University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Examining Hispanic Students’ Access to AP Courses in High Schools in Los Angeles
County.

By
Brett D’Errico

Co-Authors
Ryan D’Errico
Danny Daher

________________________________________________________________________

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

May 2018

ii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to better understand Hispanic students’ access to Advanced
Placement (AP) courses by analyzing the critical aspects that high school principals,
assistant principals, and district-level directors in Los Angeles County employ to improve
AP access in their schools and districts. More specifically, this study set out to determine
1) how educational leaders utilize their district’s Local Control Accountability Plan
(LCAP) to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses, 2) the barriers to AP access
educational leaders are experiencing, 3) the best practices educational leaders are
employing to increase Hispanic students’ access to AP courses, and 4) how educational
leaders are evaluating Hispanic students’ access to AP courses. This study implemented a
mixed-methods approach in which 17 Los Angeles County high school principals,
assistant principals, and district directors completed a survey; five of these surveyed
leaders also participated in a semistructured interview. Through the process of
triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that administrators from high schools that
increased Hispanic students’ access to AP courses relied on a sound understanding of
their districts’ LCAP to identify, challenge, and eliminate institutional barriers to AP
access. These educational leaders also made connections between counselors, teachers,
and various programs on campus and made it a priority to regularly analyze and evaluate
the accessibility of their AP programs. Overall, this study provides a roadmap that high
school administrators can follow, from developing a cohesive vision aligned with district
LCAP priorities through evaluation, that highlights the valuable roles they play in
improving Hispanic students’ access to AP courses at their schools and in their districts.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their
commitment to this work, their expert guidance, and their thoughtful comments. In
particular, a special thank you is necessary for my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Rudy
Castruita, who has always supported and challenged me to be the best leader I can be.
Your passion, support, and wisdom have affected my life in so many ways, and I am
eternally grateful. Dr. Pedro Garcia has been a positive role model and has proven that
through hard work, all things are possible. Dr. Katherine Thorossian has been a role
model as to what leadership should be and continually supported me through this journey.
I would like to thank my family for all of their support. To my parents, Monica
and Lee D’Errico, I cannot imagine where I would be without you both. Your amazing
support and unconditional love for us is astonishing. You have shown us that all dreams
are possible in life as long as you are willing to put in the hard work of what it takes to
get there. You are both my hero. To my grandparents, Janis and Herb Martens, you have
always been and always will be a rock for me. You always support Ryan and me in every
aspect of life, and we would not have accomplished this goal without either of you. To
my brothers, Ryan and Kyle, I couldn’t be more proud to call you brother. Ryan, you
have always pushed me to be a better man. You have been such a rock throughout this
journey, and I am so thankful to complete this dream with you. Kyle, although you are
not here to read this, you are my motivation. You have inspired me to never take anything
for granted and never quit, no matter what.
To my wife, Rachel: Without you, I do not know where I would be, and I cannot
thank you enough for supporting my pursuit of my dreams. Thank you for supporting our
iv
sons, Lee, Kyle, and Jameson, and weathering this journey with me. Without you, none
of this is possible.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 7
Theory ..................................................................................................................... 7
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................... 8
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 9
Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 10
Key Terms and Definitions ................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................... 14
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14
Background of the Advanced Placement Program ............................................... 14
Uses and Benefits of AP ....................................................................................... 16
AP and College Readiness .................................................................................... 20
Identifying AP Potential ....................................................................................... 21
vi
Barriers to AP Access ........................................................................................... 24
Funding and Accountability for AP ...................................................................... 27
Current Practices to Address AP Access .............................................................. 30
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 34
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 34
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 34
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 35
Qualitative Methods .............................................................................................. 37
Quantitative Method ............................................................................................. 38
Sample and Population ......................................................................................... 40
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 41
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 43
Quantitative Data Analysis ....................................................................... 44
Qualitative Data Analysis ......................................................................... 44
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................... 45
Summary ............................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 47
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 47
Study Participants ................................................................................................. 48
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 50
Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 51
vii
Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 56
Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 60
Research Question 4 ................................................................................. 65
Comparative Data ................................................................................................. 68
Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 69
Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 70
Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 72
Research Question 4 ................................................................................. 75
Summary ............................................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 78
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 78
Overview of the Study .......................................................................................... 79
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 80
Sample Population ................................................................................................ 81
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 82
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 83
Results and Findings ............................................................................................. 84
Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 84
Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 85
Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 85
Research Question 4 ................................................................................. 86
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................... 86
Develop LCAP Coherence ........................................................................ 86
viii
Challenge Institutional Barriers ................................................................ 87
Connect Your Resources ........................................................................... 87
Understand Equity .................................................................................... 89
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 90
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................ 91
Recommendation 1: Highlight a Case Study ............................................ 91
Recommendation 2: Broaden Horizons .................................................... 92
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 92
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 94
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire (Quantitative) ......................................................... 100
Appendix B: Interview Questionnaire (Qualitative) ....................................................... 104
Appendix C: Letter to Superintendents Requesting Permission to Conduct Study ........ 106
Appendix D: Letter to Participants ................................................................................. 108
Appendix E: Survey Questions and How They Relate to the Research Questions ........ 111

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participants of Study ........................................................................................... 48
Table 2: Participating District Demographic ................................................................... 49
Table 3: Demographics of Participating Schools ............................................................. 50
Table 4: Responses to Survey Items 3–6: Using LCAP to Support AP Access, as a
Percentage of Participants (LA) ................................................................................. 53
Table 5: Responses to Survey Items 9–12 and 16: Barriers to AP Access, as a
Percentage of Participants (LA) ................................................................................. 58
Table 6: Responses to Survey Items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17: Practices to Increase AP
Access, as a Percentage of Participants (LA) ............................................................. 62
Table 7: Responses to Survey Items 18–20: Evaluating AP Access, as a Percentage of
Participants (LA) ........................................................................................................ 66
Table 8: Responses to Survey Items 3–6: Using LCAP to Support AP Access, as a
Percentage of Participants (OC, LA, and IE) ............................................................. 70
Table 9: Responses to Survey Items 9–12 and 16: Barriers to AP Access, as a
Percentage of Participants (OC, LA, and IE) ............................................................. 72
Table 10: Responses to Survey Items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17: Practices to Increase AP
Access, as a Percentage of Participants (OC, LA, and IE) ........................................ 75
Table 11: Responses to Survey Items 18–20: Evaluating AP Access, as a Percentage
of Participants (OC, LA, and IE) ................................................................................ 76

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Triangulation of findings ................................................................................... 44

1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Although Southern California schools receive their fair share of accolades and
recognition for the achievements of their students, a closer look at their equity scorecard
(Bensimon, 2004) reveals room for improvement. Because almost every imaginable
demographic is represented in these schools (cultural, socioeconomic, and otherwise), it
is necessary to recognize the disparities between many urban schools and their suburban
peers. Furthermore, while Southern California represents one of the largest
concentrations of Hispanic students in the country, the topics of AP access and equity
have not been studied at this microgeographic level before. This then encourages
questions like the ones posed in this study.
Background of the Problem
The opportunity gap that Hispanic students experience when accessing Advanced
Placement courses is symptomatic of an educational system that has been flawed for
generations (Schneider, 2009). If education is in fact the great equalizer, it becomes
paramount then to ensure all students have access to and success in academically rigorous
courses. Solorzano and Ornelas (2004), using the framework of critical race theory, found
three recurring themes in their work: a) Hispanic students are disproportionately
underrepresented in AP enrollment; b) schools that serve urban, low-income Hispanic
and African American communities have low student enrollment in AP courses in
general; and c) even when Hispanic and African American students attend high schools
with high numbers of students enrolled in AP courses, they are not equally represented in
AP enrollment (Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004).
2

Klugman (2013) echoed those same sentiments. Through the lens of effectively
maintained inequity, Klugman argued that even when schools that serve Hispanic
students do attempt to address the AP course access gap, schools that serve more affluent
students are able to perpetuate the inequalities by expanding their AP programs, usually
at faster rates. This phenomenon prevents, or at least limits, Hispanic students from
accessing AP courses, not because they are not capable, but because fewer courses are
offered and there is no desire or motivation on behalf of the school to offer or prepare
lower socioeconomic status (SES) students for AP coursework, leaving their more
affluent peers at a maintained advantage (Klopfenstein, 2004). It is clear that something
must be done to address this concern, as data have shown that minority students who
succeed in at least one AP exam during high school are as much as four times more likely
to graduate from college than are their peers who do not experience that same success
(Rankin, 2012). With that said, there have been various approaches to addressing this
concern, and the literature has produced many strategies for success and barriers that may
interfere with closing this gap.
Although it would be ideal to pinpoint one specific barrier that impedes Hispanic
students’ access to AP courses, the fact is that numerous institutional, social, and
psychological factors must be considered when addressing this gap. The idea that
multiple barriers to closing the access gap exist is reinforced throughout the literature
(Flores & Gomez, 2011; Vela, Zamarripa, Balkin, Johnson, & Smith, 2013; Walker &
Pearsall, 2012). Flores and Gomez (2011) cited five key barriers that continue to hinder
educators’ efforts to address the AP access gap: a lack of district-wide, curricular, vertical
3

articulation; constraints to the master schedule; budgetary limitations; elitist school
culture; and a lack of parental outreach and understanding of the benefits of AP courses.
Walker and Pearsall (2012) also identified an elitist school culture and the lack of
parental outreach efforts as obstacles preventing Latino students from accessing AP
courses. The qualitative approach taken by Walker and Pearsall brought to light the
phenomenological perspectives of students and parents and found additional barriers:
notions of fear of failure, not fitting in (being the only minority in the class), and the
preference for extrinsic motivation from an adult at school, notably a school counselor.
These findings seem symptomatic of the effects of an elitist school culture on students’
self-efficacy, educational risk taking, and preference of extrinsic motivation over intrinsic
motivation. The final point may be a barrier or a potential solution. The school
counselor’s role was found to be vital to (a) positive change (with high expectations) or
(b) maintaining the status quo (with low expectations), and (c) the experiences students
had in those interactions were found to be a strong predictor of whether Hispanic students
enrolled in AP classes and influenced their success in those classes (Vela et al., 2013;
Walker & Pearsall, 2012). These findings provide valuable insight into the potential
solutions educators may use to address the access gap.
The struggles educational leaders face in addressing the access gap of Hispanic
students have been a recurring theme since the inception of the AP program decades ago
(Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004). Over the years, many have attempted to address the AP
access gap that Hispanic students have experienced. However, when efforts have been
put into action to address this concern, the results have been less than promising. Fontana
4

High School in San Bernardino County is among the most recently documented examples
of a school experiencing this kind of struggle (Flores & Gomez, 2011).
Although the literature does offer some best practices, one theme tends to emerge:
Closing the AP access gap begins with addressing flaws in the school climate and culture.
In a 2009 study, Ohrt, Lambie, and Ieva offered a four-step plan to address the
inequitable access to AP: collaboration with various stakeholders, selecting students who
would likely succeed in an AP course, explaining the expectations and benefits of AP
classes to those students, and individual student planning with a professional school
counselor. Another suggestion was to determine the classes that Hispanic students might
be most successful in based on past grades and trends in AP results (Jara, Slate, Moore, &
Martinez-Garcia, 2014). Flores and Gomez (2011) noted those same practices and added
suggestions in the areas of schedule development and professional development for AP
teachers. Like Ohrt et al. (2009) noted, professional school counselors are in unique
positions to reverse institutional barriers and challenge the deficit thinking that
propagates the access gap in AP (Davis, Davis, & Mobley, 2013). Flores and Gomez
(2011) cautioned decision makers to adequately gauge the school’s culture and
willingness to change prior to implementing programmatic changes. However, those are
not the only barriers to closing the AP access gap for Hispanic students.
Statement of the Problem
The Advanced Placement (AP) program was developed in the 1950s with score
data going back to 1956. The program promises educational experiences including depth
of shared knowledge through critical thinking and debate, collaborative opportunities
with instructors and peers, and growth opportunities now and into the future. Indeed, with
5

an overwhelming number of colleges and universities granting college credit for the
successful completion of AP exams, and with roughly 85% of selective universities
(College Board, 2016a), including the University of Southern California, favoring the AP
experience, it seems as though giving students an opportunity to gain the AP designation
on their transcripts will only make them more competitive candidates for admission to
selective universities. Secondary educational institutions have an obligation to encourage
as many students as possible to take these rigorous courses. The current national data
have revealed that not all students who identify as Hispanic are gaining the AP access
they need to remain competitive with their peers for admission into selective universities,
as an access gap still exists in California despite recent strides to address this issue
(College Board, 2016a). With prior research indicating Hispanic students are not fully
accessing the AP program, it is imperative that educators reflect on and refine the process
to increase the number of Hispanic students enrolling in AP courses.
Purpose of the Study
This study is intended to examine specific phenomenological perspectives seldom
addressed. Previous studies focused on high school students, college freshmen, or parents
(Hébert & Reis, 1999; Vela et al., 2013; Walker & Pearsall, 2012). The efforts of this
study will be focused on obtaining information and insight from high school assistant
principals, principals, and district-level directors instead of college freshmen (Vela et al.,
2013) and sampling a wider variety of those who oversee AP programs, such as
principals and district-level administrators who have knowledge and/or experience with
the AP program and the classes offered (Walker & Pearsall, 2012). While California as a
whole has the largest number of historically underrepresented AP test takers nationally
6

(College Board, 2016b), it is important for this study to gauge what is happening on a
more micro level, between schools in affluent communities and those in areas of lower
socioeconomic status. Despite an immense amount of data regarding underrepresented
groups accessing the AP program nationally, there is a gap in research regarding Hispanic
students’ access in high-percentage areas such as Southern California. For that reason,
this research will focus on the lack of AP access for Hispanic students within three major
counties in Southern California that have large Hispanic populations: Los Angeles
County, Orange County, and the Inland Empire (the area of Southern California
comprising San Bernardino and Riverside counties).
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified
as such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs,
a collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of
developing highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the
USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our
inquiry team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral
candidates, Danny Daher and Ryan D’Errico. We three doctoral students surveyed and
met with high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors in Orange
County, Los Angeles County, and the Inland Empire with the aim of helping the schools
resolve a genuine problem. However, the process for dissecting and resolving the
problem was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three dissertations
produced by our inquiry team collectively address the needs of high schools in Southern
California (see Daher, 2018; R. D’Errico, 2018).
7

Research Questions
This study aims to provide a phenomenological understanding of the efforts and
use of resources of educational leaders attempting to close this opportunity gap and
uncover the obstacles that impede their efforts. It is important for school leaders to know
and understand these factors if they are to adequately support the efforts to address the
access gap. To provide school leaders with insight that may better support their efforts,
the following research questions will guide this study:
1. How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los Angeles County utilizing
their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses?
2. What obstacles are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-
level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing when
addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?
3. What are the best practices utilized by high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’ access to
Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?
4. How are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic students’
access to AP courses?
Theory
The conceptual framework utilized for this study is critical race theory (CRT),
which will be used to guide the process. Critical race theory (CRT) is a theoretical
framework in the social sciences focused upon the application of critical theory, a critical
examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power (Solorzano
8

& Ornelas, 2002). The critical approach taken throughout this inquiry is evident in the
research questions posed as well as the theoretical perspectives through which the study
will be viewed. As such, this study aims to compare access opportunities to AP courses
and offerings, experiences of historically underserved students, and insights from
participants to better understand any underlying factors associated with the access gap
that has plagued AP since its inception. A critical approach was deemed appropriate
because it supports the answers to social justice concerns this study is focused on.
From the critical perspective, two prominent theories will guide the research.
Critical race theory will be used to challenge the dominant culture and its influence on
power and privilege. Some topics covered through critical race theory include oppression,
critical pedagogy, inequality, and prejudices. The theory of effectively maintained
inequity will be used to examine the societal and institutional factors that contribute to
the access gap. This theory scrutinizes barriers such as inadequate funding, unsupportive
school cultures, and an inability to keep pace with more affluent schools and
communities (Klopfenstein, 2004). The research questions were developed as an attempt
to specifically examine those topics guided by the theoretical perspectives and the critical
framework of this inquiry.
Importance of the Study
This problem is important to address, if for no other reason than because
educators have an ethical obligation to provide a viable education to all students (Skrla,
Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004). In this instance, the term viable is viewed through the
lens of admission to selective universities. Hispanic students will benefit from equitable
access to AP courses in multiple ways. Students gain access to more rigorous
9

coursework, improve their probability of admission to selective colleges and universities
(College Board, 2016a), and are much more likely to persist through college and graduate
as compared with their peers who do not enroll in an AP class (Rankin, 2012). As an
outcome, schools stand to benefit as well. Increasing access to AP courses will likely
result in higher A-G completion rates and consequently higher college admission rates
and an increase on state assessments, both key measures of the school’s accountability
practices. Failing to address the current access gap Hispanic students currently experience
in high school only perpetuates the status quo, limits the postsecondary opportunities
Hispanic students have available to them after 4 years of high school, and limits the
growth they may experience on state assessments.
Limitations
The limitations of this study will be time, race, and geography. The time allotted
for this study will be limited to approximately three months during the summer, when
most schools are not in session. During this period, many activities need to take place:
Participants need to be contacted, meetings need to be scheduled, interviews need to be
conducted, and data need to be gathered. This obviously will limit the number of
administrators who oversee their respective AP programs surveyed in the research.
Race is also a limitation. In order to conduct the research in the time constraints,
the focus of this study is on Hispanic students, leaving out other subgroups and their
access to the AP program. While it is acknowledged that students of other ethnic groups,
such as African Americans and Native Americans, face similarly inequitable access to
AP courses, the abundance of Hispanic students in the region presents an opportunity that
cannot be ignored.
10

Geography presents a minor limitation because the research will be focused on
three major counties within California. The data will be limited specifically to Los
Angeles County, Orange County, and the Inland Empire. This study will ignore Southern
California counties such as San Diego, Imperial, and Ventura, all of which also have
significant Hispanic populations.
Finally, the mixed-methods design of the study will present an opportunity to
collect data using interviews, observations, and surveys. The development of those
protocols as well as the subsequent interpretation of the data will be open to a certain
level of bias from the researcher. Although a certain level of bias is expected in
qualitative research, the variety of schools represented in the study may help to offset the
inherent bias.
Delimitations
In light of the aforementioned limitations, this study will provide an analytical
case study of the best practices for educational leaders to increase access of Hispanic
students to AP courses. One delimitation is the assumption that inequitable access is
symptomatic of all schools, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the student body.
Specific attention will be paid to include schools of varying demographics in an effort to
increase the generalizability of the study. Further studies, preferably longitudinal ones
that include counties and ethnicities excluded in this study, with a more robust sample
size may help add validity to this study.
Key Terms and Definitions
The following is a list of key terms and definitions for the current study:
11

● Advanced Placement (AP): A program in the United States and Canada created
by the College Board that offers college-level curricula and examinations to high
school students. American colleges and universities may grant placement and
course credit to students who obtain high scores on the examinations. The AP
curriculum for each of the various subjects is created for the College Board by a
panel of experts and college-level educators in that field of study. For a high
school course to have the AP designation, the course must be audited by the
College Board to ascertain that it satisfies the AP curriculum. If the course is
approved, the school may use the AP designation and the course will be publicly
listed on the AP Course Ledger.
● Affluence: Affluence is not defined as a specific income level for the purposes of
this study. Rather, it is characterized by families who live in communities with
upper-middle-class to upper-class socioeconomic environments and who may
have particular attitudes toward achievement and distinct perceptions about
admission to highly selective colleges.
● California Department of Education (CDE): The governing body for public
education in the state of California.
● Equal Opportunity Schools® organization (EOS): A growth-stage, education-
reform not-for-profit that changes lives and narrows the achievement gap by
collaborating with superintendents and principals to address an inequity in our
schools: underenrollment in the best academic programs, especially of students
who are Latino, African American, or low income. EOS identifies these “missing
students”—who have shown they can succeed at the highest academic levels
12

within their schools—and works to transition them into the best, college-bound
classes.
● High-performing school: A school community with a particular range of median
income, college admission test scores, parent education level, and percentage of
students matriculating to a 4-year college.
● IE: The Inland Empire, which is the geographic area in Southern California that
encompasses Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
● LA: The geographic area that encompasses Los Angeles County.
● Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP): A critical part of the new
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Each school district must engage
parents, educators, employees, and the community to establish these plans (CDE,
2017).
● Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): Accountability. As part of the LCFF,
school districts and charter schools are required to develop, adopt, and annually
update a 3-year Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) using a template
adopted by the California State Board of Education (SBE) (CDE, 2017).
● OC: The geographic area that encompasses Orange County.
● School Accountability Report Card (SARC): A report in which California
public schools annually provide information about themselves to the community,
allowing the public to evaluate and compare schools for student achievement,
environment, resources, and demographics (CDE, 2017).
● Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA): A comprehensive school
document that involves the collection and analysis of student performance data,
13

setting goals for program improvement, and ongoing monitoring of the goals and
results (CDE, 2017).
Organization of the Study
This research study is organized into five chapters: Chapter 1 – Overview of the
Study, Chapter 2 –Review of Literature, Chapter 3 – Methodology, Chapter 4 – Results,
and Chapter 5 – Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Chapter 1 provides
background on the problem, the statement of the problem, and the purpose and
importance of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the existing literature relevant to the problem.
Chapter 3 explains the qualitative methods used for the study, how the sample population
was selected, the instruments designed for data collection, and how data were collected
and analyzed. Chapter 4 details the results and major themes of the research study.
Chapter 5 discusses the major themes in relation to the research and provides
recommendations for application of the major themes to the field of education and for
future areas of study.
14

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 1, a gap exists when examining Hispanic students’ access
to Advanced Placement courses. High-achieving Hispanic students are significantly less
likely to take an AP exam than similarly prepared White and Asian peers are. While
several studies have examined disparities in AP access from a national lens, this study
will focus its efforts on a more localized level. The following section examines the
literature that currently exists on the gap in AP access.
To frame the analysis, this literature review synthesizes available research in
different areas. First, a review of the background and history of the AP program provides
a basic understanding of what it is and how it operates. Second, the uses and benefits of
AP are reviewed to discuss the benefit of having access to AP. Third, AP college
readiness is reviewed to describe how AP prepares one for college. Fourth, AP potential
is discussed. This section includes a review of the validity of Preliminary SAT/National
Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) scores (the measure used in the
current study to identify AP potential) as predictors of AP success. Next, the funding and
accountability based on LCAP/LCFF are reviewed to determine how AP is supported
under the new funding model. Finally, current practices are reviewed to examine what is
currently taking place. This AP access literature gives a foundational base of the larger
context that exists for AP access and the gaps that currently exist.
Background of the Advanced Placement Program
The Advanced Placement (AP) program, administered by the nonprofit
organization the College Board, is one of several opportunities for students to explore
15

and earn college credit within the high school setting. The AP program was first
established in 1950 as a Ford Foundation–funded pilot project. It provides students with
the opportunity to take college-level courses in their high schools, taught by trained high
school teachers (College Board, 2006). Since its inception in 1955–1956, the Advanced
Placement program has expanded significantly. In 1955–1956, 1,229 students
participated in AP courses; in 2015, 2,483,452 students participated in AP with
4,478,936 exams taken, and the numbers of participants are growing every year (College
Board, 2016a).
The Advanced Placement program currently offers 35 college-level courses and
exams in 19 subject areas for highly motivated students in secondary schools. Its
reputation for excellence results from the close cooperation among secondary schools,
colleges, and the College Board, a not-for-profit membership association composed of
more than 4,700 schools, colleges, universities, and other educational organizations.
Through rigorous yearlong or half-year classes, students gain college-level skills and, in
many cases, earn college credit while still in high school. More than 2,900 universities
and colleges worldwide grant credit, advanced placement, or both to students who have
performed satisfactorily on exams. Approximately 13,000 high schools throughout the
world participate in the AP program (College Board, 2014).
A committee of college faculty and high school teachers develops each course
and corresponding end-of-course AP exam and convenes annually in June to grade the
free-response section of the exams. Each exam includes both a multiple-choice section
and a free-response section, with the exception of the Studio Art courses, which are
entirely based on portfolio assessments (College Board, 2012b). Exams are graded on a
16

scale of 1 to 5, with grades of 3 or higher considered to be “passing.” The College Board
determines grade designations by administering AP exams to actual college students and
asserts that a score of 3 is equivalent to a “C,” 4 equivalent to a “B,” and 5 equivalent to
an “A” (Camara, Dorans, Morgan, & Myford, 2000). Students may take an AP course
without taking the culminating AP exam, but colleges will award college credit only if
the students pass the exam with a score of 3 or greater.
From its beginning as a pilot project between about a dozen colleges and seven
high schools, AP has grown to become one of the largest national programs of advanced
study in the United States. In 2015, nearly 2 million students in more than 21,000 schools
took almost 4.4 million AP exams (College Board, 2016a). This participation represents
roughly 16% of the total U.S. high school population of 16 million students and 50% of
the approximately 42,000 public and private schools with secondary grades (College
Board, 2016b). The Advanced Placement program continues to expand and add more
participants every year. Students nationwide are able to expand their opportunities
through a rigorous course load and gain access to college coursework and credit in high
school by passing the examinations.
Uses and Benefits of AP
In its original creation, Advanced Placement was designed for high school
students to begin college-level coursework. It allowed students to demonstrate their
abilities in introductory college subject knowledge while still enrolled in high school.
This provided the platform to avoid unnecessary repetition in college courses and allow
placement directly into intermediate or advanced courses in that related discipline. Many
colleges continue to grant course credit or advanced placement for AP courses today,
17

though these acceptances of AP courses vary depending on the institution. Some colleges
accept credit when a 3 or higher is earned on the AP exam, while other institutions accept
only a 4 or higher (College Board, 2011; Lichten, 2000; Sadler & Tai, 2007).
AP’s credit and placement benefits create numerous opportunities for students if
they obtain the qualifying scores. Students may earn credit that can shorten the time to
degree attainment (e.g., graduating in 3 years rather than 4), which in turn helps with the
costs of college. AP may also allow students to use their years in college to advance
further in their chosen field of study, with some institutions giving students the
opportunity to achieve a combined bachelor’s and master’s degree in 4 years (President
& Fellows of Harvard College, 2009). Some institutions allow students to use their AP
courses to skip core requirements so that they can explore other areas of greater interest
to them. While this potentially appeals to students, it has its critics. According to some
college faculty, students who, for example, never take another college math course
(because their high school AP class allowed them to satisfy the core math requirement)
may miss out on the latest research and practice in a discipline that might have otherwise
sparked an intellectual interest (National Research Council, 2002).
Beyond placement and credit, many colleges also use AP in the admission
process. Some states and institutions grant extra weight to AP courses in calculating a
student’s grade point average (GPA). This allows a student who was successful in his or
her AP courses to earn above a 4.0 GPA, which by general standards is a straight “A”
average. Obtaining above a 4.0 GPA allows students to gain a better opportunity for
college acceptance (College Board, 2011; Lichten, 2000; Sadler & Tai, 2007). The extra
GPA weight directly boosts a student’s grade point average, indirectly increases a
18

student’s class rank, and significantly advantages an AP student in the admissions
process, particularly at institutions such as the University of California that rely on GPA-
based formulas to filter qualified students from very large applicant pools (Geiser &
Santelices, 2004; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009; National Research Council, 2002).
Students in schools that do not offer AP courses are at an automatic disadvantage in these
types of admissions processes. Several class action lawsuits have sought to remedy this
inequity by suing for equal access to AP across high schools, with only limited success
(Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004).
Research has yielded mixed results on the subject regarding the extent to which
AP students take advantage of the shortened time to degree benefits. Several studies have
found that AP students graduate in significantly less time than do students who did not
take AP exams (Morgan & Klaric, 2007). A study of a large cohort of Texas students
found that students who obtained a 3 or higher on at least one AP exam were more likely
to graduate from college in 5 years or less compared with non-AP students (Dougherty,
Mellor, & Jian, 2006). A study of University of California students found that while AP
units were related to reducing time to degree, the relationship was minimal and many
students did not use their AP course units to shorten their time to graduation (Eykamp,
2006). A single institution study from the University of Tennessee at Mason found that
after controlling for pre-entry attributes, there were no significant differences in 5-year
graduation rates among regular, AP, or dual enrollment students. Collectively, the
research has indicated that while AP students, on average, have a shorter time to
graduation, there are significant variations among individual students and institutions.
Colleges that take more holistic approaches to their admission process still
19

consider AP classes as a factor, though in a less mathematical manner. In general, these
institutions look for students who take advantage of the AP opportunities available to
them, evaluating students’ academic record against their schools’ available academic
programs (Morgan & Klaric, 2007). Students who attend high schools that offer AP
courses are thus often judged in part on whether they enrolled in AP courses, with those
who did not enroll being at a disadvantage in the admissions process (College Board,
2011; Lichten, 2000; Sadler & Tai, 2007).
This is especially true when students apply to highly selective universities that
expect all applicants to take the most challenging curriculum available (National
Research Council, 2002). If a student attends a school that does not offer AP courses,
admissions officers report that the lack of AP availability does not typically disadvantage
a student’s admission prospects, as long as the student takes the most demanding courses
available. Some admissions deans, however, have reported that limited advanced
coursework offerings may indirectly affect students because their schools may be
perceived as having less rigorous academic programs (National Research Council, 2002).
Because researchers have found that a rigorous high school curriculum, which includes
the AP program, is the strongest predictor of bachelor’s degree completion (Adelman,
1999, 2006), colleges are less likely to put forth the effort in considering students from
the lower class ranks in academically weaker schools than in schools perceived to have
stronger academic programs (National Research Council, 2002).
In total, 3,239 U.S. colleges and universities received AP scores for credit,
placement, and/or admissions in 2011 (College Board, 2012a), representing roughly 75%
of the United States’ approximately 4,400 degree-granting 2- and 4-year postsecondary
20

institutions (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Given its pervasive role in admissions, credit, and
placement, AP carries weight when it comes to college access. This relationship between
AP and college access is affirmed by research that has indicated AP participants have
higher college enrollment than non-AP students do (Chajewski, Mattern, & Shaw, 2011;
Flowers, 2008; Wyatt & Mattern, 2011).
AP and College Readiness
The literature varies greatly when it comes to AP’s specific relationship to college
success, typically defined in the literature in terms of grades, persistence, or degree
attainment and graduation. Studies have consistently found that AP students have higher
sophomore year retention rates and GPAs (Duffy, 2010; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009;
Mattern, Shaw, & Xiong, 2009; Wyatt & Mattern, 2011), as well as higher graduation
rates (Hargrove, Godin, & Dodd, 2008). However, it is not yet clear whether this
relationship between AP program participation and college success is a causal one.
Research has shown that AP students tend to be higher achieving, more motivated, and in
better-resourced schools than non-AP students (Duffy, 2010).
To isolate the AP program and the value it adds to performance, recent studies
have begun to employ a range of statistical controls for prior academic achievement,
student ability, student characteristics, school-level characteristics, and non-AP
coursework. By applying such controls, at least two studies have found that merely taking
an AP course does not reliably predict college performance (Geiser & Santelices, 2004;
Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009). Instead, the researchers found it matters how well a
student does in the AP course itself. Studies have found that students who score a 3 or
higher on AP exams tend to have higher college performance outcomes when compared
21

with non-AP students or AP students who fail AP exams (Geiser & Santelices, 2004;
Hargrove et al., 2008; Keng & Dodd, 2008; Mattern et al., 2009; Morgan & Klaric, 2007;
Sadler & Sonnert, 2010; Scott, Tolson, & Lee, 2010).
Identifying AP Potential
Conceptually, the educational community agrees that, given the challenging and
often fast-paced nature of AP courses, AP success requires that students be prepared for
the rigors of the course and motivated to put in the additional time and effort it will
demand. The question that arises is: What are the procedures or measures that can
determine if one will be successful in AP? Schools frequently answer this question
through local measures such as prior grades, prior coursework, and teacher
recommendations (Milewski & Gillie, 2002; National Research Council, 2002). While
high school GPA correlates with AP exam scores (Sadler & Sonnert, 2010), researchers
have not yet rigorously explored the predictive validity of teacher recommendations. We
also do not know if these measures sufficiently identify all students or if one is tracking a
certain type of student who can be successful based on these measures. They likely
underestimate the number of students with AP potential, given early curricular tracking
that limits lower-tracked students’ opportunities to gain and demonstrate prerequisite
academic knowledge (National Research Council, 2002). Variation in course quality and
grading policies across schools and the level of subjectivity from both teacher
recommendations and school policy undermine the determination of whether one can be
successful in AP by one single measure or specific cut line for students’ access to AP
courses. To supplement these local means of identifying students and identify a possible
national barometer of AP potential, the College Board conducted two large-scale national
22

studies examining the relationship between PSAT/NMSQT scores and eventual
performance on AP exams (College Board, 2012a).
The College Board has done an extensive amount of research on the concept of
AP potential and measuring certain indicators to predict a student’s potential success in
AP classes and probability of passing the exam. According to the College Board, AP
Potential is an educational guidance tool that uses PSAT/NMSQT scores to identify
students who have the potential to do well on one or more Advanced Placement exams.
Students identified as having AP potential, perhaps students who would not have been
otherwise identified, should consider enrolling in the corresponding AP course if they
have the interest and motivation to do so. To date, several studies have been conducted to
evaluate the validity of using PSAT/NMSQT scores to predict success on AP exams
(Camara & Millsap, 1998; Ewing, Camara, & Millsap, 2006; Ewing, Camara, Millsap, &
Milewski, 2007). Results have shown that PSAT/NMSQT scores were moderately to
strongly correlated with scores on most AP exams and that self-reported high school
grade point average (HSGPA), grades in related subjects, and total years of study in
related subjects accounted for very little additional variance in AP exam performance
once PSAT/NMSQT performance was taken into account (College Board, 2016b).
Historically, AP Potential has used PSAT/NMSQT scores to identify students
who are likely to earn a 3 or higher on a specific AP exam—based on research showing
moderate to strong relationships between PSAT/NMSQT scores and AP exam scores
(Camara & Millsap, 1998; Ewing et al., 2006; Zhang, Patel, & Ewing, 2014). For most
subjects, AP Potential expectancy tables have been derived by combining 10th- and 11th-
grade PSAT/NMSQT data with scores from AP exams taken as either 11th or 12th
23

graders during the following academic year (College Board, 2016b).
A benefit of using AP Potential is that it includes race/ethnicity data that can help
schools, districts, and states support access to college for all students, including African
American, Latino, and Native American students, who are less likely than their White
and Asian peers to be enrolled in AP classes for which they have shown potential
(College Board, 2016b).
According to the College Board, the methodology used to develop prior versions
of AP Potential was empirical; that is, it involved pooling test data across schools and
computing expectancy tables showing the percentage of test takers earning passing scores
on AP exams at various levels of PSAT/NMSQT performance. Today, the research is
two-fold. The first approach is to switch from the empirical approach of building
expectancy tables to the use of logistic regression models. Logistic regression models
allow for more flexibility should, for example, there be a desire to evaluate and
incorporate additional variables that may be important to consider when predicting AP
exam performance (College Board, 2016b). In addition, logistic regression models can be
used to determine the PSAT/NMSQT score associated with a particular probability of
success (e.g., 50%, 70%), which is in contrast to the previously used empirical approach
that yielded the raw percentage of students achieving success on a particular AP exam for
each PSAT/NMSQT score category (College Board, 2016b).
As the Advanced Placement program continues to expand, the ways to determine
predictors are expanding. For years, the predictors for success were subjective and
assessed one type of student. Today, multiple forms of measurement, including the
PSAT/NMSQT, measure AP potential, and College Board continues to refine and align
24

AP predictors with research and indicators for potential success. Continually updating
research and methods to predict AP potential will give more students access to AP
courses and can help determine whether they will be successful.
Barriers to AP Access
If education is, in fact, the great equalizer, it becomes paramount to ensure access
to and success in academically rigorous courses. Solorzano and Ornelas (2004), using the
framework of critical race theory, found three recurring themes in their work: a) Hispanic
students are disproportionately underrepresented in AP enrollment in general; b) schools
that serve urban, low-income Hispanic communities have low student enrollment
throughout their AP courses; and c) even when Hispanic students attend high schools
with high numbers of students enrolled in AP courses, they are not equally represented in
AP enrollment, a phenomenon they dubbed “Schools within Schools” (Solorzano &
Ornelas, 2004).
Klugman (2013) echoed those same sentiments through a different paradigm.
Through the lens of effectively maintained inequity, Klugman argued that even when
schools that serve Hispanic students do attempt to close the access gap to AP courses or
expand their AP programs, schools that serve more affluent students are able to
perpetuate the inequalities by expanding their AP programs, and typically at faster rates
than do schools that serve lower-income students (Klugman, 2013). Among the concerns
with this phenomenon is that data have shown that Hispanic students who succeed in at
least one AP exam during high school are as much as four times more likely to graduate
from college than are their peers who do not experience that same success (Rankin,
2012). With that said, there have been various approaches to addressing this concern, and
25

the literature has produced many strategies for success and barriers that may interfere
with closing this gap.
Although it would be ideal to pinpoint one specific barrier that impedes Hispanic
students’ access to AP courses, the fact is that numerous institutional, social, and
psychological factors must be considered when addressing this gap. The idea that
multiple barriers exist to closing the access gap has been reinforced throughout the
literature. Flores and Gomez (2011) cited five key barriers that continue to hinder
educators’ efforts to address the AP access gap: a lack of district-wide vertical
articulation, constraints to the master schedule, budgetary limitations, elitist school
culture, and a lack of parental outreach and understanding of the benefits of AP courses.
Walker and Pearsall (2012) also cited elitist school cultures and the lack of
parental outreach efforts, noted among Flores and Gomez’s barriers, as being among the
obstacles preventing Hispanic students from accessing AP courses. The qualitative
approach taken by Walker and Pearsall brought to light the psychological and
phenomenological perspectives of students and parents and found additional barriers,
including notions of fear of failure, not fitting in (being the only minority in the class),
and the preference for extrinsic motivation from an adult at school, notably a school
counselor or teacher. These findings seem symptomatic of the effects of an elitist school
culture on students’ self-efficacy, educational risk taking, and the preference of extrinsic
motivation over intrinsic motivation. The mere existence or perception of an elitist school
culture has been shown to produce a defeatist subculture that leaves capable Hispanic
students achieving below their potential. The school counselor’s role in particular was
found to be especially vital to (a) positive change (with high expectations) or (b)
26

maintaining the status quo (with low expectations), and (c) the experiences students have
from those interactions was found to be a strong predictor of whether Hispanic students
enrolled in AP classes and to influence their success in those classes (Vela et al., 2013;
Walker & Pearsall, 2012). These findings provide valuable insight into some potential
solutions educators may use to address some of the psychological or social barriers
deterring Hispanic students from AP courses.
As previously stated, institutional barriers also exist that limit or impede the rate
at which Hispanic students access AP courses. Among those cited, Flores and Gomez
(2011) highlighted a lack of curricular vertical articulation as an impediment to closing
the access gap. In fact, that argument was supported by an earlier study that suggested
that pre-high school achievement is one of the most important factors explaining the
disparities in advanced course enrollment for Hispanic students (Klopfenstein, 2004). To
further support the relationship between pre-high school achievement and AP
availability, Iatarola, Conger, and Long (2011) determined that having a sizable number
of students with high middle school achievement scores was the strongest predictor of
whether a school offered AP courses. In other words, students’ achievement prior to high
school influences AP access in two ways: 1) an individual student’s likelihood of
accessing an AP class and 2) that school’s decision to even offer AP courses in the first
place.
Another form of an institutional barrier is the school itself, namely, its size (which
can be fixed due to location, population, capacity, etc.) and its policies (a more kinetic
variable that can be changed and adjusted). Larger schools tend to have the ability to
offer a more comprehensive variety of AP courses (Iatarola et al., 2011; Klopfenstein,
27

2004), while schools that are smaller and/or rural are likely to offer a more limited
selection of AP courses (Klopfenstein, 2004). However, the “Schools within Schools”
idea is reinforced by the fact that increased AP course availability does not equate to
equal AP access for Hispanic students (Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004).
School policies play a significant role in determining equal (or unequal)
opportunities afforded to Hispanic students to engage in AP coursework. Two major
school decisions affect students’ access to AP courses: 1) what AP courses to offer, if
any, and 2) the processes and practices used to identify and enroll students in AP courses.
Clearly, students who attend schools that do not offer AP courses face increased
challenges in accessing the AP curriculum. However, schools that do offer AP courses
typically have in place policies and/or procedures to determine access to AP courses.
These practices have been shown to limit access to AP courses and act more as
gatekeepers from AP. Prerequisites are among the most common form of requirements
schools have placed on students seeking access to AP courses. The National Research
Council (2002) found that schools employ various prerequisites including PSAT scores,
grades of A’s in prior courses, teacher recommendations, and evidence of strong
motivation and study habits. These all oppose the College Board’s policy of open access
to AP courses (College Board, 2016b). This has led many to ask what has been done to
address the AP access gap.
Funding and Accountability for AP
California’s major transformation of its education system has begun with a new
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which allocates money more equitably to school
districts and changes the way the state will evaluate school and district performance. A
28

new multiple measures system of indicators will be the basis for evaluating the results of
investments and guiding a process of continuous improvement (Bae & Darling-
Hammond, 2014). Within the new funding model, a major goal is to increase access for
the underserved population. Districts are also responsible for providing a Local Control
and Accountability Plan (LCAP) that describes how the district will provide these
services and access for the students that district serves. This provides transparency on
how the district will be spending its funding.
California educates one in every eight public school students in the United States.
Those one in eight are, on average, among the nation’s most challenging. More than half
of the state’s 6 million students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, and a quarter of
all students are English language learners (ELLs) (CDE, 2017). Under LCFF, the largest
state in the country has now adopted a weighted funding system based on the notion that
students with greater need require more resources to have the same opportunities to
achieve meaningful outcomes. Though failing to address adequacy, California’s new
school funding formula seeks to organize the state’s K–12 resources around an equity
principle as called for by the new accountability. When LCFF is fully implemented, each
district and charter school will receive the same standard per-pupil amount as part of its
“base” funding and similar weights for high-need students, known in the statute as
“unduplicated students” and defined as those qualifying for free and reduced-price meals,
ELLs, and foster youth (CDE, 2017). This standardization rationalizes the prior system,
which had grown increasingly complex, irrational, and inequitable over the last four
decades to the point where districts of similar size and demographics received
significantly disparate amounts of funding (Delahaye, 2016).
29

At full implementation, currently projected for the 2020–2021 school year,
LCFF’s weighted funding will provide districts and charters “supplemental grant”
funding equal to 20% of the base amount for each high-need student and an additional
“concentration grant” equal to 50% of the base for each high-need student over a
threshold population of 55% high-need students. Thus, at full implementation, a district
that has 100% high-need students will receive 1.425 times the funding of a similar-sized
district that has no high-need students (CDE, 2017).
Over the last 50 years, categorical programs proliferated in California. With them
came myriad rules and requirements from the state for each separate pot of funding and
corresponding administrative burdens for tracking and reporting. Prior to LCFF,
categorical state funding accounted for more than 30% of a typical district’s funding.
LCFF eliminated the great majority of the state’s dozens of categorical programs and
devolved to districts and charters the responsibility to spend those funds according to
local determinations (Wolf & Sands, 2016). LCFF is broken down into eight state
priorities: basic services, implementation of state-adopted standards, parent involvement,
student engagement, school climate, course access, student achievement, and other
student outcomes (CDE, 2017).
With the focus of LCFF on increasing opportunities for the underserved
demographics, as well as increasing college and career readiness, there is a push to
increase those subgroup students in AP classes. In 2013–2014, 25% of California’s public
11th and 12th graders took at least one AP exam, up from 15% in 2004 (College Board,
2014). All major demographic groups have experienced a steady increase in AP
participation. Most notably, the share of Hispanic students taking at least one AP exam
30

has risen from 11% in 2003–2004 to 19% in 2013–2014.
Current Practices to Address AP Access
The struggles educational leaders face in addressing the AP course access gap
have been a recurring theme since the inception of the AP program decades ago
(Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004). Over the years, many have attempted to address the AP
access gap that Hispanic students have experienced. However, when efforts have been
put into action to address this concern, the results have been less than promising.
Although the literature does offer some best practices, one major theme tends to emerge:
Closing the AP access gap begins with addressing flaws in the school climate and culture.
Professional school counselors are in unique positions to reverse institutional barriers and
challenge the deficit thinking that propagates the access gap in AP (Davis et al., 2013;
Ohrt et al., 2009). Flores and Gomez (2011) also cautioned decision makers to adequately
gauge the school’s culture and willingness to change prior to implementing programmatic
changes.
In their 2009 study, Ohrt et al. offered a four-step plan to address the inequitable
access to AP: collaboration with various stakeholders, selecting students who would
likely succeed in an AP course, explaining the expectations and benefits of AP classes to
those students, and individual student planning with a professional school counselor.
Another suggestion was to determine the classes that Hispanic students might be most
successful in based on past grades and trends in AP results (Jara et al., 2014). Flores and
Gomez (2011) noted those same practices and added suggestions in the areas of schedule
development and professional development for AP teachers.
Billig, Jaime, Abrams, Fitzpatrick, and Kendrick (2005) studied four large
31

comprehensive public high schools that serve large percentages of minority students in
different locations around the country. The schools they studied had either closed or
greatly reduced the access and achievement gap among their minority students and their
white peers. The four schools shared some common themes, including 1) a strong,
collaborative school culture that fosters high expectations for all students, supports
students to meet expectations, and emphasizes accountability; 2) focused curriculum and
instruction that is standards based and incorporates engaging pedagogy; and 3) strong
leadership that supported students and teachers through challenging changes (Billig et al.,
2005).
Conclusion
The Advanced Placement program has grown exponentially over the years, and
although access to AP has increased significantly over the last two decades, it has not
expanded equally for all. Hispanic students continue to be underrepresented in the ranks
of successful AP students. This may be due to pre-high school disparities in academic
learning opportunities and achievement or because of Hispanic students’ psychological
social barriers of insecurity or fitting in. Regardless of the reasons, even if Hispanic
students are prepared, they are more likely to encounter various barriers when they get to
the high school level, making them less likely to take the AP course for which they have
demonstrated potential (Flores & Gomez, 2011; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004; Walker &
Pearsall, 2012).
Ultimately, the literature on AP’s uses and benefits is clear. Participation in AP
courses, specifically successful AP participation demonstrated by a passing score on the
end-of-course AP exam (3 or higher on a 5-point scale), is as meaningful today as it ever
32

has been. It carries substantial value for students and their parents when it comes to
college access and success. It is important for educators and schools in terms of
accountability, perceived quality, national rank, and the different degrees of benefits or
losses that come with a positive or negative performance in those areas. It is vital to the
continued existence of and belief in the American Dream, for all. Yet today, thousands of
students with the potential to succeed in AP courses are not engaging in these advanced
classes.
School leaders at all levels of administration have been engaged in the ongoing
struggle to close or eliminate the AP access gap for years. They have endured challenging
changes to their school climate and culture, helped teachers develop more culturally
relevant and engaging pedagogy, and struggled to procure the resources their schools
needed to address the gap (Billig et al., 2005; Jara et al., 2014; Ohrt et al., 2009). These
change agents have worked tirelessly, and their results speak for themselves (Billig et al.,
2005).
Over the past few years, the educational landscape in California has changed
significantly. Most of the research in this study was conducted in the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) era. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have since replaced
NCLB’s standards. California has adopted the Local Control Funding Formula in
conjunction with the Local Control and Accountability Plan. It is possible that the LCAP,
with its focus on course access, school climate, and parental engagement (among other
priorities), has forced schools and their leaders to adjust their practices and pay closer
attention to equitable AP access. Perhaps the LCFF, a funding formula based on equity,
has allowed school leaders at all levels to invest additional resources to support teachers
33

and students in closing the access gap. Has the shift from NCLB to CCSS brought about
new and exciting curricula and pedagogy or unforeseen barriers? Could there be
alternative or innovative approaches school leaders are using that deserve to be
highlighted and shared?
There is no research to shed light on how the new academic standards, funding
formula, and system of accountability have affected Hispanic students’ access to AP
courses. In light of those changes, different or new barriers may be present that require
different practices to continue to work toward equity. This study aims to shed a light on
the current state of equitable access Hispanic students have to AP courses. However, of
particular concern are any new obstacles school leaders are facing when trying to achieve
equity and the practices that have grown to address those newfound challenges. This
study will serve as another step in the advancement of equitable practices while also
generating practical suggestions that will guide and inform future action.
34

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Chapter 3 outlines the purpose and design of the research study, identifies the
participants, clarifies how the data will be collected and analyzed, and explains the
instruments used to conduct the research. The purpose of this study is to examine
Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County, Orange
County, and the Inland Empire. Southern California represents one of the largest
concentrations of Hispanic students in the country, providing a rich opportunity to
examine the topics of AP access and equity in this microgeographic level. This then
encourages questions like the ones posed in this study.
Purpose of the Study
This study is intended to examine specific phenomenological perspectives
seldom addressed. Previous studies focused on high school students, college freshmen, or
parents (Hébert & Reis, 1999; Vela et al., 2013; Walker & Pearsall, 2012). The efforts of
this study will be focused on obtaining information and insight from high school assistant
principals, principals, and district-level directors, instead of college freshmen, regarding
the AP access gap and strategies to close this gap (Vela et al., 2013). This study will
sample a wider variety of those who oversee AP programs, such as assistant principals,
principals, and district-level administrators who have knowledge of and/or experience
with the AP program and the classes offered (Walker & Pearsall, 2012).
The College Board acknowledged that California as a whole has the largest
number of historically underrepresented AP test takers nationally (College Board,
2016b). It is important for this study to gauge what is happening on a more micro level,
35

between schools in affluent communities and those in areas considered to be of lower
socioeconomic status, because there is minimal current research on what strategies exist
at this level. Despite an immense amount of data generated through the College Board
regarding underrepresented groups accessing the AP program nationally, there is a gap in
research regarding Hispanic students’ access in high-percentage areas such as Southern
California. According to the College Board, in the 2015–2016 school year, the number of
Hispanic AP participants in California equaled 163,834, with a mean score of 2.43, with
White participants equaling 103,102 participants with a mean score of 3.20. The
California Department of Education reported that in the 2015–2016 school year, the
number of Hispanic students in California equaled 3,360,562 at the high school level,
which is 53.97% of the population. Whites equated to 1,500,932 students at the high
school level, which is 24.10%. White students comprised nearly half of the AP
participation rate while equating to less than half of the student population in the state of
California (CDE, 2016). For that reason, this research will focus on the lack of AP access
for Hispanic students within three major areas in Southern California that have high
numbers of Hispanic students: Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the Inland
Empire.
Research Questions
This study will aim to provide a phenomenological understanding of the efforts of
educational leaders attempting to close this opportunity gap and their use of resources
and uncover the obstacles that impede their efforts. It is important for school leaders to
know and understand these factors if they are to adequately support the efforts to address
the access gap. In an attempt to provide school leaders with insight that may better
36

support their efforts, the following research questions will guide this study:
1. How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los Angeles County utilizing
their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses?
2. What obstacles are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-
level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing when
addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?
3. What are the best practices utilized by high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’ access to
Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?
4. How are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic students’
access to AP courses?
This study will be designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative
and quantitative methods to collect and analyze the data. The study will be conducted
with California public high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors at both high- and low-performing districts within Orange County, the Inland
Empire, and Los Angeles County. The study will involve the collection of qualitative
data from open-ended interview questions and quantitative surveys with district and site-
level administrators overseeing the Advanced Placement program. Conducting interviews
and surveys will allow a triangulation between the survey results and interviews, which
will aim to substantiate the findings of this research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
37

Qualitative Methods
Qualitative research is intended to provide a phenomenological understanding of a
given research problem from the perspective of the population involved. There are many
reasons that support the use of qualitative methods for this inquiry. First, and foremost,
this study will not be looking for causation. Rather, this study will be aimed at
understanding the experiences of school administrators, principals, assistant principals,
and district directors, and the lessons and practices they have adopted in light of these
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Moreover, because each participant will differ in
some way from the others (gender, age, experience, ethnicity, etc.) and will work in a
different school culture, climate, and student demographic, each participant will have a
differing interpretation of his or her individual experiences (Maxwell, 2013).
Furthermore, because qualitative research is grounded in process theory, this study will
look for the connections among people, situations, and events and provide an analysis of
the influence these can have on others (Maxwell, 2013). Also, qualitative methods will
offer a means for the researcher to provide complex contextual descriptions of school
leaders’ experiences with the AP access gap as well as a rationale for new practices. The
phenomenological nature of this study will benefit greatly from the basic tenets of
qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher will utilize semistructured interviews in conducting this qualitative
research study. Through interviews, the researcher will be able to gather data that reflect
the participants’ opinions, perspectives, knowledge, and rationales, which will be critical
to understanding their perceptions of equity and access and how to best address the gap.
Those perspectives, rationales, and practices will address and answer the research
38

questions. Ultimately, it is the potential of each participant to contribute to the
development of clearer understanding and insight that is the critical factor in conducting
interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The interview questions will be written to ensure that they target the research
questions and reflect the conceptual framework. These in-person interviews will be
conducted by the researcher and will be approximately 45 minutes in length. The
interview protocol will be developed by the researcher and will consist of 10 open-ended
questions. The interview protocol will be followed consistently throughout each
interview, but additional questions may be asked when clarification is needed. While a
predetermined protocol is critical to ensuring consistency, the researcher may need to ask
follow-up questions to gain further clarity or deeper understanding from the respondent
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Follow-up questions will be a critical part of the interview
process, as probes can allow for clarification and deeper understanding of the responses
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As stated already, interviews will be semistructured, thus
providing the researcher with the ability to ask said follow-up or probing questions. This
semistructured setting will allow the researcher to deviate from the exact order of the
questions and the wording of each question, and even include jargon that all participants
may be familiar with (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol, including the
follow-up questions, can be found in Appendix B.
Quantitative Method
For this study, quantitative data will be gathered via a survey as well as statistical
data provided by the College Board, the official site for the AP program. The survey will
be administered on Surveymonkey.com with a total of 24 questions (Appendix A). The
39

survey questions will focus on all four research questions and will be created based on
the review of the literature and focused on answering the research questions. The survey
will be designed to gather opinions, beliefs, and practices from the district and school
administrators, thus providing the researcher with numerical descriptions. Creswell
(2008) proposed several tips for creating exceptional surveys, including using meaningful
questions for the respondents with standard language and wording. Lastly, leading words
and phrases will be avoided, and the questions will be field tested by other educational
administrators first.
Question types within the survey will include structured responses and open-
ended prompts, allowing the selected administrators to discuss and explain answers
related to the research questions. Part 1 of the survey will address demographic questions
of the participants, including background information and current job status, specifically
how it relates to Advanced Placement. Part 2 of the survey will consist of Likert-type
scale questions using the following descriptors for responses: strongly disagree, disagree,
neutral, agree, and strongly agree. Part 3 of the survey will allow survey participants to
volunteer for the in-person interview.
The survey instrument will be emailed to at least 80 California public high school
principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors, utilizing Surveymonkey.com,
and the number of responses returned will be calculated. The survey will also include a
cover letter (Appendix C), survey questions (Appendix A), and final instructions
(Appendix D). To increase participation in the survey, respondents will be promised an
executive summary of the findings upon completion of the research study and an
explanation of why these data were gathered. A pilot survey will be administered
40

beforehand to determine efficiency of time and clarity of the questions that the
respondents will be given.
Sample and Population
For this study, purposeful and convenience sampling was deemed most
appropriate, as it assumes the researcher is seeking understanding and insight (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) aligned convenience sampling more with quantitative
research; the ease of access to credible school administrators working with the AP
program provides an opportunity to explore the topic from a familiar paradigm. The
researcher will exploit the benefits of the convenient, purposeful sampling model to
assess participants who would be best equipped with the experiences that best answer the
research questions.
The five interview respondents, all public high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors who oversee the AP program, were deemed
appropriate candidates for this study as their experiences enable them to provide candid
and poignant feedback and insight into the core of the research questions. They were
selected from various school sites and districts that span the geographic, demographic,
and performance landscape of the research topic.
An explanation of the research study will be given in both the survey and
interview, including an explanation of the topic and the purpose of the study. The
respondents will be told that the study is a voluntary opportunity to provide information
and that all responses and interviews will be confidential. The actual names of the
schools will not be utilized in the research study, and any information that could possibly
identify the school campus will be changed. Given the research topic, it is critical that
41

respondents feel confident about the high level of confidentiality, allowing for their open
and honest responses.
Instrumentation
Survey and interview questions will be specifically designed for this study after
analyzing the current literature and identifying gaps in research. The survey inventory
will be field tested beforehand in one school district in each area (Inland Empire, Orange
County, and Los Angeles County). The field test will be designed to test for biases and to
validate the survey questioning accuracy of data. The field test will also ensure that the
survey can be finished within the given time and that the results generated by the survey
address the research study and proposed questions. The survey instruments will be tested
on school site administration and district administrators who are overseeing the AP
program. Adjustments to the instrument and interview questions will be made based upon
the input of those individuals.
The researcher will design a semistructured interview protocol to uncover how the
public high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors are
addressing the AP access gaps that currently exist. The interview will consist of a mix of
more or less structured interview, with the largest part of the interview to be guided by a
list of questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol is also designed to be
open and unbiased in the approach, with the hope of getting an honest viewpoint about
the current practices surrounding the AP access gaps for Hispanic students. The intention
of the interview protocol is to discover the current and best practices for addressing the
AP access gap Hispanic students currently face. The interview structures will be focused
42

on what school leaders are doing to address these gaps and not focused on the gaps that
currently exist.
Data Collection
Survey participants will be initially contacted via an email providing them a
summary of the purpose of the research study as well as a link to take an online survey.
Participants will require approximately 5–10 minutes to complete the online survey.
Given that a high response rate is critical in achieving reliable results (Creswell, 2008),
constant monitoring of completed surveys will be needed to ensure an adequate number
of respondents. Follow-up emails will be sent to request participants’ completion of the
survey as needed. A second email will be sent approximately two to three weeks after the
initial email to prospective participants who have not yet completed the survey. A third
email will be sent two weeks after the follow-up email as a final effort to procure
additional responses. After each participant completes the survey, a thank-you email will
be sent.
For the interviews, principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors will
be purposefully selected to ensure a diverse group of educational leaders in terms of
leadership roles, experience, gender, and ethnicity. Participants will be identified through
the online survey, as respondents will be asked if they would be willing to participate in
an interview. Once they are identified, the researcher will make initial phone calls to high
school administrators to conduct a total of five interviews. During this call, the researcher
will identify the purpose of the call and research study, before establishing an
appointment for the interview. An email restating the purpose of the interview and
providing the questions in advance of the meeting will be sent to each participant. The
43

interviews will take place in the office of the participants to ensure their comfort level
and confidentiality. With permission from the participants, the interviews will be
recorded to ensure the engagement of the researcher in the interview process while still
allowing for the accurate and thorough gathering of data (Creswell, 2008). Recordings
will then be transcribed for data analysis and coding.
Data Analysis
This is a mixed-method study that will use quantitative data from the surveys and
the College Board and qualitative data from the interviews. Every aspect of the survey
and interview protocols will be directly linked to the four research questions. Per the
recommendations of several expert researchers (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009), every effort will be made to start data analysis immediately following
data collection.
Once the data are collected from the online questionnaire, the College Board, and
interviews, separate reports will be created to document findings related to the research
questions from each data source. Through the process of triangulation, the findings from
all three data sources will be compared with each other and combined to link common
trends. From there, the findings will be linked to the current literature and the theoretical
framework of this study as a method of connecting the findings within these larger
perspectives. This process will allow the researcher to uncover convergent and divergent
findings (Creswell, 2013). Lastly, the researcher will analyze quantitative and qualitative
data to identify the key strategies and practices that district and school administrators are
using to allow more access for Hispanic students to successfully complete the AP classes
and program.
44

Figure 1. Triangulation of findings. From Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Method Approaches (4th ed., p. 201), by J. Creswell, 2013, London: Sage.
Copyright 2013 by Sage Publications.

Quantitative Data Analysis
Through the online survey and the College Board website (which provides
statistical data for the Advanced Placement program), data will be collected and analyzed
based on the four outlined research questions. The researcher will rely on descriptive
statistics to interpret the survey data and connect the quantitative data to the qualitative
data and research. Moreover, overt and covert interpretations of themes will be inferred
from the quantitative data to support or contradict qualitative data and research.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Creswell (2013) presented a five-step framework that will be used to interpret and
code the qualitative data gathered from the interviews and open-ended survey questions.
Transcriptions of the interviews, along with the accompanying notes, will be evaluated to
identify overall key and common findings. The first step will be to transcribe the
45

interview data. The second step will be to arrange all the transcribed data to identify
initial impressions. The third step will be to categorize the data into larger themes using
the four research questions as a guide. The fourth step will be to code the data with labels
that represent each individual research question. The fifth step will be identifying final
themes for each research question and organizing them with descriptive visual aids,
tables, and detailed narrative passages (Creswell, 2013).
To ensure that the data are coded accurately, the transcripts of the survey results
and interviews will be read and evaluated several times. The researcher will tag, label,
and organize information into categories. This inductive process of analysis will immerse
the researcher in the data to identify key findings and themes about how educators are
addressing Hispanic students’ access to AP courses (Creswell, 2013). After a systematic
method of coding the data, a visual model of the themes and emerging theory will be
constructed.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations will be followed during the design of this study as well as
the follow-through of the research. All University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) guidelines and procedures will be followed. All participants will
consent to participate in the study, and all will be informed of the purpose and nature of
the research. Confidentiality and anonymity of all participants in the study will be strictly
adhered to.
46

Summary
This chapter presented the quantitative and qualitative methodologies, including
the rankings of the outcomes and the correlation within responses, in order to answer the
overarching questions:
1. How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los Angeles County utilizing
their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses?
2. What obstacles are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-
level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing when
addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?
3. What are the best practices utilized by high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’ access to
Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?
4. How are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic students’
access to AP courses?
Chapter 4 will present the findings of this research study, with conclusions and
implications for practice.

47

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Introduction
This study was designed to examine the perceptions and practices of high school
assistant principals, high school principals, and district-level directors associated with the
Advanced Placement program at their schools or in their districts. This study utilized a
mixed-methods research design to answer the following questions related to enrolling
Hispanic students in Advanced Placement (AP) courses:
1. How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los Angeles County utilizing
their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses?
2. What obstacles are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-
level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing when
addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?
3. What are the best practices utilized by high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’ access to
Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?
4. How are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic students’
access to AP courses?
In Phase 1 of the study, an online survey with Likert survey questions was used to
collect quantitative data. Phase 2 of the study used interviews to collect qualitative data.
This chapter contains an overview of the study participants and an analysis of the data in
each research question of the study.
48

Study Participants
The participants in this study were district-level directors, principals, and assistant
principals who oversee the Advanced Placement (AP) programs at their respective
schools. The participants were from four school districts in Los Angeles County. Three
districts were unified districts serving grades TK–12, and one was a high school district.
The enrollment of high school students in the four districts were 19,000, 4,270, 5,841,
and 1,785 students. In total, 12 comprehensive high schools were included in the study.
The survey was sent to 28 participants: 12 principals, 12 assistant principals, and four
district-level directors. Table 1 represents the demographic data gathered from the 28
survey participants.

Table 1
Participants of Study
Administrative level
No. invited to
participate No. participated
% participated of
study
Overall 28 17 61%
District director 4 3 17.5%
Principal 12 6 35%
Assistant principal 12 8 47%

The survey had a 61% (n = 17) response rate. Of the 17 participants, 17.5% (n =
3) were district-level directors, 35% were high school principals (n = 6), and 47% (n = 8)
were assistant principals. One participant (6%) had been an educator for 10 years or
fewer, 24% (n = 4) had been practicing between 11 and 15 years, 47% (n = 8) had been
practicing between 16 and 20 years, and 24% (n = 4) had been educators for more than 21
49

years. Of the 17 participants, 12% (n = 2) identified as African American, 6% (n = 1) as
Asian American, and 18% (n = 3) as Hispanic or Latino. Another 18% (n = 3) identified
as other, and 65% (n = 11) identified as Caucasian. Five of the 17 participants who took
the online survey were interviewed. Three of the interviewees were male, two of the five
(40%) were principals, and three (60%) were district-level directors. All ethnicities and
levels of experience were represented. Tables 2 and 3 provide demographic data from
participating districts and schools.

Table 2
Participating District Demographic
District
name
No. of
high
schools Ethnic breakdown
Hispanic African A. White Asian A. Other
District 1 7 59% 17.5% 16% 2% 4%
District 2 2 93.6% 4.9% -- -- 2%
District 3 2 17% 3% 13% 61% --
District 4 1 59.6% 9% 22.6% 3.2% 5.6%

50

Table 3
Demographics of Participating Schools
School
name
Enroll-
ment EL SWD SED Hisp. African White Asian Other
District 1
1 1,770 13.6% 20.3% 82.4% 53.0% 33.4% 8.2% 0.4% 5.0%
2 2,423 13.8% 13.5% 72.6% 54.6% 30.3% 12.3% 0.4% 2.4%
3 3,146 9.8% 10.8% 27.4% 29.4% 11.7% 50.7% 3.8% 4.4%
4 3,235 24.4% 13.5% 50.7% 52.2% 15.5% 20.1% 2.8% 9.4%
5 2,442 19.9% 13.1% 49.2% 44.3% 21.3% 25.8% 1.9% 6.7%
6 3,413 17.7% 14.5% 67.9% 71.3% 16.6% 8.4% 0.7% 3.0%
7 2,668 14.4% 19.3% 82.7% 74.1% 16.1% 5.8% 0.3% 1.1%
District 2
8 2,351 19.7% 8.5% 96.6% 91.8% 7.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
9 1,919 17.8% 9.3% 98.0% 94.8% 4.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2%
District 3
10 3,061 6.9% 6.1% 11.0% 17.4% 2.9% 11.0% 62.9% 5.8%
11 2,780 7.7% 7.7% 16.4% 25.9% 2.7% 8.3% 53.5% 9.6%
District 4
12 1,785 4.6% 10.1% 52.9% 58.5% 8.6% 25.0% 3.0% 4.9%

Data Analysis
The Likert scale survey questions, offering response options ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree, were aimed at ascertaining a contextual
understanding of both perceptions and best practices of practicing educational leaders
today. Descriptive statistics and frequency charts were used to describe the quantitative
findings from the survey.
51

Research Question 1
Research question 1 was “How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los
Angeles County utilizing their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP
courses?”
As outlined in Chapter 2, California recently underwent a major transformation of
its education system when it introduced the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF),
which allocates money more equitably to school districts and changes the way the state
will evaluate school and district performance. Districts are responsible for providing a
Local Controlled Accountability Plan (LCAP) that describes how the district will provide
targeted services to the students it serves. Among the goals of LCFF is the increased
access of underserved students to educational opportunities (CDE, 2017).
The first question survey participants were asked (item 2) focused more on their
knowledge of the Advanced Placement program at their respective sites or in their
respective districts. Specifically, participants were asked to what level they agreed or
disagreed with this statement: “I am confident in my knowledge of the AP program at my
school.” In total, 15 of the 17 respondents stated that they either agreed (35.29%) or
strongly agreed (53.94%). Participant 7 stated that he/she was neutral, and Participant 17
stated that he/she strongly disagreed with this statement. Though this question does not
directly address any of the research questions, it does add contextual confidence that the
participants were accurately targeted.
The first portion of the online survey (items 3–6) asked questions targeting the
participants’ knowledge of their respective districts’ LCAP and subsequent funding
practices as they pertain to the AP programs throughout each district and at each site.
52

Survey item 3 asked participants whether their district’s LCAP supported the AP program
at their respective schools. Fifteen (88%) of the survey participants agreed or strongly
agreed. This claim was supported when participants were asked about their perceptions as
to whether district office administrators value equitable access to AP courses for all
students (survey item 6). Again, an overwhelming majority of respondents (n = 16, 94%)
agreed or strongly agreed. It stands to reason then that if survey participants believed that
district administrators value equitable access, they would support the AP program
through the LCAP.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the LCAP emphasizes course access and college and
career readiness, and LCFF is an equity-based funding formula. Because the LCAP and
LCFF are linked, study participants were asked two questions (survey items 4 and 5)
aimed at gathering their perceptions on the funding their AP programs received. A total
of 94% of participants felt district administrators value equitable access, and 82% felt
their district’s LCAP supported the AP program and acknowledged having targeted funds
to support the AP program. Respondents 9, 15, and 17 (17.8%) disagreed or strongly
disagreed with that claim. Moreover, when asked whether their AP program was well
funded, 17.8% stated they disagreed. Table 4 provides a summary of response rates for
survey items 3–6. Table 4 provides a summary of response rates for survey items 3–6.

53

Table 4
Responses to Survey Items 3–6: Using LCAP to Support AP Access, as a Percentage of
Participants (LA)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
3 65% 24% 6% 6% 0%
4 71% 12% 0% 18% 0%
5 59% 24% 0% 18% 4%
6 71% 24% 0% 0% 6%

Participants were asked specifically if their district’s LCAP supports AP equity.
Whereas 94% of survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that the LCAP in their
district did support their AP programs, including all five of the interviewees, one of the
interviewed participants (Principal 1) stated he/she did not know how the AP program
was written into the district’s LCAP. Principal 1 stated that he/she “did not know” with
regard to funding and LCAP. The four other participants stated that they had infused AP
in LCAP, specifically using targeted funding for supports of the AP program and being
very focused on access. Principal 2 stated,
One of the LCAP goals for our district is career readiness across the district, so
the same thing is that . . . we focus on as a district on equity in AP courses. I think
that our school is probably one of the better schools as far as providing that
access.
According to four of the five respondents, funding was a “key factor” in the district or
school site’s AP access.
Of the respondents, three of the interviewees work in school districts/sites in
which the majority of the student body is Hispanic (districts 1, 2, and 4). This subgroup
54

population ranged from 60% to 95% (depending on the school and/or district). A
recurring theme emerged from these specific interviews that a focus of the
school’s/district’s LCAP is marketing and how they are getting information through the
appropriate channels so all stakeholders have an awareness of how to access and what the
benefits of the AP program are. According to Director 1 from District 1,
The first part is engaging the communities. So one of the things we did is we
added a second back-to-school night, which is more of an open house. So we
don’t have those sparsely attended community forums. We’ve paid for all of the
teachers that teach to go to AP By the Sea or some kind of AP training. We use
the college readiness block grant and the LCAP to subsidize the cost so that for
every student regardless of anything, it’s five bucks, period.
In another part of our LCAP is we have student-free days for teacher
professional development, and we’ve already committed two of those days for AP
teachers. So that’s where we do myth busters, because some people say, “Not
every college accepts AP.” So I showed that there’s an actual website where you
can go and see what every college’s standard is. The point is every college will
accept AP to some level.
That’s all stuff that’s driven in the LCAP. We actually self-select, because
you can do local indicators of success. So we put AP growth in students enrolled,
in sections offered, and then pass rates. So we put in more than we have to for the
metrics to hold us accountable to it. So LCAP basically gives us the power we
need behind all the stuff we’re pushing with AP. It’s in the LCAP, and this is the
55

first year we’re doin’ it. So we just bought a huge block of hours, $300,000 worth
of hours.
Much of the participants’ LCAP focus in all areas involved using LCAP as a way
to support professional development in their AP program. Participants mentioned that
they use LCAP funding (LCFF) to support ongoing professional development and utilize
the funds not only to send teachers to AP trainings to become highly qualified to teach
the subject, but also to pay for the AP tests. In the three districts mentioned previously
(districts 1, 2, and 4), the participants indicated that they use the LCAP to support paying
for the actual exam, as many Hispanic students (among other subgroups) in their district
cannot afford to pay for the exam. The director of District 2 (Director 2) mentioned that
he/she did not want funding to be an “organizational barrier” for students and that within
the “last 4 years, they increased their test takers, tests taken, and maintained their pass
rate. In particular, the number of Hispanic students who have passed the AP test has gone
up 46%.”
All respondents mentioned that they utilize LCAP to support funding the AP
program at their schools. The funding was used in a multitude of ways, from professional
development, to funding the actual exam, to attending trainings on how to increase access
and influence students. All respondents also mentioned that they monitor the enrollment
in AP classes by subgroup and use the district’s LCAP to align funding supports to access
gaps.
56

Research Question 2
Research question 2 was “What obstacles are high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing
when addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?”
The survey items for research question 2 (items 9–12 and 16) were framed around
some of the barriers found in previous research and reviewed in Chapter 2. Among the
most common barriers cited by previous research was a school-wide elitist culture.
Survey items 9–12 asked about the overall values of the school in general as well as those
of AP teachers, counselors, and site administrators. The first survey question in this group
of questions asked if AP teachers value equitable access to AP courses for all students.
The majority of respondents (n = 10, 58.8%) indicated they either agreed or strongly
agreed with that statement. Two participants (participants 8 and 17, 11.8%) disagreed
with that statement, indicating their AP teachers in general do not value equitable access
to their classes. Five participants (participants 2, 5, 7, 9, and 15) stated they were
“neutral” (n = 5, 29.41%).
Question 10 in this group asked if school counselors value equitable access to AP
courses for all students. While a resounding 88% (n = 15) agreed or strongly agreed with
that statement, two respondents (respondents 5 and 9, n = 2, 11.8%) stated “neutral.” The
next question (item 11) asked if other administrators at the school sites value equitable
access to AP courses for all students. The majority of respondents stated that they either
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (n = 15, 88%). One respondent (Respondent
8; n = 1, 5.8%) stated “neutral,” and one respondent (Respondent 17, n = 1, 5.8%) stated
that he/she disagreed.
57

The final question about school culture (item 12) asked if the general school
culture values AP equity over AP test scores. Based on previous data, the researcher
expected the data to be similar to that of questions 9–11, but the results on equity differed
from the common trend shown in previous questions. Of the participants, three
(participants 8, 11, and 16; n = 3, 17.65%) strongly agreed with the statement that the
school values equity over AP test scores. Nine participants (n = 9, 52.94%) agreed with
the statement, leaving two participants (participants 2 and 5, n = 2, 12%) neutral, two
participants (participants 6 and 7, n = 2, 12%) disagreeing, and one participant strongly
disagreeing (n = 1, 6%). These responses indicate an elitist culture, a key barrier found by
Solorzano and Ornelas (2004). Table 5 provides a summary of response rates for survey
items 9–12 and 16.
The final question examining barriers to AP access (item 16) focused on one of
the most common institutional barriers: policies that act as gatekeepers (Klopfenstein,
2004). Specifically, respondents were asked if their respective schools use preset criteria
to determine access to AP courses. The 82.3% of respondents (n = 14; participants 1, 2, 3,
and 6–16) who disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement indicated more of an
open-access approach and reinforced survey items 9–11. However, the 21% (n = 2,
participants 4 and 17) of respondents who agreed or strongly disagreed with the statement
suggested policies or practices that may exclude students from accessing the AP program
and reinforced survey item 12 and Klopfenstein’s (2004) findings. One respondent
(Respondent 5) stated he/she was neutral on this question. Table 5 provides a summary of
response rates for survey items 9–12 and 16.

58

Table 5
Responses to Survey Items 9–12 and 16: Barriers to AP Access, as a Percentage of
Participants (LA)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
9 12% 47% 29% 12% 0%
10 18% 71% 12% 0% 0%
11 47% 41% 6% 6% 0%
12 18% 53% 12% 12% 6%
16 6% 6% 6% 65% 18%

Qualitative data from interviews suggested some of the institutional barriers
Solorzano and Ornelas (2004) found still exist more than a decade after their study.
Those barriers, particularly institutional barriers, may look different at various schools,
but they are there in one form or another. Principal 1 from District 3 (which is a more
affluent district) mentioned,
School B had a very restrictive process for how you could get into AP. The
culture was also, “Oh, that’s too many sections. That’s too many. You won’t be
able to handle it.” The expected one was teachers letting go of what they saw as
their kind of elite program, elite academic programs, and confronting/challenging
their belief system as to what an AP student was. You know, whether you’re AP
material or not. In that community, Asian kids take AP and other kids don’t. The
student perspective was, a lot of black and brown kids felt very ill at ease in the
AP classes, because they were the only one.
A common trend occurred in the data in which these organizational barriers
typically existed at the more affluent schools. The researcher found that at the more
59

affluent districts, many organizational barriers still exist and the mindset of the staff is
that only a “certain type” of student should be enrolled in AP classes. Traditionally, these
consist of white and Asian students. Principal 1 from District 3 stated, “There were
writing tests, there were interviews, there were teacher recommendations, and then the
application.” These practices are exactly the types of institutional barriers described by
Milewski and Gillie (2002) and the National Research Council (2002) that schools use to
determine AP potential.
A trend that became prevalent at the lower-socioeconomic schools/districts
(districts 1 and 2) is that more schools have adopted a more open process to allow
students to take AP classes but a mindset barrier among the students existed. Director 2
stated that they
allow any student to take an AP course but they guide them through the rigors of
the class, how many classes exist, and what supports exist for them if they were to
take the class. We still face challenges, because we still have certain kids that
believe that AP is too rigorous for them, so there’s definitely some of the mindset
challenges. And it’s making sure that kids and parents understand that, no, every
kid has access to an AP course here in [District 2]. It’s a requirement for us to say,
“Okay, we need to prepare you for this class.” But we’re not going to deter you
from having access to the class. Yes, it’s challenging. Yes, these are your
requirements. And we want you to take it. Often times, this conversation
consisted of individual counseling conversations with students to ensure they
understand what they are signing up for but grant their ability to take the class.
60

Research Question 3
Research question 3 was “What are the best practices utilized by high school
principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’
access to Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?”
The survey items for research question 3 (items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17) were framed
around some of the best practices—stakeholder collaboration, parent outreach, and an
open-access policy to AP courses—found in previous research and reviewed in Chapter
2. One of the key practices that promoted equitable access to the AP program was
collaboration between various stakeholders (Ohrt et al., 2009). Survey items 7 and 8
asked whether two key stakeholders, AP teachers and school counselors, actively
promote the AP program in general. The questions were intentionally designed to
determine whether promoting the AP program was a practice already in place, whereas
survey item 13, for example, focused more on promoting the AP program to Hispanic
students specifically. Survey item 7 asked participants whether AP teachers actively
promote the AP program at their respective schools. Overwhelmingly, 83% (n = 14)
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Participants 2 and 6 were neutral in their
response, and Respondent 17 disagreed with the statement. Survey item 8 asked whether
school counselors actively promote the AP program. Similarly, 94% of respondents (n =
16) agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. Respondent 11 remained neutral.
Survey items 13 and 14 were framed with the same best practice of collaboration
between stakeholders, but they also took into consideration a common barrier of a lack of
parental outreach and understanding of the benefits of AP courses (Flores & Gomez,
2011; Walker & Pearsall, 2012). Survey item 13 asked respondents if their respective
61

schools actively recruit Hispanic students for their AP programs. For this survey item,
only 41% (n = 7) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they incorporate that
practice on campus. Three participants (7, 12, and 17; 18%) disagreed with the statement,
indicating a lack of targeted outreach to Hispanic students. Survey item 14 was framed
from the same paradigm and asked whether the schools actively promote the AP program
to Hispanic parents. The responses were the same as in survey item 13, with 41% (n = 7)
of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. Respondents 2, 6, 8, 9,
12, and 14 remained neutral (n = 6, 35%), whereas respondents 5, 7, 15, and 17 stated
they disagreed (n = 4, 24%).
Survey item 15 was framed as a contradictory question to item 16. It asked
whether the school has an open-access policy for its AP program. Based on the responses
from item 16, this question should have yielded opposite responses with roughly 12%
agreeing with the statement. A total of 88% (n = 15) of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement, with Participant 17 (6%) disagreeing with the statement and
Participant 6 (6%) strongly disagreeing. These data suggest that administrators in Los
Angeles County understand the difference between open access and preset criteria and
currently practice open access at their respective sites.
Survey item 17 was designed in light of another practice, providing effective
support systems, that previous research found to support Hispanic AP students (Billig et
al., 2005). The statement asked participants to evaluate whether their respective schools
offer effective support systems to support Hispanic students in AP courses. Fewer than
half of the participants (n = 7, 41%) agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. Of the
remaining 10 participants who did not agree with the statement, six (participants 2, 7, 8,
62

10, 13, and 15; 35%) were neutral and four (5, 6, 14, and 17) disagreed. In short,
according to the participants from these four school districts, two thirds of Los Angeles
County high schools are offering ineffective support to Hispanic AP students, if at all.
Table 6 provides a summary of response rates for survey items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17.

Table 6
Responses to Survey Items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17: Practices to Increase AP Access, as a
Percentage of Participants (LA)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
7 35% 47% 12% 6% 0%
8 41% 53% 6% 0% 0%
13 12% 29% 41% 18% 0%
14 12% 29% 35% 24% 0%
15 41% 47% 0% 6% 6%
17 12% 29% 35% 24% 0%

Qualitative data from interview participants highlighted exciting innovative
practices that are producing positive results. One emerging theme is a strong reliance on
the counselors at each school. Vela et al. (2013) and others (Walker & Pearsall, 2012)
found counselors to be especially vital to (a) positive change (with high expectations) or
(b) maintaining the status quo (with low expectations), and (c) the experiences students
have from those interactions were found to be a strong predictor of whether Hispanic
students enrolled in AP classes and influenced their success in those classes. Director 2
from District 2 mentioned that they implement a process called “guidance alignment” in
which the
63

counselors and department chairs meet four times a year to review their AP data,
discuss common trends, recognize course-taking behaviors, and work together on
how they can support individual student needs on getting into the classes and
supporting them once they are in. It’s four times a year, and so they have to align
what we’re doing when it comes to course-taking patterns, course-taking
behaviors to put together a[n] “individualized learning plan.”
Another emerging theme was the strategic practices that districts were using to
review and continually target underrepresented groups. Principal 1 described the
following:
I talked about the school was receiving accolades from Newsweek, and U.S. News
& World Report, and Washington Post, and so forth, I always communicated to
all of the parents and helped them understand that our equity and excellence ratio,
meaning, you know, who’s getting AP, which groups, and underrepresented, that
that was helping our ranking as a school. What I did was I started looking at the
participation by subgroup. I don’t know that that had ever been before or
discussed openly, because those things make people a little uncomfortable. What I
did was I started doing some breakdowns. What I had started while I was at
school 10 was I started the first Hispanic parent group, because there was a
Chinese one, there was a Korean one, there was an African American one, and
there was kind of like booster foundation, but there was no support group for
Hispanics.
64

Director 1 from District 1 mentioned the use of technological tools to enhance awareness
and support access into AP classes: “The use of Naviance, Khan Academy, and AP
Potential has helped give quantitative data to support increasing access.”
This practice of recommending classes that Hispanic students might be most
successful in based on past grades and trends in AP results was suggested by Jara et al.
(2014). Principal 2 mentioned the importance of not stating that “one is not prepared for
the class, but to state that we need to prepare you for this class but we will not deter
access into the course.” These high school administrators are empowering counselors to
extend that idea to also recommend supportive teachers with whom Hispanic students
have a proven track record of success.
Some trends did emerge on the transition of opening access specifically for
Hispanic students. All of those data engage all of the stakeholders on campus and inform
outreach, recruitment, scheduling, and spending, which are many of the barriers outlined
by Flores and Gomez (2011).
The researcher found that a variety of different strategies are being implemented
throughout the county, but a common trend is that organizations are removing
organizational barriers and prerequisites, reviewing and using data to drive direction,
having constant professional development, and engaging the community, whether it be
creating a Hispanic parent organization or holding community forums to gather insight
from the community.
65

Research Question 4
Research question 4 was “How are high school principals, assistant principals,
and district-level directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic
students’ access to AP courses?”
Three survey questions (items 18–20) were designed to explore research question
4. Very little research exists that identifies best practices for high school practitioners to
use to evaluate equitable access to the AP program. Survey item 18 asked participants
whether they consider the AP program at their respective schools to be successful. Albeit
a subjective opinion, 65% (n = 11) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that
statement. Participants 2, 6, 8, 10, and 17 (29%) remained neutral, whereas Participant 15
(4%) disagreed, indicating that he/she did not consider the AP program at his/her school
to be successful. While those perceptions could have been based on multiple measures,
interview responses indicated they were likely based on AP test scores, pass rates, and
pure numbers of test takers.
Survey participants were asked two more questions evaluating their respective AP
programs from an equity perspective. Survey item 19 simply asked whether participants
consider their AP programs to be equitable. In total, 76% (n = 13) of survey takers agreed
or strongly agreed that their AP programs were in fact equitable. Participants 3, 6, 7, and
17 (24%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Survey item 20 asked
the same question differently. It asked whether Hispanic students at their respective
schools are equitably represented in AP courses. Because survey item 20 was very similar
to survey item 19, similar responses were expected. In total, 65% (n = 11) of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. Conversely, 18% (n = 3) of participants (3,
66

12, and 17) disagreed with the statement. Respondents 6, 10, and 15 (18%) remained
neutral to this question. Interview comments such as “the numbers in our AP enrollment
definitely don’t reflect that [school demographic makeup]” may support survey item 20
as a more accurate depiction of the state of equity in AP programs in Los Angeles
County. Moreover, the difference in response data between items 19 and 20 indicates
many high school principals and assistant principals have a limited understanding of
equity and often confuse it with equality. Comments such as “I do think that there’s
opportunity for the access to each of the classes. I don’t think that it’s equal, but I do
think that it’s equitable” reinforce the disconnect between the two concepts, as this
administrator implied all students had an equal opportunity to access the AP program but
that the classes were not equitable. Table 7 provides a summary of response rates for
survey items 18–20.

Table 7
Responses to Survey Items 18–20: Evaluating AP Access, as a Percentage of Participants
(LA)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
18 18% 47% 29% 6% 0%
19 12% 65% 0% 18% 6%
20 18% 47% 18% 18% 0%

Interview data suggested evaluation and accountability to be lacking at high
schools in Los Angeles County. As noted already, 88% (n = 15) of survey participants
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “My district’s LCAP supports the AP
program at my school.” Based on the supportive responses to that question, one might
67

expect survey participants to have a more robust understanding of LCAP accountability
goals and the evaluative measures needed. A trend emerged that a review of scores
process exists but not specifically a process on access review. The principal from School
11 described the following:
I don’t know that we could describe it as a formal process, so the answer would
be no. For the administration-wise, we review our practices and our program, and
the assistant principal works directly with each instructional dean that oversees
the division when we get ready to plan the master schedule, so there’s definitely
processes that are in place to address the changes of courses and what we’re going
to offer, more sections of this or less of that. But as far as an external process that
would come in and help us evaluate that, we don’t have anything like that.
Director 1 from District 1 described the following process:
At the district level, we evaluate it the minute that it comes in. It’s usually in
August. Then they’ll kind of release it in waves. We look at not just that year’s
data, but usually about 5 years back, ‘cause AP had some of those reports. Then
what I do is I break down a school site’s scores from the prior year and the year
before that, and when we do our master schedule visits, we have conversations
about, “Man, you guys are killin’ it here,” or, “What the heck happened here?
Who’s teaching what? Have they been trained? Have you talked to them? Have
you shared this data with them?”
The data Director 1 referred to are test score data. The evaluation does not
describe how equitably represented Hispanic students are in the AP program at their
school, only how many of them took AP exams and how well they faired. While
68

successfully passing an AP exam is important (Rankin, 2012), the data these stakeholders
are using do not help bridge the equity gap this director acknowledges still exists on his
campus. The researcher found that various districts are reviewing data to a degree, but a
formal process of reviewing Hispanic access does not currently exist.
Comparative Data
This study was replicated in Orange County and the Inland Empire, an area of
Southern California that includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties. In total, 58
educational leaders participated in the survey, with 91% (n = 53) having agreed or
strongly agreed to the statement that they were confident in their knowledge of the AP
program at their respective sites or districts (item 2). Of the participants, 51% (n = 29)
were assistant principals, 40% (n = 23) were principals, 9% (n = 5) were district-level
directors, and 2% (n = 1) declined to state. Their experience levels were evenly
distributed, with 26% (n = 15) with 11–15 years of experience, 36% (n = 21) with 16–20
years of experience, and 29% (n = 17) with 21 or more years of experience. Only 9% of
respondents (n = 5) had fewer than 11 years of experience in education.
The county in which the participants worked was also relatively evenly
distributed, with 45% (n = 26) of participants working in Orange County, 29% (n = 17) in
Los Angeles County, and 26% (n = 15) in the IE. The ethnic makeup of the school
leaders was predominantly Caucasian, with 66% (n = 38) identifying as such. The next
largest group were the respondents who identified as Hispanic/Latino, at 19% (n = 11).
The rest of the participants identified as African American (5%, n = 3), Asian American
(5%, n = 3), or other (5%, n = 3). The following is a description of survey results across
all three geographic areas studied as compared with Los Angeles County.
69

Research Question 1
Research question 1 was “How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los
Angeles County utilizing their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP
courses?”
The first portion of the online survey (items 3–6) asked questions targeting the
participants’ knowledge of their respective districts’ LCAP and subsequent funding
practices as they pertain to the AP programs throughout each district and at each site.
When asked to respond to the statement “My district’s LCAP supports the AP program at
my school” (survey item 3), 90% (n = 52) of survey participants agreed or strongly
agreed, which was consistent with the 88% (n = 15) results in Los Angeles County. This
claim was supported when participants were asked about their perceptions as to whether
district office administrators value equitable access to AP courses for all students (survey
item 6). Again, an overwhelming majority of respondents (95%, n = 55) agreed or
strongly agreed, which was consistent with the results from Los Angeles County (n = 16,
94%).
Because the LCAP and LCFF are linked, study participants were asked two
questions (survey items 4 and 5) aimed at gathering their perceptions on the funding their
AP programs received. Whereas 95% of participants felt district administrators value
equitable access and 90% felt their district’s LCAP supported the AP program, a less
resounding 71% (n = 41) acknowledged having targeted funds to support the AP
program. Nearly a fifth of respondents (n = 11, 19%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with
that claim, highlighting a similar disconnect found between the district-level leadership
and site-level administrators in Orange County and the Inland Empire. Moreover, when
70

asked whether their AP program was well funded, even fewer participants (n = 34, 59%)
agreed or strongly agreed, significantly less positive than the results from Los Angeles
County (n = 14, 82%). Table 8 provides a summary of response rates for survey items 3–
6 for all three geographic areas.

Table 8
Responses to Survey Items 3–6: Using LCAP to Support AP Access, as a Percentage of
Participants (OC, LA, and IE)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
3 48% 41% 9% 2% 0%
4 41% 29% 10% 14% 5%
5 34% 24% 28% 12% 2%
6 66% 29% 3% 0% 2%

Research Question 2
Research question 2 was “What obstacles are high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing
when addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?”
The survey items for research question 2 (items 9–12 and 16) were framed around
some of the barriers found in previous research and reviewed in Chapter 2. Survey items
9–12 asked about the overall values of the school in general as well as those of AP
teachers, counselors, and site administrators. The first survey question in this group of
questions asked if AP teachers value equitable access to AP courses for all students. The
majority of respondents (n = 33, 57%) indicated they either agreed or strongly agreed
with that statement, which was almost identical to the response rate in Los Angeles
71

County (n = 10, 59%). Four participants (7%) disagreed with that statement, indicating
the AP teachers in general do not value equitable access to their classes.
The next survey question in this group (item 10) asked if school counselors value
equitable access to AP courses for all students. A very confident 82% (n = 47) agreed or
strongly agreed with that statement, with only one respondent (2%) who disagreed with
the statement. These results mirror the 88% agreement rate in Los Angeles County. The
next question (item 11) asked if other administrators at the school sites value equitable
access to AP courses for all students. Nearly all the respondents (n = 53, 91%) agreed or
strongly agreed with that statement. It is important to note one outlier (2%) who
disagreed with that statement, very similar to the 88% agreement rate from Los Angeles
County respondents.
The final question about school culture (item 12) asked if the general school
culture values AP equity over AP test scores. Based on the response data from items 9–
11, the data for item 12 should have been overwhelmingly in support of that statement.
With 57% of teachers, 82% of counselors, and 91% of site administrators valuing or
strongly valuing AP equity for all students, it was interesting to note that only 59% (n =
34) of participants agreed or strongly agreed that their school culture values AP equity
over AP test scores. That left 41% (n = 24) unable to agree with the statement, including
16% (n = 9) who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Those data are
slightly shifted from Los Angeles County, in which 71% strongly agreed or agreed with
that statement, 11% remained neutral, and 18% stated they either disagreed or strongly
disagreed.
72

The final question examining barriers to AP access (item 16) asked respondents if
their respective schools use preset criteria to determine access to AP courses. The 48% of
respondents (n = 28) who disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement indicated
more of an open-access approach and reinforced survey items 9–11. However, the 29%
(n = 17) of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement suggested
policies or practices that may exclude students from accessing the AP program and
reinforced survey item 12 and Klopfenstein’s (2004) findings. The overall results from
item 16 were less promising than those of Los Angeles County, as 82% of Los Angeles
County respondents disagreed with this statement. Table 9 provides a summary of
response rates for survey items 9–12 and 16 for all three geographic areas.

Table 9
Responses to Survey Items 9–12 and 16: Barriers to AP Access, as a Percentage of
Participants (OC, LA, and IE)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
9 19% 38% 36% 7% 0%
10 35% 47% 16% 2% 0%
11 60% 31% 7% 2% 0%
12 17% 41% 26% 12% 3%
16 4% 26% 21% 39% 11%

Research Question 3
Research question 3 was “What are the best practices utilized by high school
principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’
access to Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?”
73

The survey items for research question 3 (items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17) were framed
around some of the best practices found in previous research and reviewed in Chapter 2.
Survey items 7 and 8 asked whether two key stakeholders, AP teachers and school
counselors, actively promote the AP program in general. Survey item 7 asked participants
whether AP teachers actively promote the AP program at their respective schools. In
total, 79% (n = 26) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, very similar to the 83%
(n = 14) response rate in Los Angeles County. Survey item 8 asked whether school
counselors actively promote the AP program. Similarly, 86% of respondents (n = 50)
agreed or strongly agreed with that statement, almost identical to Los Angeles County
(94%, n = 16).
Survey items 13 and 14 were framed with the same best practice of parental
outreach and understanding of the benefits of AP courses (Flores & Gomez, 2011;
Walker & Pearsall, 2012). Survey item 13 asked respondents if their respective schools
actively recruit Hispanic students for their AP programs. For this survey item, only 43%
(n = 25) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they incorporate that practice on
campus. Eleven participants (19%) disagreed with the statement, indicating a lack of
targeted outreach to Hispanic students. Again, the response rate was nearly identical to
that of Los Angeles County respondents, of whom 41% (n = 7) agreed or strongly agreed,
and 18% (n = 3) disagreed. Survey item 14 was framed from the same paradigm and
asked whether the schools actively promote the AP program to Hispanic parents. The
responses were more positive than they were for survey item 13, with 51% (n = 31) of
participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, which is higher than the
41% agreement rate in Los Angeles County. There were still 11 respondents (21%) who
74

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, slightly decreasing the 24%
disagreement rate in Los Angeles County.
Survey item 15 was framed as a contradictory question to item 16. It asked
whether the school has an open-access policy for its AP program. Based on the responses
from item 16, this question should have yielded opposite responses with roughly 48%
agreeing with the statement. However, 86% (n = 50) of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement, with only five participants (9%) who disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement. The difference in response rates to survey items that asked
the same question in two different ways suggests a different understanding between Los
Angeles County high school principals and assistant principals and their counterparts in
neighboring counties about what is intended or implied by the term “open access.” Los
Angeles County results were aligned on both questions, which was not the case in the
other two geographic areas.
Survey item 17 was designed in light of another practice that previous research
found to support Hispanic AP students (Billig et al., 2005). The statement asked
participants to evaluate whether their respective schools offer effective support systems
to support Hispanic students in AP courses. More than half of the respondents (n = 32,
55%) agreed or strongly agreed with that statement, which is a higher agreement rate than
that of Los Angeles County (41%). Of the remaining 26 participants who did not agree
with the statement, 15 (26%) were neutral in their response, but 11 respondents (19%)
disagreed with the statement, again, slightly different from the response rates of 35% and
24% found in Los Angeles County. In short, according to the participants from these
three geographic areas, a fifth of high schools in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and
75

San Bernardino counties are offering ineffective support to Hispanic AP students, if at
all. Table 10 provides a summary of response rates for survey items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17
for all three geographic areas.

Table 10
Responses to Survey Items 7, 8, 13–15, and 17: Practices to Increase AP Access, as a
Percentage of Participants (OC, LA, and IE)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
7 28% 52% 17% 3% 0%
8 39% 49% 12% 0% 0%
13 17% 26% 38% 19% 0%
14 16% 38% 26% 19% 2%
15 38% 48% 5% 7% 2%
17 14% 41% 26% 19% 0%

Research Question 4
Research question 4 was “How are high school principals, assistant principals,
and district-level directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic
students’ access to AP courses?”
Three survey questions (items 18–20) were designed to explore research question
4. Survey item 18 asked participants whether they consider the AP programs at their
respective schools to be successful. Albeit a subjective opinion, 74% (n = 43) of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that statement, slightly higher than the 65%
agreement rate in Los Angeles County. There were two outliers (3%) who disagreed,
indicating that they did not consider the AP programs at their schools to be successful.
76

Survey participants were asked two more questions evaluating their respective AP
programs from an equity perspective. Survey item 19 simply asked whether participants
consider their AP programs to be equitable. In total, 74% (n = 43) of survey takers agreed
or strongly agreed that their AP programs were in fact equitable, nearly identical to the
76% of Los Angeles County respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with that
statement. Survey item 20 asked the same question differently. It asked whether Hispanic
students at their respective schools are equitably represented in AP courses. Because
survey item 20 asked a very similar question to survey item 19, similar responses were
expected. However, only 52% (n = 30) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that
statement, which is slightly lower than Los Angeles County, where 65% (n = 11) of
participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Conversely, 24% (n = 14) of
participants disagreed with the statement. Moreover, the difference in response data
between items 19 and 20 indicates many high school principals and assistant principals,
across all three geographic areas studied, have an inaccurate working definition of equity
and often confuse it with equality. Table 11 provides a summary of response rates for
survey items 18–20 for all three geographic areas.

Table 11
Responses to Survey Items 18–20: Evaluating AP Access, as a Percentage of Participants
(OC, LA, and IE)
Q Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
18 24% 50% 22% 3% 0%
19 17% 57% 17% 7% 2%
20 19% 33% 24% 24% 0%

77

Summary
This chapter presented the data analysis and findings from both data collection
methods to address the four research questions. Data analyses from the online survey
were detailed in descriptive statistics and focused on barriers to equity, best practices, and
evaluative and accountability measures currently in place. Analyses and results from
face-to-face interviews were also presented. The results served to provide insight into the
perceptions and practices of high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors regarding Hispanic student enrollment and access to AP courses.
The comparative analysis section of this chapter compared findings of research
conducted in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the Inland Empire. This research
aims to give an analysis of trends and current practices of educational administrators in
Southern California. Chapter 5 will provide further research on current practices and
trends from all three geographic areas.
Chapter 5 will summarize the study and provide conclusions drawn from the
findings. The discussion of the findings will include barriers to equity in AP, best
practices for equitable AP enrollment, and a coherent district-wide understanding of
equity, LCAP goals, and relevant data to evaluate the AP program based on those goals.
The chapter will conclude with implications for stakeholders and recommendations for
further study.

78

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Although Southern California schools receive their fair share of accolades and
recognition for the achievements of their students, a closer look at their “equity
scorecard” (Bensimon, 2004) reveals room for improvement. Moreover, because almost
every imaginable demographic is represented (cultural, socioeconomic, and otherwise),
the disparities between many urban schools and their suburban peers quickly become
apparent. Furthermore, Southern California represents one of the largest concentrations of
Hispanic students in the country; it is a surprise that the topics of AP access and equity
have not been studied at this microgeographic level before. This then encouraged
questions like the ones that were posed in this study.
This study was intended to not only compare national and state data with local
data, but also gather specific phenomenological perspectives seldom addressed. Previous
studies focused on high school students, college freshmen, or parents (Hébert & Reis,
1999; Vela et al., 2013; Walker & Pearsall, 2012). Efforts of this study were focused on
obtaining information and insight from high school principals, assistant principals, and
district-level directors. While it is acknowledged that California as a whole has the largest
number of historically underrepresented AP test takers nationally (College Board,
2016b), it was important for this study to gauge what is happening on a more micro level,
between schools in affluent communities and those in areas considered to be of lower
socioeconomic status. Despite an immense amount of data regarding underrepresented
groups accessing the AP program nationally, there is a gap in research regarding Hispanic
students’ access in high-percentage areas such as Southern California. For that reason, the
79

purpose of this research was a focus on the lack of AP access for Hispanic students
within three major areas in Southern California that have large Hispanic populations: Los
Angeles County, Orange County, and the Inland Empire. The data collection and analysis
for this study was guided by the following four research questions:
1. How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los Angeles County utilizing
their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses?
2. What obstacles are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-
level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing when
addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?
3. What are the best practices utilized by high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’ access to
Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?
4. How are high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level
directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic students’
access to AP courses?
This chapter presents a discussion of the findings of the study, the implications of the
findings for current practices, and recommendations for further research.
Overview of the Study
This study aimed to provide a phenomenological understanding of the efforts and
use of resources of educational leaders attempting to close this opportunity gap and
uncover the obstacles that impede their efforts. It is important for school leaders to know
and understand these factors if they are to adequately support the efforts to address the
access gap.
80

This study examined the decision-making process of high school administrators in
determining how to combat this issue of equity with Hispanic students enrolling in their
AP courses. This mixed-methods research study was conducted over the summer of 2017
and into the 2017–2018 academic school year in three major geographic areas in
Southern California (the Inland Empire, Orange County, and Los Angeles County). The
first phase of the study was an online survey used to collect quantitative data on leaders
who oversee the AP program and to gather their perceptions and practices used to close
this gap of access. The second phase of the study followed up on the online survey with
interviews of selected AP administrators to collect qualitative data on a more in-depth
basis. Ninety-six AP leaders in 12 school districts working in the Inland Empire, Orange
County, and Los Angeles County areas were contacted through their work email
addresses, which were provided by their school districts’ superintendents. Sixty district
and site administrators who oversee the AP program participated in the study. The 22
items on the online survey were in the form of a 5-point Likert scale: strongly agree (1),
agree (2), neutral (3), disagree (4), and strongly disagree (5).
From the 60 survey participants, 18 administrators representing the 12 school
districts were selected for a follow-up interview. The administrators selected for the
interview held the positions of assistant principal, principal, or district director, all of
whom oversee the AP program in some capacity.
Methodology
This study was designed as a mixed-methods study, utilizing both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect and analyze the data. The study was conducted with
California public high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors at
81

both high- and low-performing districts within Orange County, the Inland Empire, and
Los Angeles County. The study involved the collection of qualitative data from open-
ended interview questions and quantitative surveys with district and site-level
administrators overseeing the Advanced Placement program. Conducting interviews and
surveys facilitated a triangulation between the survey results and interviews, which aimed
to substantiate the findings of this research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Sample Population
For this study, purposeful and convenience sampling was deemed most
appropriate, as it assumes the researcher is seeking understanding and insight (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) aligned convenience sampling more with quantitative
research; the ease of access to credible school administrators working with the AP
program provided an opportunity to explore the topic from a familiar paradigm. The
researcher exploited the benefits of the convenient, purposeful sampling model to assess
participants who would be best equipped with the experiences that best answer the
research questions.
The five interview respondents for each county, all public high school principals,
assistant principals, and district-level directors who oversee the AP program, were
deemed appropriate candidates for this study as their experiences enabled them to provide
candid and poignant feedback and insight into the core of the research questions. They
were selected from various school sites and districts that spanned the geographic,
demographic, and performance landscape of the research topic.
An explanation of the research study was given in both the survey and the
interview, including an explanation of the topic and the purpose of the study. The
82

respondents were told that the study was a voluntary opportunity to provide information
and that all responses and interviews would be confidential. The actual names of the
schools were not utilized in the research study, and any information that could possibly
identify the school campus was changed. Given the personal nature of the research topic
of AP access, it was critical that respondents felt confident about the high level of
confidentiality, allowing for their open and honest responses.
Data Collection
Survey participants were initially contacted via email providing them a summary
of the purpose of the research study as well as a link to take an online survey. Participants
took approximately 5–10 minutes to complete the online survey. Given that a high
response rate is critical in achieving reliable results (Creswell, 2008), constant monitoring
of completed surveys was needed to ensure an adequate number of respondents. Follow-
up emails were sent to request participants’ completion of the survey as needed. A second
email was sent approximately two to three weeks after the initial email to prospective
participants who had not yet completed the survey. A third email was sent two weeks
after the follow-up email as a final effort to procure additional responses. After each
participant completed the survey, a thank-you email was sent.
For the interviews, principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors were
purposefully selected to ensure a diverse group of educational leaders in terms of
leadership roles, experience, gender, and ethnicity. Participants were identified through
the online survey, as respondents were asked if they would be willing to participate in an
interview. Once the participating high school administrators were identified, initial phone
calls were made to conduct a total of six interviews each for Orange County and the
83

Inland Empire and five interviews for Los Angeles County. During this call, the
researcher identified the purpose of the call and research study, before establishing an
appointment for the interview. An email was sent to each participant that restated the
purpose of the interview and provided the questions in advance of the meeting. The
interviews took place in the offices of the participants to ensure their comfort level and
confidentiality. With permission from the participants, the interviews were recorded to
ensure the engagement of the researcher in the interview process while still allowing for
the accurate and thorough gathering of data (Creswell, 2008). Recordings were then
transcribed for data analysis and coding.
Data Analysis
This mixed-method study used quantitative data from the surveys and the College
Board and qualitative data from the interviews. Every aspect of the survey and interview
protocols was directly linked to the four research questions. Per the recommendations of
several expert researchers (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009),
every effort was made to start data analysis immediately following data collection.
Once the data were collected from the online questionnaire, the College Board,
and interviews, separate reports were created to document findings related to the research
questions from each data source. Through the process of triangulation, the findings from
all three data sources were compared with each other and combined to link common
trends. This process allowed the researcher to uncover convergent and divergent findings
(Creswell, 2013). Last, the researcher strategically analyzed quantitative and qualitative
data to identify the key strategies and practices that allow more access for Hispanic
students to successfully complete the AP classes and program.
84

Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the quantitative and qualitative data that
were collected and analyzed. This section combines the results of the quantitative surveys
and qualitative interview data, linking the findings back to the literature. This section also
recognizes common themes that were apparent among the three geographic areas that
were researched.
Research Question 1
Research question 1 was “How are school districts that offer AP courses in Los
Angeles County utilizing their LCAP to support Hispanic students’ access to AP
courses?”
In the responses to survey and interview questions associated with this topic, two
common themes arose among the three geographic areas. The first theme that became
apparent when comparing the data was that district and site administrators value equitable
access to AP courses. Respondents mentioned that they utilize the Local Control
Accountability Plan (LCAP) to support funding the AP program at their schools. The
funding was used in a multitude of ways, from professional development, to funding the
actual exam, to attending trainings on how to increase access and influence students.
The other common theme was a disconnect or a lack of coherence between
district and site administration when it came to understanding the LCAP goals associated
with AP funding. Based on the findings, district administration was more knowledgeable
of district LCAP goals than site administration was. Site administration understood that
district administration used the LCAP to support the AP program but did not know
85

specifically how or how to best utilize LCAP goals and funding to enhance their
respective AP programs.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 was “What obstacles are high school principals, assistant
principals, and district-level directors at Los Angeles County high schools experiencing
when addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?”
One clear and common theme among the three geographic areas was that
institutional barriers still exist when it pertains to students accessing the AP program.
Although those barriers may have looked different in each district, the research and
findings still prove that these barriers are still in place. A common theme that was seen
between Los Angeles and Orange counties was that the lower-socioeconomic districts
granted a more “open” policy when it came to student access to AP. This further
displayed a more elitist mentality pertaining to the more affluent districts. A common
theme that became apparent between the Orange County and Inland Empire areas was the
difficulty in parent outreach, specifically with the Hispanic populations. Further, the
parents in the Hispanic families did not clearly understand the value of the AP
coursework and therefore did not promote it to their students.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 was “What are the best practices utilized by high school
principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors to address Hispanic students’
access to Advanced Placement courses in Los Angeles County schools?”
Data gathered by the researchers pertaining to this topic revealed many common
themes among all three geographic areas. These were strategies and practices
86

administrators utilized to address access: removing organizational barriers and
prerequisites, reviewing and using data to drive direction, having constant professional
development, using teachers to “sell” their class to the students, and engaging the
community. A common theme found between the Orange County and Inland Empire
areas was targeted outreach, recruitment, and collaboration between programs with
similar objectives, specifically Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and
Equal Opportunity Schools (EOS).
Research Question 4
Research question 4 was “How are high school principals, assistant principals,
and district-level directors in Los Angeles County high schools evaluating Hispanic
students’ access to AP courses?”
One important and common theme that became apparent from the data gathered
from all three geographic areas was that there were no targeted approaches to evaluating
whether their AP programs are equitable. Most administrators admitted that they might
recognize these gaps exist when analyzing their numbers enrolled in the AP program, AP
exams taken, and the AP test scores themselves, but they described nothing that addresses
how to close these gaps. Outside the EOS program, which focuses on equity among
student populations and which was found in two districts in the Orange County and
Inland Empire areas, no specific plans were set in place to address the access gap of
Hispanic students and their participation in the AP program.
Implications for Practice
Develop LCAP Coherence
While district and site leadership valued equitable access to AP courses, the study
87

revealed a lack of coherence between district LCAP goals and site-level practices. It is
recommended that district-level administrators collaborate with principals and assistant
principals to develop a common understanding of the district’s LCAP goals. These
discussions should include a thorough understanding of any funding available to site
administrators to achieve LCAP goals, accountability standards and expectations,
resources site administrators may be able to use, and best practices schools can
implement to close the access gap. A more comprehensive understanding of LCAP goals
and expectations will provide administrators with direction and intentionality for the
decisions they make as they pertain to their respective AP programs.
Challenge Institutional Barriers
It is important for school leaders to be able to identify institutional barriers that
may exist with their AP program and create a paradigm shift in the mindsets of their
educators to promote open access for all. Among the most prevalent barriers from this
study was an elitist mindset among teachers or counselors. This typically manifests itself
in the form of strict prerequisites, requiring teacher recommendations, limited parent
outreach, or other policies or practices that restrict access to those students who “belong.”
High school leaders must recognize the role teachers and counselors play in AP access as
well as the impact of various screening practices. Moreover, adequately informed parents
are better equipped to assist in course selection for their students, adding another level of
support and involvement that may have been lacking previously. It is imperative that
educational leaders challenge the mindsets and practices that limit or impede AP access.
Connect Your Resources
The participants in this study highlighted several exciting practices that are
88

helping Hispanic students access more AP courses. It is recommended that educational
leaders understand the resources they have at their disposal and connect as many of those
resources as possible to close the access gap. All of the participants used a variety of
these practices, but the more equitable AP programs were able to rely on and incorporate
more resources than the less equitable ones were. These resources included the following:
● Counselors: Counselors are typically the few people on a high school campus
who have an understanding of all the other resources that follow on this list.
They know the teachers, are familiar with the different programs on campus,
and are intimately involved with the master schedule. More importantly, they
have the longest relationships with the students and see them frequently. They
are in the ideal position to help close the access gap.
● Teachers: Some teachers maintain that some students “belong” in AP while
others do not. Other teachers believe in equity, employ engaging pedagogy,
and support the learning of all students who enter their classrooms. Invest in
those teachers who are best suited to meet the goals of closing the AP access
gap. Send them to professional development, and provide them with the
resources they need.
● Master schedules: This may be among the most influential resources at the
disposal of principals and assistant principals. According to Principal 1,
“When the right teachers are teaching the AP classes, the teachers will sell the
program, not necessarily the subject.” It is important for site administrators to
assign AP courses to the right teachers. This will make recruitment much
easier and further assist in closing the access gap.
89

● Programs: Programs such as AVID and EOS have very similar missions in
that they focus on providing historically underrepresented students access to
rigorous courses and increased opportunities in higher education. It is
recommended that educational leaders connect those programs, and the
resources that come along with them, to the vision of equitable AP access at
their respective sites.
● Data: Data provide educational leaders direction and rationales in their
decision-making processes. However, the data should focus less on access-
limiting metrics (GPA, prerequisites, or teacher recommendations) and more
on metrics that focus on equity, such as overall school demographics, AP
enrollment demographics (to determine the access gap), and testing rates and
result data between Hispanic students and their Caucasian/Asian peers. By
focusing more on metrics surrounding equity, high school administrators will
be better equipped to make decisions that continue closing the AP access gap.
Understand Equity
The study revealed that many practitioners have a limited understanding of equity
and often confuse it with equality. That may seem like an innocent mistake; however, the
unintended consequences lead to a focus on the AP program as a whole as opposed to a
focus on those historically underrepresented students who need the access the most. This
can be rectified by developing a clearer understanding of the difference between the two
concepts and can easily be incorporated when developing a coherent understanding of
LCAP goals. Once that occurs, site administrators should then rely on a combination of
90

traditional AP metrics such as test results and data that focus on equity to accurately
evaluate their respective AP programs.
Limitations
The limitations of this study were time, race, and geography. The time allotted for
this study was limited to approximately five months and took place over the summer and
fall months, when most schools are not in session or are just beginning. During this
period, many activities needed to take place: Participants needed to be contacted,
meetings needed to be scheduled, interviews needed to be conducted, and data needed to
be gathered. This limited the number of administrators who oversaw their respective AP
programs surveyed in the research.
Race was also a limitation. In order to conduct the research within the time
constraints, the focus of this study was on Hispanic students, leaving out other subgroups
and their access to the AP program. While it is acknowledged that other ethnic groups,
such as African Americans and Native Americans, face similarly inequitable access to
AP courses, the abundance of Hispanic students in the region presented an opportunity
that could not be ignored.
Geography presents a minor limitation because the research was focused on three
major geographic areas within California. The data were limited specifically to Los
Angeles County, Orange County, and the Inland Empire. This study ignored Southern
California counties such as San Diego, Imperial, and Ventura, all of which also have
significant Hispanic populations.
Finally, the qualitative design of the study presented an opportunity to collect data
using interviews, observations, and surveys. The development of those protocols and the
91

subsequent interpretation of the data were open to a certain level of bias from the
researcher. Although a certain level of bias is expected from qualitative research, the
variety of schools represented in the study may help offset the inherent bias.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was an attempt to better understand equitable AP access for Hispanic
students in three Southern California areas: Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the
Inland Empire. AP access was studied from the perspective of understanding LCAP
goals, identifying barriers, implementing best practices, and evaluating the AP program.
Upon completion of the study, and in consideration of the limitations of the study,
opportunities for future research became apparent.
Recommendation 1: Highlight a Case Study
A primary focus of the study was to identify best practices being used by current
principals, assistant principals, and district directors to close the AP access gap. While the
study did yield some suggested practices educational leaders can implement, the time
constraints of the study limited the opportunity to fully delve into all aspects and
perspectives of the practices at the schools that were more successful at closing the access
gap than others. A case study would be a suitable solution, as it would allow the
researcher ample time at one school and would provide the opportunity to study various
aspects that contribute to positive change, such as the following:
● Leadership practices through the change process
● Counselor perspectives through the change process
● Teacher perspectives through the change process
● Detailed practices and approaches to addressing barriers
92

Other possibilities exist, which make the idea of a case study all the more intriguing.
Recommendation 2: Broaden Horizons
Based on the other two limitations of the study, race and geography, future
research should focus on bridging the gap created by this study. Hispanic students are not
the only subgroup affected by the existing access gap. A study focused on the access gap
experienced by African American or Native American students would shed light on best
practices and provide an opportunity to compare and contrast barriers and practices
identified in this study.
This study focused on Hispanic students in Orange County, Los Angeles County,
and the Inland Empire, which consists of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. While
these four counties make up a large portion of Southern California, the study failed to
examine Ventura County as well as Imperial and San Diego counties, which are two
counties that border Mexico. Future research would benefit from examining these
counties, specifically San Diego and Imperial counties, as they provide an opportunity to
incorporate the differences among urban, suburban, and rural schools and communities.
Conclusion
This study adds to the existing body of literature on access to AP courses, more
specifically how educational leaders can increase access for all students. The research
findings in this study are consistent with previously published findings in these academic
areas. Site administrators who oversee the AP program can use this research to help guide
them on their quest to have an effective and openly accessible AP program. District
administrators can use this research to understand how best to provide necessary supports
93

to their secondary administrators and to establish proper procedures to build a robust and
equitable AP program for all students in their district.

94

REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?acc
no=ED 431363
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school
through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?acc
no=ED 490195
Bae, S., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Recognizing college and career readiness in
the California school accountability system. Retrieved from
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/recognizing-college-
and-career-readiness-california-school-accountability-system_2.pdf
Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(1), 44–52.
Billig, S., Jaime, I., Abrams, A., Fitzpatrick, M., & Kendrick, E. (2005). Closing the
achievement gap: Lessons from successful schools. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491863.pdf
California Department of Education. (2016). California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP) results. Retrieved from
http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2017). Local Control Funding Formula. Retrieved
from https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp

Camara, W., Dorans, N., Morgan, R., & Myford, C. (2000). Advanced Placement: Access
not exclusion. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(40). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/431/554
Camara, W., & Millsap, R. (1998). Using the PSAT/NMSQT and course grades in
predicting success in the Advanced Placement Program. College Board Rep. No.
98-4. New York, NY: The College Entrance Examination Board.
Chajewski, M., Mattern, K. D., & Shaw, E. J. (2011). Examining the role of Advanced
Placement exam participation in 4-year college enrollment. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 16–27. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
3992.2011.00219.x
95

College Board. (2006). Bulletin for AP students and parents. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/ap-bulletin-students-
parents.pdf
College Board. (2011). Program summary report [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/AP-Program-Summary-
Report.pdf
College Board. (2012a). Achieving equity. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/k-121assessment/aplequity
College Board. (2012b). Bulletin for AP students and parents. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/ap-bulletin-students-
parents.pdf
College Board. (2014). The 10th annual Advanced Placement report to the nation.
Princeton, NJ: Author.
College Board. (2016a). Advanced Placement score distributions 1996-2016. Princeton,
NJ: Author.
College Board. (2016b). The College Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.org
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Davis, P., Davis, M., & Mobley, J. (2013). The school counselor’s role in addressing the
Advanced Placement equity and excellence gap for African-American students.
Professional School Counseling, 17(1), 32–39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5330/psc.n.2013-17.32
Delahaye, A. (2016). Local control funding formula: A continuum of discrimination
against minority youth in education. Poverty Law Conference, 7. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/povlaw/7
Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006). The relationship between Advanced
Placement and college graduation (No. 2005 AP Study Series, Report 1). Austin,
TX: National Center for Educational Accountability. Retrieved from
http://www.cgu.edu/PDFFiles/The_Relationship_between_Advanced_Placement_
and_C ollege_Graduation%202006.pdf
96

Duffy, W. (2010). Persistence and performance at a four-year university: The relationship
with advanced coursework during high school. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, &
K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement
Program (pp. 139–163). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Ewing, M., Camara, W., & Millsap, R. (2006). The relationship between PSAT/NMSQT
scores and AP examination grades: A follow-up study (No. 2006-1). New York,
NY: The College Board. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/06898CBR06-1.pdf
Ewing, M., Camara, W., Millsap, R., & Milewski, G. (2007). Updating AP potential
expectancy tables involving PSAT/NMSQT writing. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561036.pdf
Eykamp, P. W. (2006). Using data mining to explore which students use Advanced
Placement to reduce time to degree. New Directions for Institutional Research,
2006(131), 83–99. doi:10.1002/ir.189
Flores, S., & Gomez, M. (2011). Strategies for increasing Advanced Placement
participation for underrepresented students: Barriers, practices, and positive
outcomes. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 65–79.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636511406529
Flowers, L. A. (2008). Racial differences in the impact of participating in Advanced
Placement programs on educational and labor market outcomes. Educational
Foundations, 22(1/2), 121–132.
Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and honors courses
in college admissions. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education,
University of California, Berkeley.
Hargrove, L., Godin, D., & Dodd, B. (2008). College outcomes comparisons by AP and
non-AP high school experiences (No. 2008-3). New York, NY: College Board.
Retrieved from https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/08-
1574_CollegeOutcomes.pdf
Hébert, T. P., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an
urban high school. Urban Education, 34(4), 428–457.
Iatarola, P., Conger, D., & Long, M. C. (2011). Determinants of high schools’ advanced
course offerings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 340–359.
doi:10.3102/0162373711398124
Jara, T. D., Slate, J. P., Moore, G. W., & Martinez-Garcia, C. (2014). Hispanic students
and Advanced Placement exams: An analysis of the most often taken, most
difficult, and easiest exams. Journal of Education Research, 8(1/2), 23–51.
97

Keng, L., & Dodd, B. (2008). A comparison of college performances of AP and non-AP
student groups in 10 subject areas (No. 2008-7). New York, NY: College Board.
Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/08_1789_RD.ResearchR
eport_ Web_081230.pdf
Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced Placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity?
Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115–131.
Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. K. (2009). The link between Advanced Placement
experience and early college success. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 873–
891.
Klugman, J. (2013). The Advanced Placement arms race and the reproduction of
educational inequality. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–34.
Lichten, W. (2000). Whither Advanced Placement? Educational Policy Archives, 29.
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n29.html
Mattern, K., Shaw, E., & Xiong, X. (2009). The relationship between AP exam
performance and college outcomes (No. 2009-4). New York, NY: College Board.
Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/09b_269_RReport2009_
Groups _Outcomes_WEB_091124.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milewski, G. B., & Gillie, J. M. (2002). What are the characteristics of Advanced
Placement teachers? An examination of survey research. New York, NY: College
Entrance Examination Board.
Morgan, R., & Klaric, J. (2007). AP students in college: An analysis of five-year
academic careers (No. 2007-4). New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/072065RDCBRpt07-
4_071218.pdf
National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced
study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: The
National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10129
98

Ohrt, J., Lambie, G., & Ieva, K. (2009). Supporting Latino and African-American
students in Advanced Placement courses: A school counseling program’s
approach. Professional School Counseling, 13(1), 59–63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5330/psc.n.2010-13.59
President & Fellows of Harvard College. (2009). Harvard College admissions § About
Harvard: Advanced standing. Retrieved from
http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/about/learning/advanced_standing.ht
ml
Rankin, M. M. (2012). Encouraging AP success for all students. Education Week, 31(28),
23.
Sadler, P., & Sonnert, G. (2010). High school Advanced Placement and success in
college coursework in the sciences. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K.
Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement
Program (pp. 119–137). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Sadler, P. & Tai, R. (2007). Weighting for recognition: Accounting for Advanced
Placement and honors courses when calculating high school grade point average.
NASSP Bulletin, 91(1), 5–32.
Schneider, J. (2009). Privilege, equity, and the Advanced Placement program: Tug of
war. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 813–831.
doi:10.1080/00220270802713613
Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., & Lee, Y.-H. (2010). Assessment of Advanced Placement
participation and university academic success in the first semester: Controlling for
selected high school academic abilities. Journal of College Admission, 208, 26–
30.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical
leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 133–161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03259148
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011015.pdf
Solorzano, D., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A critical race analysis of Advanced Placement
classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4),
215–229.
Solorzano, D., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African
American Advanced Placement enrollment in public high schools. The High
School Journal, 87(3), 15–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2004.0003
99

Vela, J., Zamarripa, M., Balkin, R., Johnson, M., & Smith, R. (2013). Understanding
Latina/o students’ perceptions of high school counselors and acculturation as
predictors of enrollment in AP courses. Professional School Counseling, 17(1),
142–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.5330/prsc.17.1.a32q312p27351256
Walker, S., & Pearsall, L. (2012). Barriers to advanced placement for Latino students at
the high school level. Roeper Review, 34(1), 12–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.627549
Wolf, R., & Sands, J. (2016). A preliminary analysis of California’s New Local Control
Funding Formula. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(34).
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v24.2194
Wyatt, J., & Mattern, K. (2011). Low-SES students and college outcomes: The role of AP
fee reductions (No. 2011-9). New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/RR2011-9.pdf
Zhang, X., Patel, P., & Ewing, M. (2014). AP potential predicted by PSAT/NMSQT
scores using logistic regression (Statistical report 2014-1). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558092.pdf

100

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (QUANTITATIVE)
1. Informed Consent

2. I am confident in my knowledge of the AP program at my school.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

3. My district’s LCAP supports the AP program at my school.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

4. Targeted funds should support the AP program.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

5. The AP program at my school is well funded.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

6. District office administrators value equitable access to AP courses for all students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

7. AP teachers at my school actively promote the AP program.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

8. School counselors at my school actively promote the AP program.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

101

9. AP teachers at my school value equitable access to AP courses for all students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

10. School counselors at my school value equitable access to AP courses for all students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

11. Administrators at my school value equitable access to AP courses for all students.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

12. The school culture at my school values AP equity over AP test scores.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

13. My school actively recruits Hispanic students for its AP program.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

14. My school actively promotes the AP program to Hispanic parents.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

15. The AP program at my school has an open-access policy for its AP program.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

16. My school uses pre-set criteria to determine access to AP courses

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
102

17. My school has effective academic support systems in place to support Hispanic
students in AP courses.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

18. I consider the AP program at my school to be successful.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

19. I consider the AP program at my school to be equitable.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

20. Hispanic students at my school are equitably represented in AP courses.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

21. My title is:

District Director Principal Assistant Principal

22. I have been in education for:

1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years

23. My race or ethnicity is:

Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African-American Asian-American Other

24. I work in:
103

Orange County Los Angeles County Inland Empire

25. Would you be willing to participate in an interview about equitable AP access?

Yes No

104

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE (QUALITATIVE)

1. How long have you been overseeing the AP program?
2. How many AP courses do you currently offer?
3. Does your school have any policies regarding student enrollment into an AP course?
a. What led you to currently screen or not screen students before they can take
your AP course?
4. Do you promote AP participation to Hispanic students?
a. If yes, then How?
5. Have you faced any challenges in enrolling Hispanic students into your AP program?
a. If no, what have you done to avoid/prevent those challenges?
b. If yes, please elaborate what those might be?
6. What current practices are you implementing to promote/increase access for Hispanic
students into the AP program?
a. Potential follow up question for clarity if needed.
7. Is your district’s LCAP supporting AP equity?
a. How or how not?
8. Do you have an evaluation process as it pertains to equitable access to your AP
program?
a. Can you describe what that process entails?
9. Would you consider your AP program equitable?
a. If yes, justify.
105

b. If no, what does your program need to become more equitable?
10. Do you have any questions for me?

106

APPENDIX C: LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS REQUESTING
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY
Date
Asst. Sup
Title
Address
RE: Permission to Conduct Research Study
Dear Asst. Sup
I am writing to request permission to conduct a research study in your district. I am
currently enrolled in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California, and am in the process of writing my doctoral dissertation. The study is entitled
Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles
county.

I am targeting a district level director who oversees the implementation of the Advanced
Placement program in your district, high school principals, and high school assistant
principals who also oversee the Advanced Placement program. They will be asked to
complete an anonymous survey. Your administrators who volunteer to participate will be
given the opportunity to volunteer for an in-person interview. The survey,
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/USCEquity will take 15-20 minutes to complete. The
in-person interview should only take 45 minutes and will be scheduled during the
summer break and at their convenience.
107

The survey and interview results will be analyzed solely for this dissertation and
individual results of this study will remain absolutely confidential and anonymous, then
destroyed when the study has come to its end. No costs will be incurred by either your
district, your schools, or the individual participants. Once completed, you will receive an
executive summary of the findings.
Your approval to conduct this study will be greatly appreciated. If you agree, kindly reply
to this email. The study would also benefit from your recommendation of whom to
contact. I will follow up with an email or telephone call in the coming weeks and would
be happy to answer any questions or concerns that you may have at any time throughout
this study. You may contact me via email at:_________________________________ or
by phone at (###) ###-####..
Sincerely,
Researcher name and affiliation

108

APPENDIX D: LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS
Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles
county, Orange county, and the Inland Empire

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Dan Daher, Brett D’Errico, Ryan D’Errico
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089

PURPOSE OF STUDY
You are being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in
this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it
will involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please contact the
researcher(s) if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
The purpose of this study is to examine Hispanic students’ equitable access to Advanced
Placement (AP) courses. We are interested in understanding barriers as well as best
practices from the perspectives of district directors who oversee the AP program in their
districts, high school principals, and high school assistant principals who also oversee the
AP programs at their respective sites.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you decide to participate you will be asked to complete an online survey that contains
25 multiple choice (Likert scale) questions. The online survey is anticipated to take no
more than 15-20 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey, you will have the option
to participate in an in-person interview. The interview is voluntary, anticipated to last
approximately 45 minutes and will be audio-taped.
Any identifiable information obtained from the survey will be used exclusively to arrange
in-person interviews and will not be included as part of the study in any other way. No
identifiable information will be obtained from the in-person interviews. Once coded and
analyzed, all recorded interviews will be deleted.
109

RISKS
There are no foreseeable risks to your involvement in this study. The study is designed to
ask participants to examine aspects of their AP programs that present challenges and/or
barriers. However, you may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate
your involvement at any time if you choose.

BENEFITS
While there are not any direct benefits for participating in this study, participation is
designed to provide an opportunity to critically evaluate the barriers and best practices of
the AP program at your school or district. Upon completion of the study, your
superintendent will receive an executive summary that may help inform future decisions
about the AP program at your school or district.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses to this survey will be completely anonymous. Any identifiable
information obtained from the survey will be used exclusively to arrange in-person
interviews and will not be included as part of the study in any other way. There are no
other opportunities to provide any identifying information on this survey.
All interviews conducted as part of this research study will be anonymous as well. Every
effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the
following:
● Assigning code names or pseudonyms for participants that will be used on all
research notes and documents
● Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying participant
information on a password protected hard drive, in a locked file cabinet in the
personal possession of the researcher
● Deleting and destroying all survey results and in-person interviews at the
conclusion of the study

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to
take part in this study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign
110

this consent form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to withdraw at any
time and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not affect the
relationship you have, if any, with the researcher. If you withdraw from the study before
data collection is completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed.
CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information. I understand that my participation
is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and
without cost. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form should I
volunteer to participate in an in-person interview. I voluntarily agree to take part in this
study.

Participant's signature ______________________________ Date __________

Investigator's signature _____________________________ Date __________

111

APPENDIX E: SURVEY QUESTIONS AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research Questions:
1. How are school districts in (insert county) utilizing their LCAP to support
Hispanic students’ access to AP courses?
2. What obstacles are school administrators at (insert county) high schools
experiencing when addressing Hispanic students’ AP access?
3. What are the best practices utilized by school administrators to address Hispanic
students’ access to Advanced Placement courses in (insert county) schools?
4. How are school leaders in (insert county) high schools evaluating Hispanic
students’ access to AP courses?
Survey questions and their relations to the research questions
Research
Question
Survey
Question
Questions
1 3 My district’s LCAP supports the AP program at my
school.
1 4 Targeted funds should support the AP program.
1 5 The AP program at my school is well funded.
1 6 District office administrators value equitable access to
AP courses for all students.
2 7 AP teachers at my school actively promote the AP
program.
2 8 School counselors at my school actively promote the
112

Research
Question
Survey
Question
Questions
AP program.
2 9 AP teachers at my school value equitable access to AP
courses for all students.
2 10 School counselors at my school value equitable access
to AP courses for all students.
2 11 Administrators at my school value equitable access to
AP courses for all students.
2 12 The school culture at my school values AP equity over
AP test scores.
3 13 My school actively recruits Hispanic students for its AP
program.
3 14 My school actively promotes the AP program to
Hispanic parents.
3 15 The AP program at my school has an open-access
policy for its AP program.
3 16 My school uses pre-set criteria to determine access to
AP courses
3 17 My school has effective academic support systems in
place to support Hispanic students in AP courses.
4 18 I consider the AP program at my school to be
successful.
4 19 I consider the AP program at my school to be equitable.
4 20 Hispanic students at my school are equitably
represented in AP courses.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to better understand Hispanic students’ access to Advanced Placement (AP) courses by analyzing the critical aspects that high school principals, assistant principals, and district-level directors in Los Angeles County employ to improve AP access in their schools and districts. More specifically, this study set out to determine 1) how educational leaders utilize their district’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) to support Hispanic students’ access to AP courses, 2) the barriers to AP access educational leaders are experiencing, 3) the best practices educational leaders are employing to increase Hispanic students’ access to AP courses, and 4) how educational leaders are evaluating Hispanic students’ access to AP courses. This study implemented a mixed-methods approach in which 17 Los Angeles County high school principals, assistant principals, and district directors completed a survey

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in the Inland Empire

PDF

Examining Hispanic students' access to AP courses in high schools in Orange County

PDF

Student mental health and wellness in K-12 high performing school districts in Southern California: best practices for educational leaders

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

The advanced placement program: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

Strategies used by California high school counselors to help Latino students complete a–g requirements

PDF

A case study: how a high performing school in a predominantly Hispanic community is curtailing the dropout rate through principal leadership and school organization

PDF

Identifying resiliency factors viewed by fourth and fifth grade teachers that foster academic success in elementary minority Hispanic students in Orange County

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

The open enrollment of advanced placement classes as a means for increasing student achievement at the high school level

PDF

Analysis of southern California Title I high school student utilization of online courses to fulfill graduation requirements

PDF

Best practices of school districts in the recruiting, retaining, and mentoring of principals at Title I elementary schools in southern California

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Case study: underrepresentation of women in high school principalships and challenges they face in the workplace

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives

PDF

Curriculum and assessment alignment, instructional practices, and the impact on Hispanic/Latino students advanced placement exam achievement

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

Asset Metadata

Creator D'Errico, Brett (author)

Core Title Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/04/2018

Defense Date 02/12/2018

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

Tag access,advanced placement,AP,Barriers,Hispanic,LCAP,LCFF,Los Angeles,OAI-PMH Harvest,Southern California

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Thorossian, Katherine (committee member)

Creator Email bderrico@tustin.k12.ca.us,derrico@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-489634

Unique identifier UC11266973

Identifier etd-DErricoBre-6141.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-489634 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DErricoBre-6141.pdf

Dmrecord 489634

Document Type Dissertation

Rights D'Errico, Brett

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA