,
1999).
While we recognize the high percentage of Glendale Unified School District’s
enrollment at Glendale Community College (GCC), research shows that incoming
freshmen are often unprepared for college course work. In order to maximize the success
for GCC transfer rates to four-year institutions and colleges, GUSD is in a position to
develop collaborative relationships with GCC to ensure success on behalf of GUSD
students. When secondary faculty dialogue with their postsecondary counterparts on
course alignment and rigor, GUSD students will have access to the best academic
curriculum, and be taught the appropriate knowledge and skills necessary to eventually
succeed in a four-year college.
There currently exists in GUSD a program for English Language Arts courses to
articulate credits with GCC. Students who take a particular GCC-approved English
Language Arts course offered at GUSD and successfully meet course requirements are
not required to take remedial English courses when they matriculate to GCC. This
practice is a powerful model for aligning course content and coherence across the K-16
spectrum. GUSD should consider solidifying and expanding these types of practices
through a memorandum of understanding between the two institutions, or with other local
community colleges. This program could be expanded to other core subject areas as well,
including mathematics, science and social studies.

131
Solution: Create data systems to review and improve student transfer rates to four-year
institutions.
One of the driving forces behind No Child Left Behind is the need for states to
develop a comprehensive data system to track student performance across grade levels.
The use of data has been successful in identifying specific areas of need for different
subgroups, and to identify overall school and district performance in meeting a set of
achievement criteria. While colleges and universities are improving their assessment of
progress using data, most data published by higher education institutions report progress
on college access, and not on transfer rates. To that end, it is recommended that GUSD
partner with GCC in creating data systems that will track GUSD graduates’ progress in
transferring to four-year universities. By using data to assess current and future practice,
and measuring progress along the way, GUSD and GCC will witness the greater
likelihood of a better educated and more diverse work force (Engle and Lynch, 2009).
District-wide, GUSD is very knowledgeable and skilled at using data to drive
student learning and achievement. It is recommended that GUSD share their student
information with the local community colleges to demonstrate students’ ability and to
facilitate student placement in appropriate colleges-level courses. As well, GUSD can
collaborate with GCC to create a data system that tracks the retention and transfer rates of
GUSD graduates, and ensure students do transfer from the community college to public
or private four-year institutions, as the students had originally intended.
To further expand the relationship between GUSD and GCC, both institutions can
join forces to develop a “Diversity Scorecard” as it relates to the following equity

132
measures in educational outcomes for higher educations: access, retention, institutional
receptivity and excellence for GUSD students at GCC (Bensimon, 2004). The Diversity
Scorecard will allow opportunities for both GUSD and GCC to apply the existing data
into actionable knowledge that will better assist GUSD student success at GCC. Both
institutions can be engaged in a collaborative inquiry into the state of equity and access of
GUSD students at GCC. This will allow both institutional leaders to develop evidence-
based practice to evaluate the condition of GUSD matriculation into GCC and to provide
concrete data on specific areas of improvement to enhance student success at GCC and
beyond.

Solution: Partner with California Community Colleges to create bridge programs to
four-year institutions.
GUSD is in a position to take a step further and see how they can partner with
local community colleges in creating a targeted bridge program that focuses on a
secondary to two-year to a four-year pipeline. In effect, GUSD can develop a bridge
program to improve GUSD student transfer rates to four-year institutions and eventual
degree attainment.
Currently, a variety of bridge programs exist that supports secondary to two-year
matriculation, as well as two-year to four-year matriculation. These include dual
enrollment and credits programs. It is recommended that GUSD expand the current dual
enrollment program for students. Dual enrollment programs offer the least threatening (to
school systems) path to providing opportunities for students to learn (Adelman, 2002).
Schools use dual enrollment programs to encourage college preparedness and to help

133
reduce the cost of remedial courses in higher education (Martinez & Klopott, 2005). The
dual enrollment programs with GCC will provide valuable skills and knowledge to
students prior to their enrollment in college. Furthermore, it provides the students with a
seamless transition from high school to college.
A step beyond the current bridge program is to create a partnership between
GUSD and GCC whereby GUSD identifies and targets students choosing the two-year
college route, creates a GUSD-to-GCC-to-Four Year pathway contract, and outreaches to
those students to ensure they successfully reach their goals. These types of targeted
interventions stand to improve the overall level of preparation for students and helps
school agents create support systems for those identified students that aim to eventually
continue their postsecondary studies at a four-year university. Some components of these
types of bridge programs could include:
1. Reviewing students’ secondary four-year plans to identify students targeted
for two-year college enrollment.
2. Ensuring students successfully complete their secondary studies while
preparing for postsecondary studies at the two-year college.
3. Targeted counseling, exposure to, and networking with community college
agents during their 12
th
grade year in preparation for successful matriculation
to the two-year college.
4. By utilizing a K-16 data system, monitor the progress and make necessary
adjustments to ensure the most amount of students are successfully
transferring to a four-year university.

134
REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2002). The Relationship between Urbanicity and Educational Outcomes.
In W. Tierney & L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing Access to College: Extending
Possibilities for all Students (pp. 35-64). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Achievement via individual determination (AVID): About. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.avid.org/about.html

Alliance for Excellence in Education (2009). Understanding High School Graduation
Rates. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/National_wc.pdf

America’s Choice: Implementation Commitments (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.americaschoice.org/implementationcommitments

American Diploma Project (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That
Counts. Washington, D.C.

Anderson & Krathwohl (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Bailey, D., Palsha, S. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and
implications for educational innovations. The Journal of Educational Research,
85 (4), 226-232.Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education.
Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a big ten university through project
TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 21-29.

Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 36(1) 45-52

Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability,
equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan, 18(3), 28-45.

Bloom, H., Thompson, S., & Unterman, R. MDRC, (2010). Transforming the high school
experience. New York City, NY: MDRC

Bohon, S., Johnson, M., & Gorman, B. (2006). College aspirations and expectations
among latino adolescents in the united states. Social Problems, 53 (2), 207-225.

135
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. Univesity of Bristol,
Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective
professional learning communities. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education
and Skills.

Carey, K. (2004). A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year
Colleges and Universities. Washington DC: Education Trust.

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.

Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting the
Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

College Board. (2000). Equity 2000: A summary report. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/association/equity/EquityHi
storicalReport.pdf

Cross, C.T. (2004). The Kennedy and Johnson Years. In Political Education (pp. 15-40).
New York: Teachers College Press

Cunningham, Alisa (2007). The Broader Social Benefits of Higher Education. Solutions
for Our Future Project. Retrieved from
http://www.solutionsforourfuture.org/site/DocServer/07.Social-
Benefits.pdf?docID=102

Darling-Hammond , L. (2002). The right to learn (pp. 148-176). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly. 41(1), 121-153.

Datnow, A., Borman, G., Stringfield, S., Overman, L., & Castellano, M. (2003).
Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts:
Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis. 25 (2), 143-170.

David, J. (2008). What research says about professional learning communities.
Educational Leadership, 65(8), 84-85.

Dodge, L. & Kendall, M. (2004). Learning communities. College Teaching, 52 (4), 150-
155.

136
Dowd, Alicia (2003). From Access to Outcome Equity: Revitalizing the Democratic
Mission of the Community College. The Annals of the American
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. ( 2006 ) Learning by Doing – A Handbook
for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Indiana: Solution Tree

Duncan, Arne (2010). The Three Myths of High School Reform: Secretary Arne Duncan’s
Remarks at the College Board AP Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/three-myths-high-school-reform-secretary-
arne-duncans-remarks-college-board-ap-confere

Education Trust. (1999). Thinking K-16. Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between Leaving
High School and Entering College and High-Performance Jobs. Washington DC:
The Education Trust.

Engle, J, and Lynch, M. (2009). Access to Success: Charting a Necessary Path, The
Baseline Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success
Initiative. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

Eurich, Neil (1982). Remembering Conant’s The American High School Today.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/40177469
Friedman, Thomas L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21
st
Century.
New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, pp. 250-275.

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56. Garcia, G.E. (2002). Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3
rd
ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gandara, P. (Ed.). (2002). Meeting common goals: linking k-12 and college interventions.
New York City, NY: State University of New York Press.

The Gates Foundation. (2008). All students ready for college, career, and life: reflections
on the foundation's education investments 2000-2008 Retrieved from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from
comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Goldrick-Rab, S., Shaw, K. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in the impact of work
first policies on college access. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27
(4), 291-307.

137
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education:
Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review,
72(3), 330-366

Hagedorn, L. S. & Fogel, S. (2002). Making school to college programs work:
Academics, goals, and aspirations. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.),
Increasing access to college; Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 169-194).
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Haller, A., and Portes, A. (1973). Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education 46
(1), 51-91.

Hanushek, Eric A., and Lindseth, Alfred A. (2009). Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and
Statehouses: Solving the Funding-Achievement Puzzle in America’s Public
Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Haycock, K. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, (1998). Teaching and
california's future. Santa Cruz, CA: CFTL.

Haycock, K. (1999). Thinking K-16. Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between Leaving High
School and Entering College and High-Performance Jobs. Washington DC:
Education Trust.

Hochschild, J. L. & Scovronick, N. (2004). The American Dream and the Public School.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Isaacs, Julia B. (2009). International Comparisons of Economic Mobility in Julia B.
Isaacs et al. (eds.), Getting Ahead or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in
America. Washington, D.C., The Bookings Institution, pp. 37-44.

Jones, M., Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., & Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping pathways to
higher education. Educational Researcher 31 (2), 3-11.

Jun, A., & Colyar, J. (2002). Parental guidance suggested: Family involvement in
college preparation programs. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.),
Increasing access to college; Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 195-216).
Albany: State Univesity of New York Press.

Karakowshky, L., & Mann, S. (2008). Setting goals and taking ownership understanding
the implications of participatively set goals from a causal attribution perspective.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(3), 260-270.

138
Kim, J. S., and Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-13

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
directions in psychological science, 15(5), 265-268.

Malloy, W. (1997). Struggling to become an essential school: A qualitative study. The
High School Journal, 80 (2), 125-138.

Margolis, H. & McCabe, P. (2004). Self-efficacy: A key to improving the motivation of
struggling learners. The Clearing House, 77 (6), 241-249.

Marsh, D., and Codding, J. (1999). The New American High School. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Martinez, M., and Klopott, S. (2005). The Link between High School Reform and
College Access and Success for Low-Income and Minority Youth. American
Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works:
Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD

May, H. & Supovitz, J. (2006). Capturing the cumulative effects of school reform: An
11-year study of the impacts of America’s choice on student achievement.
Educational Policy and Analysis, 28 (3), 231-257.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction(2
nd
.ed.) Pearson: Upper Saddle River: NJ

McDonnell, L.M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education:
Evolution or Revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.

Miller, D., Malley, L., and Owen, E. (2009). Comparative Indicators of Education in the
United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2009. Institute of Education Sciences and
National Center for Education Statistics

Moore, C. , & Shulock, N. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, CA State
University, Sacramento. (2010). Divided we fail: improving completion and
closing racial gaps in california's community colleges. Sacramento, CA: CSUS

139
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010) Condition of Education Report 2010.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

National Center on Education and the Economy (1990). America’s Choice: high skills or
low wages! Retrieved from http://www.skillscommission.org/previous.htm

O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Bensimon, E. M., Diamond, M. A., & Moore, M. R. (1999). Designing
an implementing an academic scorecard. Change, 31(6), 32-40.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.

Porter, Kathleen (2002). The Value of a College Education. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/value.htm

Rivera, C. (2010, October 20). Community colleges not preparing california's future
workforce, study says. Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-1020-community-colleges-
20101020

Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. In P. Pedraza &
M. Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: Setting an agenda (pp. 185-204). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative
analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Culture, Motivation, and
Achievement (Vol. 9). (Pp. 255-289). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Ruppert, S. (2003). Closing the College Participation Gap: A National Summary. Center
for Community College Policy

Ryan, J. E. (2009, June). The Big Picture. Phi Delta Kappan, 720-723.
Schein, E. (1990) Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.

Sergiovanni, T., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M, and Fowler, F. (2008). Education
Governance and Administration (6
th
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn &
Bacon

140
Sizer, T. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the coalition of essential schools. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 68 (1), 38-42.

Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67 (1) 1-40.

Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (2001). Manufacturing Hope & Despair: The School and
Kin Support Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth.” Teachers College Press,
Columbia University. Chapter 8, “ Empowering Relations of Support Between
Students and School Personnel.”

Strunk (2009, spring semester). The Politics and Policies of Education, EDUC 719. Class
lecture. University of Southern California

Tierney, W., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2002) Increasing Access to College: Extending
Possibilities for All Students. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. Pp.10-22, 31-45, 47-56.

U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Current Population Reports, series P60-235 Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/macro/032008/perinc/new04_000.htm
U.S. Department of Education (2003). Paige Blasts “Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations”
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/03/03122003.html

Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., and Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and
Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia, Chicano
School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (Second Edition), (Ed.),
Pp. 83-99, 104-109.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., and Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the College Dream: How
Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student
Aspirations. The Bridge Project: Stanford University.

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar Students, Different Results:
Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Wirt, F. & Kirst, M. W. (2005). Chapter 2. In The Political Dynamics of American
Education, 3rd ed. (pp. 29-65). Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing

141
Wong, Kenneth (2007). District-Wide Framework for Improvement. Retrieved from
www.centerii.org/.../Module%201%20-%20District-wide%20Framework.pdf

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S., & Espenshade, T. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46 (6), 677-706.

Zirkel, P. A. (2009, June). School Law All Stars: Two Successive Constellations. Phi
Delta Kappan, 704-708.

142
APPENDIX A: SCANNING INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Client’s Name:
Role in District:
Date:
Interviewer:

GUSD College Participation Project
Scanning Interview

Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’ve been asked by the district to look
at college participation and access for GUSD graduating seniors. Your comments will be
helpful, and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute your comments to
anyone outside the USC team.

1. Please give me an overview of college participation and success for GUSD
students?
• What is the current situation?
• What is being done about it?
• Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense?

2. Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
• Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding college
participation?
• Has the district tried to address college participation in specific ways?
Please describe.
• Was there any success with these efforts?
• Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?

3. Regarding college participation, are there any formal or informal goals for
what you or the district are trying to accomplish?
• What is the goal(s) of this effort?
• What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
• How will you/the district know if it is successful?
• Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get
details)
• How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire
to be?

143
4. Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect
success on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the
district from achieving perfect success in college participation? Is the
problem linked to many role groups or one? Is the problem one of lack of
knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of politics or what?
• Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational
culture/structure
• Probe by role group

5. Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to
better understand the college participation and success here in the district—
any suggestions?

144
APPENDIX B: STAGES OF CONCERN INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Client’s Name: __________________________
Role in District: ________________________
Date & Time: __________________________
Interviewer: __________________________

Stages of Concern

1). Based on your experience, what would you say the school or district has done to
improve access to four-year universities for your students?

a. If the client gives a response, ask: What was your role in this?
b. If the client does not give a response, ask: What do you think the school
should do to address this? What would your role be in this?

145
APPENDIX C: EMAIL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Good afternoon High School staff members. I am working with a team of three doctoral
students at USC partnering with Glendale Unified to learn more about improving student
access and participation in four-year universities. We've had an opportunity to meet with
some of your staff members to help us make sense of this topic as it relates to your
students. We would like your opinion on one question. Your responses will be
extremely helpful for us and we want to assure you that we will not quote or attribute
your comments to anyone outside the USC team. Please help us by responding directly
to @usc.edu to the following question:

“In your opinion, what are the factors that are preventing “X” High School students from
entering four-year universities?"

146
APPENDIX D: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Closing Gaps to College Participation:
An Application of the Gap Analysis Model
Presented to Glendale Unified School District

Danny Kim, Dawn Cassidy, Zim Hoang
University of Southern California
August 2010

147
Background
A highly educated society leads to a stronger economy and higher standard of
living, demonstrating the importance of raising intellectual capital for competing in
today’s high-tech, global economy. It also contributes to what we hold dear as a nation:
democratic participation, social accord, family cohesion and healthy behavior (Engle and
Lynch, 2009). The collective education of individuals will result in improved outcomes
for our nation, including higher rates of invention, improved productivity, and the
development of new products and technologies (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). Our
nation stands to gain economically by increasing the educational attainment for our
citizenry, particularly education and training beyond high school (Ruppert, 2003).
Failure to engage in America’s youth today and to provide them with the education they
need to live a fulfilling life will be harmful not only to them, but to the nation as a whole
(Codding, J. and Rothman, 1999).
Currently, the United States has a 69% average high school graduation rate with
varying rates between subgroups: White 76%, Asian 79%, Hispanic 55%, African
American 51%, and Native American 50% (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009).
Of those students who graduate from high school in four years, only 57% of graduates
continue their education in college (Ruppert, 2003). In California, graduation rates are
similar to national averages, yet only 48% of CA high school graduates go on to college.
This gap in college participation is particularly alarming for minority Hispanic and Black
subgroups who historically participate less than their white, non-Hispanic counterparts

148
(Ruppert, 2003). The continued persistence of this college participation gap poses
significant problems for the social and economic outlook of individuals and our nation.
Just as America has an achievement gap, it also has an income gap. Education is
vital in breaking the cycle of poverty. For individuals, a strong relationship exists
between a person’s educational attainment and his economic status: 21% of adults with
less than a high school education live under the poverty level compared to 4% of adults
with a college degree (Hanushek and Lindseth, 2009). A person’s lifetime earnings
increase dramatically with a postsecondary degree, making nearly twice as much in a
lifetime than a high school graduate. In addition to the economic advantages of a college
education, an individual stands to gain socially in a variety of ways, including better
outcomes for children, more leisure time, a more optimistic outlook on the future, and an
improved quality of life (Cunningham, 2007; Porter, 2002). Although a postsecondary
education presents a clear pathway to a more prosperous and productive life, there are
signs that a gap in college participation continues to persist.

Purpose of the Project
The percentage of students matriculating to four-year universities is a concern in
America’s ability to compete in the global market. According to the Census Bureau, the
earning differential for degree attainment can be over $900,000 for bachelor degree
holders over high school graduates; and a difference of $400,000 for associate’s degree
holders (Porter, 2002). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) offer a compelling argument for
college attendance and frames the consequences of declining college attendance from

149
individual to national consequences. Specifically, they assert that the continuing decline
of non-college attendance will result in a deteriorating American presence in the
international marketplace, decreased economic achievement for non-college participating
individuals, and continued economic and social stratification between races.
The purpose of this project is to use the gap analysis model to assist Glendale
Unified School District to increase their student participation in four-year university
institutions. This project will apply Clark and Estes’ (2002) gap analysis framework to
determine existing performance gaps in knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
barriers that prevent the district’s students from participating in four-year universities.
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance will only be closed and goals
achieved when these causes are properly addressed.

The Gap Analysis
The purpose of the gap analysis is to identify whether all employees have
sufficient knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to achieve the desired
organizational goal (Clark and Estes, 2002). Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model have
been applied to a variety of business industries, and offers a framework for school district
leaders to solve their organizational problems and to select the right solutions for closing
performance gaps. The gap analysis model helps organizations clarify goals, identify and
analyze performance gaps in attaining goals, and determine which strategies, products or
services are needed to close gaps between existing performance and desired outcomes.

150
Five Steps to the Gap Analysis Process:
1. Identify key organization goals and individual performance goals: determine if
goals at all levels – global, intermediate, and performance – are compatible,
aligned and support the larger organizational goals
2. Determine performance gaps: the distance between the current performance
levels and the desired goals to be reached
3. Analyze gaps to determine causes: the root causes may be based on
knowledge/skills, motivation, organizational barriers
4. Identify solutions based on: knowledge/skills, motivation, organizational process
and materials solution
5. Evaluate results, tune system and revise goals: evaluate the changes made and
determine if changes were worthwhile
Methodology
Table 4: Project Timeline
Fall
2009
• Meet with GUSD leaders to determine the performance goal: college access for all
students
• Data collection on the school district and recent research on college access and
multiple pathways
Spring
2010
• Qualifying exams
• Conduct first and second round of interviews with key district personnel
• Complete Draft of Chapter 2 and address possible findings
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Summer
2010
• Complete data collection
• Complete Chapter 2
• Provide draft of Chapter 1
• Provide District with Executive Summary
Fall
2010
• Complete Chapter 3
• Present findings to District stakeholders
• Evaluate District’s response to findings and solutions
• Finish Capstone Project

151
Data Collection Methods:
The initial data collection was conducted through informal interviews with district
personnel to survey opinions on beliefs about the performance gaps. The purpose of the
interviews was to identify the individuals who were in the front line and to assess their
views and opinions on what the current status was and what they view as the causes of
the problem. An interview protocol was used for each of the interviews. The five
questions were based on gleaning an overview of the topic, the historical perspective on
the situation, identifying formal or informal goals, the interviewee’s perception of the
performance gap and suggestions on improving our project.
The team of three graduate students interviewed teachers, counselors, site and
district administrators at each of the District’s four comprehensive high schools to
determine the district’s college going rate. The initial rounds of interviews were
conducted in early spring with district administrators to determine the specific
performance goal the district was interested in examining. The next rounds of interviews
were conducted with school site administrators, counselors and key lead teachers. For
the Scanning Interviews, the five-question survey was used as a data collection
instrument. Once the initial rounds of interviews were completed at the school sites, it
was determined that to better assist the District in improving it’s college going rate, the
project would be better served if the performance goal was streamlined to examine
GUSD students’ ability to matriculate into four-year institutions of higher education.
Once the decision was made, the follow up innovation configuration model
interview reflected the focus on four-year institutions. The innovation configuration

152
interview was used to determine the level of implementation and awareness of college
improvement strategies taken on in each of the comprehensive high schools. Each
interviewee was asked one question and follow-up probing questions to determine their
viewpoints on what has been undertaken to address the college participation gap, as well
as capture their personal level of concern to this problem.
In order to obtain final opinions and perceptions on the factors that prevent GUSD
students from accessing four-year institutions, an email was sent out to school site
officials throughout the district. The email question explicitly asked respondents to cite
their personal explanations as to the factors that prevented GUSD high school students
from entering four-year universities.

The Sample:
All four comprehensive high schools in the district participated in the project. All
four schools were chosen because although the district is considered “ high performing”
district according to state and federal accountability systems, there still remain an
achievement gap for all students in accessing four-year institutions in the district. Some
schools may perform better than others in the district, however, in terms of access to
four-year institutions, not all minority, low social economic status or linguistically
challenge students perform at the same rate at their white, high SES or English only
counterparts. The team interviewed 3 district level personnel, 7 site administrators, 7
counselors and 21 teachers.

153
Findings
Based on our interviews of Glendale Unified district and school-site
administrators, teachers, and counselors, our three-member team has concluded that the
college participation gap that prevents all students from accessing a four-year university
education is attributed to the following three themes. These themes are applicable across
all four comprehensive high schools in Glendale Unified, and serve as areas to focus on
in order to close Glendale Unified School District’s college participation gap.

Emergent Theme #1: CLOSING PERSISTENT BARRIERS TO COLLEGE FOR
SPECIFIC STUDENT SUBGROUPS.
Glendale Unified comprehensive high schools have made significant steps in aligning
coursework to meet four-year university eligibility, and improved knowledge gaps
concerning college entrance requirements. However, knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps continue to persist presenting barriers for specific subgroups of
students (i.e. Hispanic, Armenian) in pursuing a four-year university education.
Glendale Unified is a large urban school district that services a diverse student
demographic population. The differences are evident in the linguistic, cultural, racial, as
well as economically diverse student population. The majority of GUSD students are
White (56%; many of Armenian ethnicity), 22% Hispanic/Latino, 13% Asian and 7%
Filipino. The district has over 26% of its students identified as English Learners, and
31% students identified as Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient students. Throughout
the district at least 43% of students come from low-income families based on National

154
School Lunch Program participation. Four-year university eligibility (based on meeting
rigorous UC ‘a-g’ course requirements) and participation rates differ between Glendale
Unified high schools, as demonstrated in the following chart:

Table 5: Glendale Unified UC ‘a-g’ eligibility rates
UC ‘a-g’
eligibility
Students
attending UC
Students
attending CSU
Students
attending
Community
College
State 36% 9% 13% 32%
County 34% 8% 13% 35%
GUSD 47% 11% 12% 52%
Clark Magnet 64% 16% 12% 57%
Hoover 30% 7% 6% 55%
Glendale 31% 8% 10% 57%
Crescenta
Valley
63% 13% 19% 39%

On average, GUSD graduating students’ four-year university participation stands
at 23% percent (UC/CSU) of its graduating class. This varies significantly from those
that choose a community college (52%) or other postsecondary route. In all GUSD high
schools, school counselors and teachers communicate to students about the importance of
‘a-g’ requirements for college admission. Counselors make classroom visits to talk about
college admissions, distribute handouts that explicitly communicate college admission
and University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, host college nights, and meet with
parents and students to discuss student progress. Counselors meet with individual
students annually to review course selections and graduation requirements, and to make
sure that students are on track in their college admission requirements.

155
At several GUSD high schools, posters delineating UC ‘a-g’ requirements and the
difference in income between students who have a college degree and students who have
a high school diploma are displayed in hallways and classrooms. It was observed at
GUSD high schools that all students were encouraged to meet admission requirements for
a four-year university, or enter a community college so they could later matriculate to a
university. In addition, all faculty and staff are dedicated to providing students with
information, support, and guidance so they can incorporate the “dream of college” into
their post-high school goals.
Although efforts have been made to close the college admission knowledge gap,
there are still barriers that prevent certain student subgroups from accessing four-year
universities upon graduation. Many administrators, counselors and teachers attribute the
low four-year university participation rate to students and parents’ lack of understanding
of the American educational system. This is affirmed by a veteran teacher’s statement,
“Some students lack modeling at home because they are first generation. Students lack
knowledge about requirements for college and do not know how to get the information.”
Many attribute certain groups’ cultural beliefs and values as the reasons for the lack of
interest or knowledge in navigating through the difficult college application process.
Unfortunately, these very students require concrete support systems to help them
negotiate through the myriad hoops needed to understand and meet requirements. In an
interview with a counselor in regards to parent groups and the equitable distribution of
information on college access to parents, a statement was made that certain subgroup
populations “must motivate and empower themselves” and seek out college information.

156
A teacher echoed these sentiments: “The onus is on the parents, not the school.” Of
course, placing the primary responsibility of understanding the complicated American
system of higher education on underrepresented students and their families alone is a
strong predictor of those very students will be severely handicapped in reaching their
postsecondary higher education goals.
To be sure, GUSD students’ motivation to pursue a four-year university education
is stunted by a variety of cultural factors, including parental value, consent, and goal
orientation. Some students fail to actively choose or persist in college preparatory high
school coursework because parents have dictated their pathways for them. Several
interviewees pointed out that some students fail to find value or lack engagement in the
academic work because they are resigned to attending a two-year college upon high
school graduation.
Armenian and Armenian-American students who have met rigorous college
preparatory coursework and have been accepted to a four-year university face roadblocks
due to parental demands or concerns. These students have met UC ‘a-g’ requirements,
completed the SAT or ACT testing requirement, and enrolled in rigorous Advanced
Placement courses. For all purposes, they have met secondary educational goals in
preparation for a four-year university education. However, many parents discourage their
student’s motivation to advance. For these students, college-going access is ultimately
attributed to parental consent and not on their efforts.
Despite the work involved in communicating college entrance requirements, some
students face challenges in meeting these requirements. This lack of awareness is

157
demonstrated countless times during a student’s high school career in their choice of
academic coursework. Subsequently, many students have limited their postsecondary
options, thus giving them fewer opportunities to apply to a four-year institution. Some
students self-select themselves out of challenging coursework. When asked why, one
counselor stated: “These students cannot see themselves in school, because no one in
their family has gone.”
Students’ self-selection out of a four-year university pathway can be attributed to
a lack of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s abilities to accomplish a
particular task. When students lack self-efficacy in their ability to attain a four-year
university education, it can impair their motivation to pursue this goal. One administrator
at a GUSD high school pointed to the fact that students are given the curricular
opportunities, including meeting University of California ‘a-g’ requirements, yet some
students seem to lack the beliefs to actually realize this curricular goal. Although
students are given full opportunity to pursue the ‘a-g’ college preparatory track, students
are self-selecting themselves out of this academic pathway. As one high school
administrator pointed out:
We’re going to provide access to kids. I want kids to be prepared to go straight
into a four-year. Go to Harvard if they so desire, go to Glendale Community
College, go to trade tech, go to Cal Tech. Wherever their interests lie. What I
struggle with is that kids make that decision in 9
th
grade. We’ve got to work
harder to help kids keep their options open longer so in the end you can do
whatever you want… ‘a-g’ gives you the most options.

Students’ lack of self-efficacy about college appears to be a shared belief by some
high school teachers and staff members. One administrator indicated that that not all

158
students were capable of or ready for a four-year university education. One teacher
referred to this as a “realistic” view that students will have different destinations and that
some are not capable of attending a four-year college. Still, another district administrator
pondered whether all school agents held the same expectations for all students to
continue on to a four-year university.
Some GUSD students fail to actively choose the goal of a four-year university
education. These students lack the motivation despite the organizational changes made
within schools sites to push more students to meet minimum eligibility requirements. For
example, one high school has created a movement to raise overall UC ‘a-g’ requirements
for their student body. Although many barriers have been removed to create better
access, there are still students who do not actively choose this pathway. One principal
described these types of students as “capable underachievers.” Another principal
indicated that:
We have a high failure rate in certain areas. So, I’ll ask the teachers, ‘Why are
these kids failing?...Is it [a lack of] skill or motivation?’ And, 99% will say it’s
motivation; it’s a lack of work ethic. It’s not that they can’t do the work, but they
choose not to.

Finally, many GUSD students attribute their inability to enter a four-year
university to causes outside their locus of control. For example, instead of hard work and
rigorous preparation leading to successful matriculation into a university, students hold to
a variety of uncontrollable causes that will inhibit their chances. These causes could
amount to lack of financial support, familial desires to stay closer to home, or ease of
access to GCC.

159
Emergent Theme #2: EXTENDING STUDENTS’ POSTSECONDARY COLLEGE
PATHWAYS BEYOND COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
Although Glendale Community College presents a viable postsecondary option for
graduating Glendale Unified students, this postsecondary pathway has become
commonplace, comfortable and/or dictated for many GUSD students, thus creating gaps
in students’ pursuit of a four-year university education.
In Glendale Unified high schools, an inordinate number of students choose to
attend two-year community colleges upon graduation. Many GUSD students are fixated
on following this community college track, particularly continuing their studies at
Glendale Community College (GCC). Student interest in four-year universities is
tempered by the reality of this easy and reliable track that has been accessed by previous
GUSD graduates. In fact, one high school principal recounted the tale of a graduating
student that was accepted to the University of California, Riverside yet ultimately
enrolled in Glendale Community College.
The large Armenian population that resides in the greater Glendale area holds
strong cultural and gender expectations for their children. Part of these expectations
includes a strong attachment to the family unit and living within close proximity to
parents. One counselor, who also happens to be an Armenian immigrant herself, shared
that parents expect young Armenian females not to go away to college. The counselor
explained an experience with one particular counselee:

160
I actually had a student, that really wanted to go to UCI [University of California,
Irvine] and she got into like 4 UC’s and the parents said the only way I’m going
to let you go to UCI is to commute day in and day out. And that’s what the
student was doing. I had a meeting with the parents explaining the danger of just
being on the road versus staying there.

These cultural experiences and expectations create a community college vacuum for
many immigrant children: since Glendale Community College lies close to home and
provides an affordable college opportunity, students are relegated to follow this particular
postsecondary pathway. One teacher recounted a story about one of her former students
who had been accepted to the University of Southern California:
One of my former students was accepted to USC, but her parents didn’t want her
to go. She’s a girl, so they (parents) want her home everyday. The only way she
could go to USC was to commute. Otherwise they would’ve made her go to
Glendale Community College.

Students who enter community colleges with the intent of transferring to a four-
year university face an uphill climb in actually transferring. The percentage of students
who do transfer to a four-year university is low. Despite this reality, GUSD students
choose to enter the community college setting. One counselor described the Glendale
Community College corridor as having evolved into a “way of life” for many GUSD
students, particularly Armenian and Armenian-American students.
The community college pathway affects students’ motivational choice to
participate in rigorous high school curricular work. For example, some students who
were eligible to take rigorous Advanced Placement course choose not to because it was
not a required course for entrance to Glendale Community College. One disgruntled
counselor described her feelings about this situation:

161
When I see there are some very capable students that have good GPAs, they have
taken the higher level rigorous classes and they end up going to a community
college, not that I have anything against community college. But one of the
things that I think that they miss most is being part of that culture.

For some other GUSD students, the motivation to persist through a rigorous
academic coursework is halted at a certain point in their high school career. One
counselor indicated that some students will enroll in challenging courses up until a
certain point whereby they revert to less challenging courses that will meet minimum
graduation requirements. When pressed why this occurs, the counselor stated: “Because
they do not see themselves in college.”
Still, other students enter Glendale Community College because they limit their
choice of potential four-year universities to attend. For many Armenians in the Glendale
area, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is the sole attractive destination
for postsecondary studies. Unfortunately, denied entrance to UCLA amounts to
community college matriculation with the rationale that the student will eventually be
able to transfer to UCLA. Altogether, GCC has become the “default destination” for
many GUSD students.
The challenge that modern secondary schools have is the perception that
attendance at a two-year college automatically means that a student will persist and
matriculate to a four-year institution. The common perception of students, parents,
teachers, and counselors in GUSD is that students who attend Glendale Community
College will transfer to a four-year school. This perception is tempered by the reality that
many will not transfer. As one counselor pointed out: “The attrition is high and the

162
matriculation rate is less than 35%.” Although a community college pathway is meant to
give students another option for postsecondary education, it can serve to undervalue
student’s long-term aspirations and lifetime earnings prospects.
Another rationale for entering the community college route is the reasonableness
of cost compared to four-year universities. Despite the difference in cost, many students
do not recognize that course availability and lack of qualified instructors has become a
concern in recent years as a result of education cuts in the California budget. Still, other
students and their families choose the community college path due to a lack of knowledge
of the four-year university financial aid process, along with the pressures of taking on
such financial responsibilities. Altogether, these challenges cause many students and
parents to focus solely on community college as the only viable option for postsecondary
education.

Emergent Theme #3: SETTING EXPLICIT GOALS FOR FOUR- YEAR UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION.
Academic achievement at Glendale Unified School District has steadily improved over
the years. However, district-wide achievement goals, and professional development
related to those goals, do not include explicit goals pertaining to student four-year
university education. In fact, variance in defining college success for GUSD students
exists amongst district and school site administrators, teachers, and counselors. This
lack of clarity in student postsecondary education goals creates misaligned work

163
processes, varied expectations, and perception issues regarding the college-going
success rates at each comprehensive high school.
In order to improve overall student success, GUSD implemented a district wide
program called Focus on Results- a nationwide intervention program designed to help
schools and districts facilitate student achievement. School or district teams work with a
consultant who helps design an individualized plan for student success. These
consultants offer training and assistance for the team so that they can take the information
back to their site. The overall goal is to improve student achievement across the
curriculum. This intervention is designed to improve student academic achievement
throughout the district.
Although this intervention encourages the utilization of research-based best
practices and peer-reviewed journals by school site teams, it is not designed to
specifically address the college participation gap within GUSD. In fact, no district level
goals or direction has emerged from Focus on Results to enable students to meet ‘a-g’
requirements or qualify for college admission. When asked about district-wide goals
related to college participation, several school site officials responded that nothing
explicit existed.
In fact, district and school site officials hold varying expectations for students in
regards to academic achievement and college participation. In fact, one high level district
administrator pointed out that a consistent message of high academic achievement for all
is not found at all four comprehensive high schools. Although some schools have pushed
students towards meeting UC ‘a-g’ eligibility requirements, there has not been increased

164
pressure from all school sites and for each individual student. In fact, school officials are
resigned to the fact that some students are not cut out for college. One school site
administrator commented:
We don’t think that every student is ready for college. We have a realistic view
about kids. Across the board, there is a belief that not all students will attend
college. During our WASC visit, we came to the conclusion that students will
have different destinations.

The absence of clearly defined formal goals related to four-year university
participation translates to varying beliefs held by school and district officials regarding a
four-year university education. While a high-ranking district administrator claimed the
goal of Glendale Unified was to promote all students to enter a four-year university,
either directly or via community college, another district administrator believed that
certain students were better prepared for direct entrance to the workplace. School site
officials also presented conflicted beliefs regarding student ability to enter college: some
pushed and advocated for all students to meet UC ‘a-g’ requirements, while others were
resigned to the belief that some students, particularly those not enrolled in college
preparatory courses, were not able to achieve at a college ready level.
While GUSD implicitly seeks to increase the college participation rate for their
students, the work processes do not communicate that same message. According to more
than one administrator, there are no formal goals on developing a college going culture
from the district. School sites have their own plans, but there is no formal goal or
message that is communicated from the district level. This is further evidenced by the
lack of discussion at district level meetings on improving college-going outcomes and the

165
lack of professional development provided to increase college participation rates.
According to one administrator, “I don’t feel we get the message from the board or the
superintendent [that the goal is] the college going culture, only the achievement gap and
reducing the gaps through CAHSEE and STAR results…those are the goals set for the
schools, not college going culture.”
At the site level, each school communicates the importance of students continuing
their education after high school. However, not all the high schools hold expectations
that students will attend a four-year university. Several of the high schools have taken
the position that “students have different directions” and that the high school has to
accept that not all students are suited for college, although they will continue to offer the
students information. One high school administrator said: “We do not have a college-
going culture for all students. We see it in certain groups, but a great percentage of them
won’t access resources.” Still another high school administrator shared: “We are hesitant
to use the term ‘college-going’ culture because some groups might find it offensive and
we want to be sensitive to the cultures that exist within the school.”
Teachers’ perceptions about the ability of students also varied. One teacher
expressed a strong belief that certain students were on the college track- Advanced
Placement students- and those that were not enrolled in such classes were often described
as “regular” kids. Of course, the rigor and approach taken in non-honors classes is vastly
different from the advanced studies and preparation for college presented in Advanced
Placement classes. The “regular” students typically faced a less rigorous instructional
program with the end goal being high school graduation and receipt of a diploma.

166
Another teacher who worked primarily with English Language Learners was not as
resigned about the inability of certain students to achieve at a college-ready level. In fact,
this teacher felt strongly that students in her English Language Development program did
have the academic ability to achieve, yet faced roadblocks to advancement because of
language barriers or inability to access certain coursework.
District and school priority on improving four-year university access and
participation have faced stiff challenges with recent budget reductions. Of course, the
allocation of material, financial and human resources is an indicator of district priorities.
The reduction of counselors at each of the four comprehensive high schools in GUSD
creates a challenge for many of the students to receive the kind of services needed for
college information or assistance in the college application process. In the last year, ten
counselors were cut from the district, thereby distributing much of the responsibilities
and workload to the remaining counselors. In all of the schools, student-to-counselor
ratio increased and some services that were previously provided by the counselors were
eliminated. For example, due to increased caseload sizes, some counselors are only able
to meet with students to discuss course requirements and provide minimal college
information, whereas before, counselors met with students and their parents at least once
a year, if not more, to thoroughly plan, schedule and counsel student about their
postsecondary choices. To compound this problem, certain high school counselors must
split their hours between two school sites.
Counselors play a critical role in developing the school’s response to college
planning and creating an organizational worldview of different options of college

167
choices. Through their increased workload, counselors are unable to effectively provide
the kind of support needed to ensure students are on the right path to four-year
institutions. As the only certificated staff to receive dismissal notices, counselors
questioned their value and the importance of their role in GUSD in promoting a college-
going culture. As one of the counselors indicated: “Counseling is not perceived as
important or a priority. Counselors work hard, however, the perception is that it’s an
easy job.”

Conclusion
Glendale Unified School District’s strong focus on improving student
achievement has resulted in a culture of continuous improvement. It is in this context
that the district sought the assistance of our project team to make sense of the four-year
university participation gap that currently exists within the district. Our project team
found three emergent themes that prevented all GUSD students from accessing four-year
universities: persisting knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers for specific
student subgroups; the commonplace, comfortable and/or dictated practice of entering the
community college path; and, the lack of explicit district-wide goals as it relates to
improving four-year university education rates and opportunities. In the ensuing months,
our project team intends to provide effective research-based solutions to close these gaps
to college participation and provide support to Glendale Unified School District.

168
APPENDIX E: POWERPOINT PRESENTATION TO GUSD LEADERSHIP

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180
'

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This alternative capstone project examined and analyzed the four-year college access and participation problem in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) through Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis Model. A three-member team of USC doctoral students assisted GUSD--an urban school district in north Los Angeles--by using the Gap Analysis process to unearth root causes to the four-year college participation gap. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that gaps in performance are caused by three distinct factors: lack of knowledge and/or skills

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

Asset Metadata

Creator Kim, Danny Young (author)

Core Title An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/22/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college access,college participation,four-year university access,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name California (states), school districts: Glendale Unified School District (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member)

Creator Email dannykimchee@hotmail.com,dannyyki@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3671

Unique identifier UC1419842

Identifier etd-Kim-4349 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-436507 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3671 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kim-4349.pdf

Dmrecord 436507

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kim, Danny Young

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu