Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Student perceptions at middle college high schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Student perceptions at middle college high schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS AT MIDDLE COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOLS
by
James Yi
____________________________________________________________________
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
August 2012
Copyright 2012 James Yi
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The people and organizations whom I would like to thank range from personal to
professional individuals and institutions. Without them, none of this is possible. I begin
by discussing the professionals in my life.
There are three individuals whom I would like to thank first: Dr. Gilbert
Hentschke, Dr. David Dwyer, and Dr. Katherine Fundukian Thorossian. My USC
Rossier School of Education dissertation committee was the guiding light to this phe-
nomenological study of student perspectives at middle college and early college high
schools. Not only did they advise me, but they also accommodated my urgency in get-
ting this done on time and done right. Dr. Hentschke provided me with the confidence to
go ahead with the study by expressing enthusiasm along the way. His approval was
essential to my perseverance. Dr. Dwyer guided my creation of interview protocol ques-
tions and inclusion of the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and
Teaching (NCREST) survey data to validate the findings. His direction helped me to find
my way through the difficulties that I experienced while writing the report of this study.
Dr. Fundukian (as I knew her) was one of my two favorite teachers in high school. She
not only took time to be there for my initial presentation and defense of my dissertation
but also inspired my teaching methods and classroom management style. She was one of
the only teachers who I felt truly cared about my life.
The Middle College National Consortium and the National Center for Restruc-
turing Education, Schools and Teaching at Columbia University provided survey data
pertinent to this study. Individuals from both organizations provided essential
iii
information for the study. These institutions create opportunities for at-risk youth, as
well as solutions to educational issues.
The two schools and the students who participated in this study provided the
answers to make this a successful study. The principals and teachers at these schools
accommodated my schedule and helped in choosing students. These student participants
were absolutely cooperative, and I thank them for giving me descriptive insights. My
principal should also be mentioned. Her accommodations, empathy, and support pro-
duced a smooth logistical flow when at times work conflicted with the actions involved in
this study.
Friends supported me throughout this 3-year process, especially Shannon and
Toni. The trenches were difficult to overcome, and their camaraderie was greatly appre-
ciated in getting through each day. I could not have written into the long hours without
them; they will be friends for life.
I thank my best friend Renee for watching over me. I will meet her at the pearly
gates one day; for now, she lives within me.
My parents and sister Ann supported my professional endeavors and throughout
the past 3 years. I felt their prayers during those rough days. I know they are proud of
me.
I thank God and my church. The prayers were definitely felt. My faith in God is
stronger than ever, and I hope to use my educational experiences and successes to do
works in his name.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Access and Persistence 1
Theoretical Framework: Social Capital 4
Middle College Initiative 5
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
Access and Persistence 12
Access 13
Inadequate academic preparation 15
Inadequate college planning 16
Financial barriers 17
Unsupportive school climate 18
Persistence 18
Inadequate academic preparation 20
Inadequate college planning 21
Low educational aspirations 21
Financial barriers 22
Social Capital 23
Middle College Initiative and Schools 28
Student Performance 29
Student Support 31
Chapter Summary 36
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 37
Research Questions 38
Participants and Sample 38
Data Collection and Instrumentation 41
Data Analysis 45
Limitations of the Study 46
Significance of the Study 47
Chapter 4: Results 49
Participants 51
Antonia 54
Darius 54
Drusus 54
Tiberius 54
v
Caligula 55
Lucius 55
Messalina 55
Postumus 56
Research Question 1 56
School A 57
School B 59
Research Question 2 62
School A 63
School B 65
Research Question 3 67
School A 68
School B 70
Research Question 4 73
School A 74
School B 75
Chapter Summary 77
Chapter 5: Discussion 78
Summary of Findings 79
Research Question 1 79
Research Question 2 81
Research Question 3 82
Research Question 4 84
Limitations of the Study 85
Implications for Practice 87
Future Research 89
Conclusion 90
References 95
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol: Antonia 105
Appendix B: Interview Protocol: Caligula 108
Appendix C: Interview Protocol: Claudius 110
Appendix D: Interview Protocol: Drusus 115
Appendix E: Interview Protocol: Lucius 118
Appendix F: Interview Protocol: Messalina 122
Appendix G: Interview Protocol: Postumus 125
Appendix H: Interview Protocol: Tiberius 128
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Comparison of middle college high schools (MC) and early college
high schools (EC) 8
Figure 2: Design of the study 48
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study on student perspectives at middle college and early
college high schools was to investigate how these institutions create greater access and
persistence for at-risk students who attend postsecondary schools when studies report
regression and skewed differences among ethnic and racial groups and socioeconomic
classes at this level. There is clearly a problem in this country between majorities and
minorities and among socioeconomic classes. This is not improving nor does it promise
to improve in the near future. However, certain schools overcome this problem. This
study focuses on the phenomenon of middle college and early college high schools and
their design principles.
Middle college and early college design principles require and encourage schools
to utilize the theoretical framework on which this study is based: the theory of social
capital through agents and resources. Support networks help to drive these schools
toward academic success while adhering to each school’s visions and principles. The
schools and students sampled for this study were from two middle college and early
college high schools in similar low socioeconomic urban neighborhoods. The main
purpose of this study was to collect phenomenological data about the subjective
perspectives of a group of students from these schools and compare the data to those
reported in the literature, including data reported by the National Center for Restructuring
Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST) at Teachers College, Columbia University,
which guided development of questions for this study. This includes the theory in action,
social capital theory, which was applied and compared to student insights to supplement
future endeavors in the field of education.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Access and Persistence
Access to and persistence in higher education are challenges for minority youths,
especially African Americans and Latinos, in the United States, especially in postsecond-
ary institutions. College is not easy for at-risk minority groups, and this issue is escalat-
ing, evidenced by decreasing graduation rates and increasing unemployment rates.
Approximately 65% of students in low socioeconomic (SES) classes complete high
school, compared with 91% of students in middle and upper SES classes (Goldberger,
2007). High school graduates from the lower classes who score in the top testing quartile
are similar to students who score in the lower quartiles from the same class (Advisory
Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2001). Enrollment in higher education by
students in low SES groups is lower than that for students from higher SES groups, as
shown in this report. The gaps in college participation by ethnic group have widened
progressively in the past 20 years (Ryu, 2008). Privileged classes are 5 times more likely
to graduate from college than members of minority groups (Advisory Committee on
Student Financial Assistance, 2001). Access is possible, but persistence is not, as
revealed by these significant gaps.
Studies on issues of access and persistence in college have reported several inade-
quacies in high school students. Academic preparation, college planning, financial
issues, minimal support, and low aspiration are key components of the problem of access
and persistence throughout college (Choy, 2002; Cooper, 2008). The literature review
2
reported in Chapter 2 documents that these elements are the main reasons at-risk students
are not accessing college or persisting throughout college.
Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio (2003) reported through examination of information
collected by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that insufficient
preparation of high school graduates means that they are not prepared for college-level
work, which ultimately leads to attritional and remedial consequences. Seastrom, Hoff-
man, Chapman, and Stillwell (2005) reported that approximately 25% of all students do
not graduate from high school and noted that this proportion is higher for low-income,
minority, and rural students. Only approximately 17% of graduating seniors are profi-
cient in mathematics (Brasswell et al., 2001) and 36% are proficient in reading (Grigg,
Caane, Jin, & Campbell, 2003). These low levels of proficiencies exacerbate the problem
of access and persistence, but they are not the only issues that should be addressed.
Financial problems in high school and college create barriers to access and per-
sistence (Choy, 2002). CollegeBoard (2005a) reported that, from 1995 to 2005, average
tuition and fees increased as much as 36% after accounting for inflation, including about
51% at public 4-year institutions. College is expensive, and financial aid does not cover
all costs, especially as funding cuts have sent tuition assistance it the lowest levels over
the past two decades (State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2005). Students who
seek financial aid are generally from the lower quartile of the SES class structure. Insuf-
ficient funds equal less opportunity and limit the knowledge and support necessary to
succeed in a capitalistic society in which there is no such thing as a free lunch. Unmet
met financial needs that lead to reliance on loans to meet high costs (McPherson &
3
Shapiro, 2002) have led to attrition and discouragement in attending and persevering in
college (Carnevale & Rose, 2003; McDonough, 2005).
College planning and support at all levels are necessities for access and persis-
tence; they go hand in hand. College planning requires knowledge of what is required to
attend; without the proper information, access is limited or denied (Martinez & Klopett,
2005). According to McDonough (1997), school structure opportunities through avail-
ability and support for college planning via the counselor and program offerings, such as
rigorous academic courses, foster the process of transition to postsecondary education.
The absence of one is the absence of both, and these inadequacies result in the validation
of this problem of access and persistence.
Low aspirations or motivation do not happen for any apparent reason for the
lowest quartile. Inadequate academic preparation, inadequate college planning, financial
limitations, and an unsupportive school climate contribute negatively to students’ aspira-
tions to do well academically in high school and beyond. If students are not achieving
academically, motivation and aspiration are negatively affected because self-efficacy and
ability diminish. Cooper (2008) reiterated that there is no argument that academic readi-
ness in high school has a direct correlation with postsecondary retention, and the obsta-
cles that a student faces in high school concerning preparation, planning, and support can
continue throughout college. Persistence will continue in college if students are properly
prepared (Choy, 2002); however, in many cases, as reported throughout this study,
minority at-risk students are not graduating equitably with other groups.
At-risk students are deprived of the supports that higher SES class students
receive from home, school, and outside networks. These agents and resources come in
4
many forms. This study of the problem of access and persistence for at-risk youths is
guided by social capital theory.
Theoretical Framework: Social Capital
Social capital has several definitions. According to Bourdieu (1985), social
capital is the concept of “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are
linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of
mutual acquaintance or recognition” (p. 249). Loury (1977) did not define social capital
but supported theories of racial inequality and achieving equality through creating access
to opportunities via social networks for minorities, “namely the role of social capital in
the creation of human capital” (Portes, 1998, p. 5). Coleman (1988) defined social capi-
tal as “a variety of entities with two elements in common: They all consist of some aspect
of social structures, and they facilitate certain action of actors—whether persons or
corporate factors—within the structure” (p. 98). Social capital was defined by Stanton-
Salazar (2010) as “consisting of resources and key forms of social support embedded in
one’s network or associations, and accessible through direct or indirect ties with institu-
tional agents” (p. 5). This support is created at home and within the community, but
schools serve as an essential and central institution for attainment of social capital, all of
which is limited for students from the lowest quartile (Coleman & Hoffer, 2000; Cooper,
2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2010).
At-risk minority students benefit from social capital, or as Feldman and Assaf
(1999) called it, social relationships, that schools create through their institutional agents
and resources, which is referred to herein as institutional support. If social support is not
as available at home, adolescents compensate by turning to other agents who can provide
5
information and opportunities, such as school staff. Stanton-Salazar (2010) stated,
“Whereas White, middle-class youth encounter a confluence in cultural discourses and
practices across social worlds, working-class youth often find these worlds are culturally
differentiated, each world embodying a distinct cultural discourse” (p. 7). At-risk youths
need institutional support to cope, comprehend, and persevere through the multiple envi-
ronments encountered on a daily basis. Several studies have identified social capital as a
predictor of student academic performance and academic choices (Cooper, 2008; Feld-
man & Assaf, 1999; Kahne & Bailey, 1999; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush, 1995) to vali-
date the importance of social capital, which will be discussed in Chapter 2.
Social capital also increases other assets that are necessary to navigate an unfair
society, such as cultural, economic, and human capital. Bourdieu (1985) concluded that
social capital increases economic capital through jobs and other resources, which can also
increase cultural capital through associations with outside networks. Human capital is
also enhanced by acquisition of social capital (Coleman, 1988). The literature review
cites studies that validate the correlations and predictors of social capital, emphasized
here to express the importance of this theoretical framework to increase access and per-
sistence not only by attending middle college and early college high schools but by uti-
lizing what is robustly available at these schools.
Middle College Initiative
This section defines middle college and early college high schools and their
design principles for understanding of what these schools do. These schools are not
middle or junior high schools; they are secondary institutions. Middle college high
schools are different from each other. Although this study is primarily on two middle
6
college high schools, they are also early college high schools and they are alike in many
ways. This will be explained further to create a picture of these schools as a singular ini-
tiative and not two separate programs and organizations, although they technically are
such. A brief and simple definition of middle college and early college schools is that
they are dual enrollment secondary schools in which students are simultaneously enrolled
in a community college. A more thorough definition follows a review of the history
behind the Middle College High School Initiative and its purpose, and how the Early
College High School Initiative gained ground.
In 1974, the first middle college high school was created at LaGuardia Com-
munity College in New York City to serve underrepresented youths through an innova-
tive program. Students attended junior college while attending high school to decrease
the high school dropout rate and to increase college attendance and persistence. This
hybrid school concept was the result of the logical strategy to provide a dual credit
enrollment opportunity at the high school and college; use new and updated curriculum,
pedagogy, and learning strategies; and create a small learning community (SLC) with
emphasis on tangible and intangible support (Bragg & Kim, n.d.). This logic behind cre-
ating an institution for similar types of students to experience high school and college
simultaneously was influenced by earlier attempts by Simon’s Rock College in Great
Barrington, Massachusetts, that combined the last years of school with college courses
(Jacobsen, 2005). A partnership of the high school, the local school district, and La
Guardia Community College created a seamless process for academic success. The
dropout rate decreased, attendance and pass rates increased, graduation rates increased to
7
over 80%, and college attendance rates soared to more than 85% through the phenome-
non of dual enrollment.
This success rate was publicized and eventually was noted by several foundations,
such as the Pew Charitable Trusts and the DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund.
Today, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York,
the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Ford Foundation fund the Early College High
School initiative, which redesigned existing middle colleges and opened new schools
under any name so long as the school was committed to offering an accelerated program
enabling students to earn an Associate degree or 2 years of transferable college credits,
with no tuition and books costs (Bragg & Kim, n.d.). Again, middle and early college
schools are the same except that the Early College project is owned and managed by Jobs
for the Future.
There are minimal differences between the Middle and Early College initiatives
and organizations. Not all early college schools are located on college campuses, as are
middle colleges (see Figure 1).
More significantly, early college schools offer their students the opportunity to
earn a significant number or transferable college credits, up to an Associate’s
degree and a high school diploma within four to five years of starting ninth grade;
this is not a tenet of middle college high schools. (Nodine, 2009, p. 8)
However, more and more middle college schools are becoming early colleges, partly due
to funding and the rigor and support that early colleges have gained with the Gates Foun-
dation’s endorsement.
This study focuses on two middle college high schools and not early college high
schools to minimize any distinction between the two initiatives, and will be referenced
8
Figure 1. Comparison of middle college high schools (MC) and early college high
schools (EC).
throughout this study as middle college, not early college. Although the literature review
discusses findings from early colleges, the two initiatives are the same, and any distinc-
tion between the two must be disregarded and they must be regarded as one entity, as the
middle college website has indicated. Middle college and early college high schools are
small schools designed to address the issues of access and persistence in postsecondary
institutions by combining high school with college and focusing on the design principles,
since dropouts are skewed for at-risk youths (Bailey & Karp, 2003; Hartwell, 2009;
Kisker, 2006; Nodine, 2009; Wechsler, 2001). Middle and early college high schools
focus on specific at-risk groups, targeting ethnic and racial minorities, low SES status
students, and first-generation college-going students (Berger & Adelman, 2007; Born,
2006; Cunningham & Wagonlander, 2000; Jordan, Cavalluzzo, & Corallo, 2006;
9
Hartwell, 2009; Kisker, 2006; Klekotka, 2005; Nodine, 2009; Rich, 2011; Shirazi &
French, 2005; Smerdon & Means, 2006; Spence & Barnett, 2008).
Middle and early college schools are different in some ways but are like in what
they do and how they do it to increase success. Academic support strategies vary among
schools but all focus on the core design principles identified in this paragraph. The goals
and visions are worded differently in each school’s mission statements but focus on the
same goals. According to their websites (National Center for Restructuring Education,
Schools, and Teaching, 2011; Nodine, 2008), middle college schools provide the follow-
ing: (a) power of the site by college attendance and campus proximity while in high
school; (b) teaching and learning through new, innovative, and research-based pedagogy;
(c) student support through building an environment that raises student expectations and
knowledge about college, creating an accelerated and aligned curriculum and providing
support opportunities to sustain student success; (d) formative and summative student
assessment through alternative and traditional means, which could be waivers and port-
folios; (e) democratic school governance to include all stakeholders: parents, students,
teachers, the college, and various community leaders and groups; and (f) professional
development for the staff to support new, innovative, and research-based teaching and
learning methods and strategies.
Examples of the design principles turned into action at some middle college and
early college high schools include the following: (a) SLCs, (b) tutoring and intervention,
(c) counseling and mentoring, (d) parent and family inclusion, (e) academic coaches, (f)
late morning school start and accommodated schedules, (g) internships and jobs, (h)
career preparation, (i) college preparation, (j) free or reduced-price lunch program, and
10
(k) subsidized college tuition and textbook purchases (Cunningham & Wagonlander,
2000; Gehring, 2001; Hoffman, 2003; Jordan et al., 2006; Lerner & Brand, 2007; Lords,
2000; Newton, 2008; Nodine, 2009; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003; Steinberg & Almeida, 2008;
Wechsler, 2001; West, 1991). These specific types of support networks are present in
middle college and early college schools in some form, with concentration on some
strategies more than others. The middle college organizations also require accountability
to stakeholders to demonstrate that these schools are on the right path toward graduating
at-risk students from high school, access to and persistence throughout college, and the
capability to navigate and survive in an inequitable economy and society.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study of investigating student perspectives at two middle
college and early college high schools was to identify phenomena that have not been
reported in previous studies. Something other than dual enrollment and support networks
with emphasis on social capital is helping these students to succeed. The initiative itself
is a phenomenon but there is more than what the survey data by National Center for
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST; 2011) and previous studies
have revealed about how these schools create higher access and persistence for at-risk
students. It is evident that these programs decrease the problems faced by at-risk students
and increase their access to and persistence in high school and college by creating social
capital through support networks; however, there must be more than what is reported.
This study was developed to discover those unreported factors.
The study investigates student perspectives on their academic success through
informal interviews and phenomenological study. The two participating schools and
11
selected students receive and utilize resources other than those mentioned in the
literature; the recipe for success through utilization of social capital is different in every
context and situation. The key ingredients may be the same, but no two schools are the
same. Thus, discovering new insights about how these schools serve at-risk students will
contribute to enhanced understanding of their problems and the solutions offered by these
schools.
Research Questions
1. Why do high school students think they are limited in their access to and
success in college?
2. What type of support mechanisms are students reporting at middle college and
early college high schools to facilitate access to and success in college?
3. What are the opinions of students at middle college and early college high
schools about the effectiveness of their institutional agents and resources?
4. Are there support networks or intangible elements other than those that the
design principles supposedly offer?
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review investigated the education problems of minority at-risk
student regarding their access to and persistence in higher education. The research
inquiry and topic of study is student perspectives regarding college access and persistence
by minority youths through participation in middle college and early college high
schools. The middle college and early college high school initiatives and other dual
enrollment programs are examined in this literature review as solutions to the education
problem of access to and persistence in college by at-risk students. The theoretical
framework for this literature review is based on the social capital theory of institutional
support through agents and resources. Institutional agents are teachers, counselors, prin-
cipals, and other staff members at schools who provide support mechanisms for students
at middle college and early college high schools. The at-risk students are African Ameri-
can and Latin American racially inferior minority students in low socioeconomic areas.
The studies cited in this literature review address the issue of access to and persistence in
college by at-risk students, with emphasis on (a) secondary schools, (b) the theoretical
framework of the social capital theory of institutional support, and (c) the middle college
and early college high school initiatives.
Access and Persistence
Access to and persistence in college are being studied academia and have con-
sistently been part of the consciousness of the public, especially regarding disenfran-
chisement of minority youths, primarily African Americans and Latinos. Other
minorities are also deprived of opportunities afford to students in the middle and upper
13
classes and in dominant racial groups (Stanton-Salazar, 1997); however, the dilemma is
clearer for these two underrepresented racial groups and not as apparent for others, such
as the Asian minority. Ng, Lee, and Pak (2007) identified Asians through a stereotypical
model that all Asians are perceived in a monolithic category of civil citizenry and aca-
demic high achievement. However, the focus of this study is African American and
Latino students.
Minority or not, more and more students from a wide range of backgrounds are
entering college, but this does not necessarily mean that all are succeeding and moving
on. According to Martinez and Klopott (2005), although more African Americans and
Latinos are attending college, the participation rate is still lower for these minorities. The
college participation rate in 1998 through 2000 for 18- to 24-year-old White high school
graduates was 46%, compared to 40% for African Americans and 34% for Latinos (Mar-
tinez & Klopott, 2005). By the age of 25 to 29 years, approximately 34% of Whites had
graduate from college with a bachelor’s degree, while 17% of African American and 11%
of Latinos had done the same (Rooney et al., 2006). Although these statistics come from
different resources, the message is clear: Participation does not guarantee persistence.
Access
The disproportionate inequities reported above are the reasons why education has
transformed throughout world history. Poor working conditions and demands from the
working class, including children and females, eventually result in certain benefits, such
as shorter working hours, benefits for sickness, and compulsory education to a certain age
for specific classes and races. This eventually evolved and resulted in policies, laws, and
racial segregation within the public school system. According to Fowler and Luna
14
(2009), in the United States, economic changes, demographic trends, ideological shifts,
and civil leadership led to court decisions and orders and legislative amendments to
increase or limit access to elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.
Segregation, desegregation, and resegregation have occurred throughout the
history of the United States; they continue today within the confines of the U.S. Consti-
tution. Historically, one of the most famous court cases to segregate African Americans
from attending the same schools as their White counterparts was the Supreme Court case
Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (Alexander & Alexander, 2009). In the next 100+ years, this
court case and many others were challenged, reinforced, and rechallenged. Brown v.
Topeka Board of Education in 1954 was a landmark decision that separate facilities were
not necessarily equal. States and school districts cited the Constitution and state laws to
challenge Brown and closed public schools and opened private schools in order to avoid
desegregation (e.g., Prince Edward County, Virginia). While instances of resistance to
Brown are not as evident today, redistricting and limitation of housing options in certain
areas has created natural segregation that has limited access to both public and private
schools and ultimately affected college attendance for the less fortunate.
Private and public elementary and secondary schools today are not as accessible
as some people may believe. Many reports and studies provide statistical evidence to
confirm demographic trends regarding who attends what and where, but this section of
the literature review is about college access. According to Hoffman (2003), about 90%
of current high school seniors expect to attend college but only 75% of high school
graduates move on to higher education, and the top quartile of low-income students are
less likely to enter college than the bottom quartile of high-income students. Most of
15
these underrepresented students are African Americans or Latinos (Perna, 2000).
According to Terenzini, Cabrera, and Bernal (2001), students in the bottom SES quartile
were disproportionally outnumbered 10:1 by the top quartile 1989-1990; after 20 years,
this ratio has not changed significantly. The U.S. Department of Education (Rooney et
al., 2006) stated, “By age 25-29, about 34 of every 100 Whites obtain bachelor’s degrees,
compared to 17 of every 100 Blacks and just 11 of every 100 Latinos” (p. 8). Stoops
(2004) reviewed population reports from the U.S. Census Bureau that validated that
access is not proportionate.
The omnipresent educational issue in America today and in the past is that access
is clearly skewed in favor of White students and the upper quartile of the student popula-
tion. Statistics such as those cited above indicate limited access, achievement, and per-
sistence by low-income and minority students in postsecondary education. The reviewed
literature confirms that inadequate high school preparation and college planning, lack of
information about college opportunities, financial barriers, low educational aspirations,
and unsupportive school climates contribute to limited access and attrition rates of low-
SES and minority students.
Inadequate academic preparation. The lack of readiness of high school gradu-
ates for college-level work leads to attritional and remedial consequences (Venezia et al.,
2003). Students are not prepared primarily because high school academics and curricula
lack the intensity and levels of cognition necessary for college achievement (Adelman,
2002; Venezia et al., 2003). These students experience inadequate education and social
support services, as well as teen pregnancy, mental and physical abuse, poverty (Cooper,
2008, p. 19).
16
While there are multiple symptoms and causes for limited access and persistence,
this literature review focuses on the theory of social capital, specifically institutional
relationships and support. The NAEP reported that, according to the Nation’s Report
Card, only 17% of seniors were proficient in mathematics (Brasswell et al., 2001) and
36% were proficient in reading (Grigg et al., 2003). Students are not ready for college-
level work. In a 2004 analysis, fewer than 22% of the 1.2 million students who took the
ACT college entry examination showed evidence of being ready for college-level math-
ematics, English, or science (ACT, 2005). Academic preparation in high school is limit-
ing access to and persistence in higher education due to a serious disconnect. A survey
conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education (Maguire Associates, 2005) reported
that 40% of college faculty members said that entering high school students were not well
prepared for college-level writing, even though 90% of high school teachers considered
the students to be well prepared.
Inadequate college planning. College planning requires knowledge of what is
required to attend college. Without proper information, access is limited or denied (Mar-
tinez & Klopott, 2005). Cooper (2008) emphasized that college planning is linked to
talking to people about the college process, gathering as much information as possible
about specific schools, attending educational opportunity interventions and programs, and
obtaining information on the application and financial aid process. At-risk students,
primarily African American and Latinos from low SES groups, are inadequately prepared
for the college planning process. Students who participate in college planning
interventions and programs are more likely to attend college (Choy, Horn, Nunez, &
Chen, 2000) but those who do not participate have trouble in meeting deadlines, are
17
confused about which forms to complete, and how to complete them. They do not know
how to complete a college application, the Free Application for Financial Aid (FAFSA),
scholarship applications, and college entrance examinations such as the ACT (Noeth &
Wimberly, 2002) and SAT. This inadequate planning limits or completely denies access,
simply because the process for attending college is not fully understood by the high
school student.
Financial barriers. The expense of attending college and lack of knowledge
about financial aid are barriers to access and attendance (Choy, 2002). CollegeBoard
(2005a) reported that, from 1995 to 2005, average tuition and fees increased as much as
36% after accounting for inflation, including about 51% for a public 4-year institution.
College is expensive, and financial aid does not cover all costs, especially as funding cuts
have brought such aid to its lowest levels in the past two decades (State Higher Education
Executive Officers, 2005). CollegeBoard (2005b) reported the percentage of family
income needed to cover net college costs after grant aid; the lowest SES quartile, which
makes $0-$34,000 annually, will be expected to 47% of that income out of pocket for
college. There is no question that a family making $34,000 per year cannot cover such
high tuition rates directly, so they seek financial aid. Loans are the only option other than
employment to make up the rest. Debt levels for the average college graduate reached
$15,500 for public school students and $19,400 for students at private non-profit institu-
tions, according to CollegeBoard (2005a). Many high school students hear about the
threat of debt and put aside college, never to be considered again. Without the proper
institutional agents, inadequacies will continue to mount and result in limited information
and eventual limited access.
18
Unsupportive school climate. A supportive school environment provides social
capital and influential components necessary for college accessibility. According to
McDonough (1997), schools structure opportunities for availability and support for
college planning through the counselor and program offerings such as rigorous academic
courses that foster the process of transition to postsecondary education. Social capital
opportunities and programs to ease access and attainment are discussed in later sections
of this literature review, with specific synthesis on institutional support. Hoffman and
Vargas (2005) stated, “For low-income youth, first-generation college goers, and students
of color, unfulfilled aspirations to attend college can lead to dashed dreams” (p. 3), which
means that support mechanisms are absolutely necessary.
Persistence
Access is an essential issue for African Americans and Latinos, as well as for
rural and low-income students from other races. Inadequate high school preparation and
college planning, financial barriers, and unsupportive school climate and culture are the
key culprits blocking college access, but persistence to obtain a bachelor’s degree is just
as problematic. Once students enter college, many quit, underachieve, or take remedial
courses, resulting in an economy and workforce that is not at their highest potential.
Persistence is the opposite of attrition, and successfully followed by attainment
through graduation with a bachelor’s degree, along with knowledge and skills to contrib-
ute to society. Staying in and graduating from college is an educational issue for all
students, but studies by the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of
Education, 2005) indicated that universities save more money by retaining a student than
by recruiting one. According to M. A. Clark et al. (2006) based on their analysis of data
19
from the 2000 census, there was disparity between the academic success rates of minority
students and White students. For example, “For all 25- to 29-year-olds who completed
college in 2000, 34% of White students, 18% of Black students, and 10% of Hispanic
students in that age range completed college and earned bachelor’s degrees” (Clark,
M.A., et al., 2006, p. 123). White students obtained 75% of all bachelor’s degrees, com-
pared to 9% earned by Black students, 6% by Hispanic students, and 10% by interna-
tional students and other races (Clark, M. A., et al., 2006). Wolk (2005) reported similar
dismal statistics in which 75% of high school graduates went onto college but more than
a third needed remediation, another third did not enter the sophomore year, and more than
half did not earn a degree; 41% of those who earned at least 10 college credits never
completed their degrees (Adelman, 1994). Upper-income students were 7 times more
likely than low-income students to obtain a bachelor’s degree, and “the percentage of
U.S. students who earn a college degree is essentially the same as it was 30 years ago”
(Wolk, 2005, p. 2). At the same time, colleges are becoming more diverse. With such
disproportionate rates, the reasons behind success reinforce the lack thereof; high schools
and colleges should focus on persistence and attainment of degree as opportunities for all
students.
M. A. Clark et al. (2006) reported results of a survey and open-ended question-
naire about students considered to be most important to educational success. In order of
significance, the identified factors were perseverance/determination, belief in self and
abilities, mother, scholarships/fellowships, hope, spirituality, father, relative compliance
to rules, imagination, paid employment, literacy, mentors, sense of fun, future salary,
traveling, activities/organizations, friends, the arts, and the media. The study did not
20
investigate variables at the high school level related to student retention and degree
attainment in college. According to Cooper (2008), the elements limiting persistence are
inadequate academic preparation, inadequate college planning, and low educational aspi-
rations.
Inadequate academic preparation. Rigorous academic high school preparation
increases underrepresented students’ chances for retention and success at the college
level because college-level course work is different from and more demanding than high
school course work (Adelman, 2002; Cooper, 2008; Martinez & Klopott, 2005; Lennon,
Blackwell, Bridgeforth, & Cole, 1996). Recent studies by RAND Corporation, Education
Trust, and Achieve found significant content and depth differences between K-12 and
placement exams (Kirst, 2003) and confirmed the disconnect between high school and
postsecondary curriculum. ACT (2005) estimated that less than 22% of the 1.2 million
students who took the ACT college entry examination were ready for college-level math-
ematics, English, or science. According to the literature review by Kirst (2003), “Inade-
quate student preparation is widespread in these broad access institutions, and
remediation rates are above 55% in most them” (p. 3). Broad access institutions,
approximately 85% of all postsecondary institutions, admit almost everyone who applies,
and educate 80% of all first-year college students (Kirst, 2003). Several studies have
confirmed that high school grade point average (GPA) and college admission test scores
are significant indicators of college retention (Kirst, 2003; Tross, Harper, Osher, &
Kneidinger, 2000). College readiness or adequate preparation is not a subjective percep-
tion; it is determined by high rigor in high school, academic excellence, and proficiency
on standardized tests and college entry examinations.
21
Inadequate college planning. College planning not only prepares students to
enter college but also influences college retention and degree attainment (Choy, 2002;
Cooper, 2008). College planning requires knowledge of what is required to attend
college, talking to appropriate people about the college process, gathering as much
information as possible about specific schools, attending educational opportunity
interventions and programs, and obtaining information regarding the application and
financial aid process. Several studies have confirmed that the school counselor is an
essential support mechanism in the college planning process (Adelman, 1999; Cooper,
2008; McDonough, 1997, 2005; Plank & Jordan, 2001), along with teachers, principals,
and other school staff (Choy, 2002). This assistance does not guarantee persistence and
degree attainment, and the research does not implicate adequate college planning results
as contributing to success, but having the same support mechanisms in college with a
caring and supporting environment implicates similar results, emotions, and perceptions.
Low educational aspirations. Inadequate academic preparation, inadequate
college planning, and an unsupportive school climate contribute negatively to students’
aspirations to do well academically in high school. Students who believe that they are
not academically capable in high school will continue to hold those perceptions in college
because they are not prepared for the rigorous demands required by higher learning
programs regarding persistence and attainment unless they receive support mechanisms
that were not available to them in high school. Academic readiness in high school has a
direct connection with postsecondary persistence, as the issues that at-risk students faced
in high school regarding preparation, planning, and support continue throughout college
22
(Choy, 2002, Cooper, 2008). Persistence continues in college if students are properly
prepared (Choy, 2002). Emotions and negative perceptions do not age or evolve.
Financial barriers. Financial barriers faced in high school are faced again as
students enter college. Tuition and costs remain constant year after year except in states
such as California, where progressive rate increases have continued during hard financial
times. CollegeBoard (2005b) reported the percentage of family income needed to cover
net college costs after grant aid; the lowest SES quartile, which makes $0-$34,000 annu-
ally, will be expected to 47% of that income out of pocket for college. There is no ques-
tion that a family making $34,000 per year cannot cover such high tuition rates directly,
so they seek financial aid. Many of these students are also at risk because of minority,
immigrant, or illegal, so paying out of pocket may be severely limited or impossible.
Financial barriers are discouraging and can lead to attrition when constant anxiety and
worries result in discouragement and giving up. Unmet financial needs, even when met
by reliance on loans (McPherson & Shapiro, 2002) lead to discouragement in attending
and persevering in college (Carnevale & Rose, 2003; McDonough, 2005). Heller (1999)
proclaimed that these costs and financial aid in general affect the at-risk student’s choice
of school (McDonough, 2005; McPherson & Shapiro, 1999). Some students who could
go to a better school do not do so because of financial barriers, not because of educational
level, which is unfortunate for a country and nation at risk of losing jobs and the com-
petitive edge in innovation to other nations.
Blanden and Machin (2010) reported uneven test scores, employment rates,
earnings, and postsecondary education levels, remarking, “It is clear that these
nonproportionate patterns of education acquisition have the potential to generate
23
inequalities in economic and social outcomes” (p. 107). As a result, “American students
are no longer competitive“ (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009, p. 1) and no longer lead in
achievement, education, innovation, technology, and other aspects of economic, societal,
and individual prosperity. The picture is clear; the studies conducted on access and per-
sistence confirm the problem with student access to and retention in college.
Through the R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) process model, causal analysis is essen-
tial to fixing problems and achieving goals. The focus of this dissertation is to identify
student perspectives on how schools and their resources provide the opportunity to gain
access to and persevere in college by utilizing the social capital available at middle
college and early college high schools, above and beyond the original context.
Social Capital
The theoretical framework of social capital is referenced and synthesized
throughout this section of the literature review. Social capital has many definitions
(Feldman & Assaf, 1999, Portes, 1998). For instance, Lopez (1996) defined social capi-
tal as attention and high expectations from relationships. Kahne and Bailey (1999)
described social capital as social organizational support to increase productive capacity.
Portes (1998) described social capital as a network outside immediate family support.
Karcher (2004) did not study social capital directly but noted the results, such as school
connectedness, that occur when people are actively involved with other people, objects,
groups, or their environment. Within this literature review and dissertation, social capital
is defined in terms of essential resources and support through institutional agents and
relationships, referred to as institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2004,
2010). Relationships, social organizations, outside-the-family networks, resources, and
24
institutional agents have many similar elements, such as people. People provide emo-
tional and psychological support, key information, and opportunities that were once
unknown or unavailable outside the middle college and early college community of
schools. The relationships that adolescents build with family, friends, teachers, school
staff, and other informed individuals are essential to producing economic, cultural, and
human capital (Coleman, 1988). Social capital is thus an instrument of opportunity to
produce knowledge, skills, and emotional and psychological connectedness to the adoles-
cent’s world, which includes inside and outside forces. In this section of the literature
review, social capital is investigated as a necessity for at-risk youths to gain access to and
persistence in college by identifying the social capital that schools provide.
Social capital is created at home and within the community, but schools serve as
an essential and central institution for the attainment of social capital (Coleman & Hoffer,
2000; Cooper, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2010). The role adult agent at
school was defined by Stanton-Salazar (2010) “as an individual who occupies one or
more hierarchical positions of relatively high-status and authority” (p. 5). These individ-
uals are teachers, counselors, principals, and other adult staff members, but “people bene-
fit from social capital from different sources” (Cooper, 2008, p. 52). Not every adult has
an equal capacity or relationship with students. In other words, every student and situa-
tion is different but the opportunities are the same, especially the availability of social
capital through institutional agents and resources.
Students benefit from social capital in schools through institutional agents and
resources, which are herein referred to as institutional support and support networks. If
social support is not as available at home, adolescents compensate by turning to other
25
agents to provide information and opportunities, such as school staff. However, every
student is different in terms of class, race, ethnicity, family background, education level,
peer associations, and personality and psychological variances (Cooper, 2008). Thus,
social capital varies, and more is not always the obvious solution.
Investigating student perspectives may identify the phenomenon that varies from
student to student. A student may be utilizing social capital created by peers, such as
clubs, sports, and even gangs, which have both positive and negative results. Inquiry
may reveal student perspectives regarding tangible and intangible contributions. Stanton-
Salazar (2010) stated, “Whereas White, middle-class youth encounter a confluence in
cultural discourses and practices across social worlds, working-class youth often find
these worlds are culturally differentiated, each world embodying a distinct cultural dis-
course” (p. 7). At-risk youth need institutional support to cope, comprehend, and perse-
vere through the multiple environments that they encounter daily. Several studies have
suggested that social capital can be a predictor of student academic performance and
academic choices (Coleman, 1988; Cooper, 2008; Feldman & Assaf, 1999; Kahne &
Bailey, 1999; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush, 1995), which would validate the importance
of social capital.
Kahne and Bailey (1999) conducted a study on low-income African American
and Latino youths participating in the Chicago-based I Have a Dream (IHAD) program to
show the significance of the various aspects of social capital. They decided that partici-
pating in IHAD provided institutional support. African American and Latino students in
Chicago public schools were 3 times more likely to go to college than youths without
IHAD. Institutional support clearly contributed to students attending college; however,
26
many schools had other programs, so the conclusion that IHAD was the sole contributor
to increased college attendance rates should be made with caution. It would also be risky
to conclude that students gained more social capital in middle college and early college
high schools than at other schools. The study had limitations but overall incorporation of
institutional support through IHAD or similar programs was associated with increased
social capital because more students in IHAD or similar programs were going to college
than were students with these interventions.
Stanton-Salazar and Dornbush (1995) conducted a study on the relationship
between outside social networks and academic achievement and ambitions among Mexi-
can American high school students in the San Francisco Bay area. They found strong
associations with all three variables; the strongest correlation was with bilingualism,
which is one variable of a specific type of at-risk student. Providing support to these
students is essential because they come from low-income and first-generation immigrant
families and lack basic knowledge about college, such as degree information and selec-
tion, financial aid, and career planning (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004),
which places them at greater risk. Although Stanton-Salazar and Dornbush (1995)
studied Mexican students in San Francisco, the lack of knowledge about college is a uni-
versal issue for students without social capital in and out of school. Lopez (1996)
conducted a study on Latino and non-Latino youths and educational performance and
concluded that social capital obtained at home and school affected academic achievement
positively. The major caveat to that study was that non-Latino youths were described as
non-Hispanic White students (Lopez, 1996). The current study focuses on Latinos and
African Americans.
27
Stanton-Salazar (1997) offered a network analytic framework for understanding
the role of institutional agents and the socialization and school experiences of African
American and Latino youth from economically disenfranchised urban communities,
which parallels the focus of the current study and definition of at-risk youths. Institu-
tional support is vital for these students to ease access and preparation for college, but it
is problematic for these students because “the institutionalization of distrust and detach-
ment, or the institutional engineering of conditions and prescribed roles that are anti-
thetical to the development of social capital” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 7). In other
words, at-risk students do not trust institutional agents because they perceive that the
agents have not provided help in previous situations.
Barrett (2003) conducted a study on students’ perspectives of their charter school
experience and concluded that at-risk students within the study’s context benefitted from
support agents. Ogbu (1992) suggested the importance of these support agents, such as
teachers and counselors, in connecting education with life-long success but also indicated
that Black Americans are involuntary immigrants who were forced into servitude and
throughout history have continuously faced discrimination, racism, and conflicts with the
dominant group that have led to distrust of White-controlled institutions. This is undeni-
ably an issue with underrepresented African American youths, and with Barrett’s (2003)
study, which identifies the benefit of attending charter schools.
Cooper (2008) studied high school counselors’ experiences and perspectives
about student access and retention in college and concluded that social capital through
human agents provides social networks necessary to increase educational aspirations and
information about all aspects of college, including the inadequacies mentioned earlier in
28
this review on access and persistence. However, the opportunity to access institutional
agents from different backgrounds can and may trump the distrust of African Americans
and other minority youths with confidence and useful knowledge.
Middle College Initiative and Schools
The research on the Middle College and Early College Initiative and schools is
analyzed in this section to show that the extent of social capital through institutional
support at these schools makes a difference in facilitating the opportunity for access to
and persistence in college. The literature available on the subject of the middle college
and early college initiative and other types of dual credit and concurrent enrollment
(DCCE) initiatives is not as plentiful as for other educational research topics dealing with
access, retention, and social capital theory of institutional support.
According to studies by Cavalluzzo, and Corallo (2002), Slade (2006), Bartlett
(2008), and Karp, Calcagno, Hughes, Jeong, and Bailey (2007), there is minimal empiri-
cal analysis of the effectiveness of middle college and early college schools and other
DCCE programs as a strategy for increasing college access and retention. Literature is
available in the form of book-length studies, journal articles, scholarly national reports,
and websites in support of the initiative. For instance, Hoffman (2005), Karp, Bailey,
Hughes and Fermin (2004, 2005), and Hughes, Karp, Fermin, and Bailey (2005) explored
state policies and program features of these type of programs and identified strategies that
indicate how these type of schools can increase college access and success by encourag-
ing students into certain career pathways. Lerner and Brand (2006) reached the same
conclusion after reviewing 22 studies on DCCE and similar programs, such as the Middle
29
College and Early College Initiative. These program studies rarely measured program
outcomes due to a lack of data and empirical studies on performance.
Student Performance
Although the literature is inadequate to support conclusions regarding the effec-
tiveness of middle college and early college schools, this section of the literature review
examines student performance and support studies to validate how and why these schools
continuously and consistently increase opportunities for at-risk students and students in
general in terms of access to and persistence throughout college.
Spurling and Gabriner (2002) conducted a quantitative comparison study on dual
enrollment students at City College of San Francisco and students from the San Francisco
Unified School District without dual enrollment experience, and concluded that partici-
pating students had higher cumulative percentages of units passed and higher GPAs than
nonparticipants. Blanco, Prescott, and Taylor (2007), Eimers and Mullen (2003), Peng
(2003), and others conducted studies sponsored by colleges and universities offering
these type of initiatives and reached similar conclusions. Students who “accumulated
college credits in high school performed well in the first year of college and were more
likely to enroll in college and graduate than those who did not” (Hartwell, 2009, p. 16).
The limitations of all of these studies are that they address a wide range of types
of DCCE programs and colleges and universities, including 2- and 4-year schools.
Regardless of the specific program, all programs in which high school students take
college-level courses for college credit, including Advanced Placement (AP) and
International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, produce exceptional academic performance in
and out of high school and beyond. However, there are caveats. The variables in student
30
performance are almost infinite. Backgrounds and other characteristics of students at
middle college and early college schools are diverse, although a majority is consistently
considered to be at risk.
With regard to student performance at middle college and early college high
schools, NCREST at Teachers College, Columbia University, collects data to validate the
authors’ conclusions cited in the prior paragraph that these types of programs and schools
create greater opportunities for access and retention throughout college. The higher-level
courses and the robust availability of institutional agents and resources focus the design
principles to create a well-rounded successful life learner. In February 2011 the Middle
College and Early College Principals Leadership Conference in Newport Beach, Califor-
nia, provided extensive survey data for school leaders to analyze, dissect, and discuss
regarding student performance and emotions as an aggregate and by school. This infor-
mation is vital to validate the success of the middle college and early college initiatives.
Seventeen middle and early college schools and 1,098 students participated in the
2009-2010 data collection process administered by NCREST (2011) on their perspectives
of their schools. The questions emphasize student perspectives, which will be elaborated
below. However, 100% of these schools provided institutional support in a wide variety
of ways, such as mathematics and literacy skills intervention, and 76% provided college
class support through tutoring or established classes. This report also presented infor-
mation on the 2008-2009 graduating class at participating middle college and early
college high schools, where 92% obtained an average of 32 college credits prior to
graduation. They had an average college GPA of 2.62 at the dual-enrolled 2-year college
while attending high school. An average high school GPA across all schools who
31
participated in the data collection process was not provided but specific school GPAs
were provided: At one institution, 99% of the students in Grades 9–12 had a 2.00 GPA or
higher and 84% had a GPA of 2.51 or higher. Similar results can be inferred for other
middle colleges and early colleges, but with some variances because the student popula-
tion characteristics were not identical and because of other nonidentical variables. How-
ever, all data emphasized that the student population was composed of primarily at-risk
youths, who were defined differently by location and application process per district and
school site. The last numerical statistic on student performance to confirm that these
schools are effective relates to college participation rates for the 2009 graduating class:
54% attended 4-year universities after graduation and 37% attended 2-year institutions.
In many cases, their attendance was a continuation at the college that they had attended in
their middle college or early college schools.
Student Support
A student survey was conducted with the graduating class of 2009–2010 at 17
participating schools with 1,098 student participants to gauge the successes and lack of
consistencies in middle college and early college design principles for creating students
who are college ready, highly literate, possessing a high aptitude of 21st-century skills,
and recognizing and valuing guidance as essential to success. Results of the survey
showed students in these 17 schools surveyed said that they were college ready and 88%
had completed college coursework; 92% said that they had a clear understanding of
college and were confident in their abilities to handle college courses. Approximately
80% of students reported that they had received help from the school on their college
applications and financial aid and scholarship forms. Approximately 95% predicted that
32
they would achieve a college level education or higher; 74% had taken the SAT, 64% had
received institutional support, 90% reported self-efficacy in school, with writing self-
efficacy higher than mathematics, which should not be a surprise. Overall, 88% of the
students were highly satisfied with their school and offerings and would recommend that
others attend.
Other literature regarding the social capital theory of institutional support through
agents and resources shows that academic support strategies were essential elements to
improving student performance and persisting throughout college (Bridgeland, DiIulio, &
Morison, 2006; Cunningham & Wagonlander, 2000; Grier & Peterson, 2007; Hartwell,
2009; Lieberman, 2004; Rendón, Garcia, & Person, 2004; Terenzini et al., 2001).
Bedsworth, Colby, and Doctor (2006) studied school support systems and found that
helping students prepare for their academic challenges and enrollment in college classes
increased the likelihood of college readiness and retention. Azinger (2000) concluded
that student support strategies in dual enrollment programs were successful during high
school and in college. The fourth series of Rethinking High School by Huebner,
Corbette, and Phillippo (2006) validated the need for student support strategies by
studying middle college and early college schools and similar schools in New York. The
at-risk students at these schools were receiving institutional support for various academic
and social capital needs; students confirmed this institutional support. Huebner et al.
(2006), in a report to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, identified middle college
and early college schools as examples of institutions emphasizing academic and social
support as an essential instrument for creating student success in high school and beyond.
Bailey and Karp (2003) investigated credit-based transition programs and similarly
33
concluded that institutional support through agents and resources at middle college and
early college schools increased graduation rates and improved state test scores overall,
compared with students in a traditional school context.
Other researchers have maintained that programs such as the middle college and
early college initiatives have multitude levels of benefits: (a) facilitating the transition
between high school and college, (b) allowing students to complete a college degree
faster, (c) reducing costs for a college education, (d) reducing high school dropout rates,
(e) preparing students for college work and reducing the need for remedial coursework,
(f) enhancing the high school curriculum, (g) making more effective use of the senior
year in high school, (h) developing the connection between high school and college cur-
ricula, (i) raising the student’s motivation and goal to attend college, (j) acclimatizing
students to the college environment, (k) freeing space on college campuses, (l) improving
relationships between colleges and their communities, (m) easing recruitment of students
to college, and (n) enhancing opportunities for underserved student populations (Allen,
2010; Bailey, Hughes, & Karp, 2003; Blanco et al., 2007; Boswell, 2001; Clark, R. W.,
2001; Conklin, 2005; Coplin, 2005; Hoffman, 2005; Karp, Calcagno, Hughes, Jeong, &
Bailey, 2007; Johnstone & Del Genio, 2001; Kim, 2006; Kirst & Venezia, 2001).
As with any advocacy of concern, there are also counterarguments reflecting
skepticism about middle college and early college schools (Allen, 2010; Andrews, 2001;
Clark, R. W., 2001; Johnstone & Del Genio, 2001; Kim, 2006; Krueger, 2006; Lerner &
Brand, 2007). These researchers and policymakers identified limitations or raised issues
about (a) quantitative data of outcomes to support the supposed benefits, (b) quality of
academic rigor, (c) competence of high school teachers of college level instruction,
34
(d) transferability of college credits to cover high school A–G requirements as well as
other colleges or universities, (e) financial expenses and support, (f) access for at-risk
students and other students, and (g) academic quality at both the high school and college.
Although these problems may exist, not all middle college and early college schools
encounter these difficulties. The multiple levels of benefits trump the reported skepti-
cism. The positive attributes that these schools create in students through their academic
and social experience must be investigated; thus, the current study looks at students’ per-
spectives regarding not only the social capital opportunities provided through support
networks but what else is creating this phenomenon. Are these schools doing something
else that research indicates as positive or negative? CNN’s Anderson Cooper interviewed
students from the Thurgood Marshall-UNO Early College High School in post-Katrina
New Orleans, Louisiana, asking what had improved since Katrina. Many of the students
mentioned school. One student said, “But now we have schools that offer college-level
courses, and when we graduate, we’ll have an Associate degree. So that’s a definite plus”
(Doss & Moore, 2010, n.p.) Another student said, “I want to be challenged so I can get
everything I need and I know that I'm learning” (Doss & Moore, 2010, n.p.). Students are
not saying what the research indicates; this CNN interview emphasizes the need for more
researchers to investigate student perspectives regarding how these schools are working
for them. Are these schools different from traditional schools? Interviews with students
are designed to answer this question.
Karp et al. (2007) concluded that there are shortcomings in the research on these
type of programs, chiefly due to a lack of comprehensive data for outcome analysis and
failure to use statistical methods to control for outside factors, which leaves the
35
possibility of other characteristics accounting for Type I or II errors for the research
hypothesis (Salkind, 2008). Limitations are inevitably present, but the research is not
comprehensive to conclude that middle college and early college and other dual enroll-
ment programs are failures or inefficient. The NCREST (2011) data provides evidence
that these programs work. Student perceptions and academic achievements are over-
whelmingly positive. Also, other literature reviews on the dual enrollment concept and
programs show results that are more positive than negative; however, more research is
needed (Allen, 2010).
The last part of this literature review discusses students’ perceptions of their expe-
rience at two early college schools reported in a study conducted by the Harvard Gradu-
ate School of Education (Wolk, 2005). Surveys and interviews were conducted with
students from Wallis Annenberg High School in Los Angeles, California, and Dayton
Early College Academy in Dayton, Ohio. The findings from Year 1 and Year 2 of the
study were positive. The key findings reflected a strong emphasis on human and social
capital: an educational identity, continuous academic support, caring relationships and
support from the staff, challenging environment, and extensive use of pedagogical skills
to construct knowledge through a widespread and intense commitment to student
achievement. There are caveats to this study, conducted by Karen C. Foster and Michael
Nakkula of the Harvard Graduate School of Education for Jobs for the Future and the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation. Wolk (2005) stated, “Even so, the Harvard research
project, which will continue interviewing young people as they move on through their
lives, cannot be expected to show with certainty how successful early college high
schools will be” (p. 13). This conclusion has been reached by other researchers as well,
36
and there is a need for extensive and comprehensive data collection to validate the effec-
tiveness of these schools in creating access, readiness, retention, and eventual success.
Currently, NCREST at Teacher’s College, Columbia University, is working with the
National Student Clearing House to retrieve academic data on middle college and early
college students once they graduate from high school. Some schools have participated in
this collaboration and received promising academic information on their students, which
was not available for the current study.
Chapter Summary
The beginning of this literature review synthesized the research problems of at-
risk students’ access to and persistence in college. Access is limited because of inade-
quate secondary academic preparation and college planning, financial barriers, and an
unsupportive school climate. Access to college without the proper information and
support limits entrance or leads to attrition or remediation, which is all too common for
underrepresented youths and unfortunately leads to dropping out and a larger unskilled
labor force. Student persistence in higher education requires the same: adequate aca-
demic preparation, adequate college planning, financial and school climate support, and
educational aspirations of confidence, efficacy, and motivation to graduate from college
and move on to higher levels of learning or a competitive labor force. These factors offer
at-risk students a chance for success, and the theoretical framework of social capital
through institutional support through agents and resources is a significant part of the
solution and a major element of the middle college and early college high schools
through their design principles and visions.
37
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this qualitative study emerged from the available research and
studies on (a) the problems of limited access and persistence of at-risk students in high
school into their transition to postsecondary institutions; (b) the solution and theoretical
framework of social capital, with emphasis on institutional agents and resources; and
(c) the solution to the problem, the middle college high school and early college high
school initiatives. Social capital theory with emphasis on institutional agents and
resources framework provides students with the support mechanisms readily available at
these schools and is highlighted as one of the key design principles that all middle college
and early college schools must incorporate within their visions and goals.
As this study progressed, the literature review revealed a lack of research on
student perspectives as part of the evidence of the effectiveness of middle college and
early college schools utilizing social capital to solve the education problems addressed in
this dissertation. The literature, particularly the NCREST (2011) student survey data,
guided the current study in developing an open-ended questionnaire (described in the
instrumentation section) for the purpose of conducting a phenomenological study at two
sample schools to describe students’ experiences and perceptions (Bogdan & Biklen,
2003; Lester, 1999; Merriam, 1988; Sias, 2008).
This study involved two focus groups of students: (a) a group from Inner City
High School A at Inner City Community College, and (b) a group from Inner City High
School B at Inner City Community College. These schools were selected based on their
achievements within the past few years. Both schools were distinguished schools and
38
were progressing as elite academic institutions in a large urban school district. These
urban schools catered specifically to an at-risk population, which also influenced the
selection process.
Research Questions
1. Why do high school students think they are limited in their access to and
success in college?
2. What type of support mechanisms are students reporting at middle college and
early college high schools to facilitate access to and success in college?
3. What are the opinions of students at middle college and early college high
schools about the effectiveness of their institutional agents and resources?
4. Are there support networks or intangible elements other than those that the
design principles supposedly offer?
Participants and Sample
The participants in this phenomenological study were two focus groups of
students: (a) one group from Inner City High School A at Inner City Community
College, and (b) one group from Inner City High School B at Inner City Community
College. Purposive sampling (Patton, 2002) was used, in which a small group of
students from these schools were selected with bias because they were “information rich
and illuminative, that is, they offer useful manifestations of the phenomenon, not empiri-
cal generalization from a sample to the population” (p. 40). This phenomenological
study on student perspectives reports extensive social capital being produced at middle
college and early college high schools. The literature review does not empirically con-
clude that all students utilize the opportunity to receive and use information and resources
39
to support ease of access and persistence in college. However, the literature review
revealed that all middle and early college high schools provide these opportunities
through various agents and resources, which explains why students with the largest
impacts in gaining various types of capital were selected for this study. Most of these
students are successful because they are succeeding beyond the current curriculum by
physically attending the designated community college to which they are assigned.
These conditions validate the NCREST (2011) survey results.
Opportunities to increase social capital are readily available through the various
programs and support networks at middle college and early college schools, and most
students recognize these free support services and take advantage of these agents and
resources, which are limited or absent in formal and traditional schools (NCREST, 2011).
What do these students have to say about their school? Was traditional schooling
disenfranchising these students from learning? There should be more than what the liter-
ature indicates; thus, a phenomenological approach was selected to find patterns, com-
monalities, and distinct experiences, “from the perspective of the individual, ‘bracketing’
taken-for-granted assumptions and usual ways of perceiving” (Lester, 1999, p. 1).
The first step in the process of selecting students to participate in the focus group
interviews was to identify at-risk students. At-risk students come from diverse back-
grounds, but the constant in this study was that they were from the surrounding areas of
the two participating schools and designated as underrepresented, urban, and low in SES.
Close to 100% of the students are designated as at risk at the selected schools because the
variables mentioned above are highly represented in the surrounding areas in which these
schools and students are located. This status is a prerequisite of Jobs for the Future and
40
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which fund and support both schools as members
of the middle college and early college initiatives.
If all students were at risk, the next step was to decide what students should be
invited to participate in the study. According to Patton (2002), intensity sampling is
designed to identify “information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon of interest
intensely (but not extremely)” (p. 234). This technique was appropriate for this study to
create a knowledgeable student base utilizing the design principles and values of the
middle college and early college initiative to gain social capital or enough support
mechanisms and networks. These students were not necessarily high achieving but had
to utilize their school’s resources to increase access to and persistence in college and
beyond at levels that are not provided at most schools in low socioeconomic areas.
This type of phenomenological study and purposeful sampling is designed to
obtain unscripted, unscaled feedback that is open to interpretation, in order to describe
common and distinct phenomena at middle college and early college schools beyond
what is reported in the literature (Patton, 2002). The limitation of using this selection
process is not relevant because the emphasis is on students who use these support net-
works rather than those who do not or have had a bad experience.
Administrators and teachers at both locations will be asked the following:
Please provide me with a list of students from each grade level, male and female,
whom you believe utilize institutional agents and resources to assist or improve
learning within and outside subject areas, and opportunities to succeed beyond
their current status as high school students; for example, students who attend or
utilize intervention courses, prep classes, financial aid seminars, and any other
person or resource to be successful above and beyond. Also, these students do not
have to be high achieving. Please take strong consideration of candidates to be
students who have been high impacted by the middle college and early college
concept.
41
Although purposeful sampling is biased because of limitations on random selection, the
method, in which “one seeks excellent or rich examples of the phenomenon of interest,
but not highly unusual” (Patton, 2002, p. 234) was deemed appropriate for revealing the
perspectives of teenagers who do not have to be politically correct.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Approaches to qualitative interviewing include the informal conversational inter-
view, the general interview guide approach, and the standardized open-ended interview.
The decision to use the informal conversational approach came from the perception of
how the process of interviewing teenage students would be and how to get adolescents to
share unrefined emotions and perspectives. The phenomenological study design’s goal is
to hear more than what is reported in the literature review, which must be studied and
exposed to minimize the limitations found in other studies. Patton (2002) stated, “The
conversational interviewer must ‘go with the flow’” (p. 343), and improvising questions
to follow up on student statements will generate this phenomenon of these schools with
some new and astonishing insights that a Likert-type survey, teacher, administrator, or
other type of interview style cannot convey.
Lists of recommended students from the administrators and teachers at these
schools were compared and the names that emerged frequently were selected to partici-
pate in their school’s focus group interview. The focus group interview is an interview
with a small group,
unlike a series of one-on-one interviews, in a focus group participants to hear each
other’s responses and to make additional comments beyond their own original
responses as they hear what other people have to say . . . to get high-quality data
in a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of
the view of others. (Patton, 2002, p. 386)
42
Since participation was voluntary, approximately eight students were chosen from each
school, with the anticipation that close to half from each location would not participate.
The open-ended questionnaire (see the end of this section) generated in-depth
student conversations based on the research questions and the “go with the flow” style.
Since an informal conversational approach for questioning and analysis was deemed
appropriate to gather these data, the method of inquiry based on the qualitative case study
research design of the phenomenon of these schools was selected to find what is helping
these students.
Before these interviews occur, proper steps were taken to ensure that ethical
means were used, with the strictest confidentiality. A consent letter was provided to
these students for parental permission, with signatures by both student and guardian(s).
A thorough explanation of the purpose of the interviews and study was conveyed: the
type of data and how they would be used, what would be asked, how responses would be
handled with strict confidentiality, and the risks and benefits of the interview (Patton,
2002). To ensure maximum security and anonymity, no names were used and pseudo-
nyms were assigned. Participant identities were protected for adherence to the guidelines
of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), also known as the Independent Ethics Commit-
tee (IEC; Patton, 2002). The vulnerability of these students was not relevant because no
quantitative data were collected. Student names or IDs were not reported, so vulnerabil-
ity was also irrelevant in the NCREST survey data. School sites were assigned pseudo-
nyms to further protect the selected students from any type of identification. There were
no cultural or language issues because students were asked questions strictly in reference
to the research questions, with some probing, but difficulties with cultures and languages
43
were extraneous. The IRB approved the submitted questions but, since this was an
informal conversational interview, many questions emerged as the focus group discussed
the topic at hand (Patton, 2002). The research questions were posed in nonacademic lan-
guage and with neutrality to retrieve thoughtful and perhaps provocative responses
(Patton, 2002). The data were stored at all times on a private password-protected flash
drive located in a locked container in a private residence with a sophisticated alarm
system. In transport, a portable locked case was used.
A voice recording device was used to capture student responses, and notes were
taken by the researcher, both of which actions were communicated in the consent letter.
The note taking was not extensive in order to keep true to the spirit of the informal con-
versational interview style. This information was paraphrased or quoted, so “the essence
or nature of an experience has been adequately described in language if the description
reawakens or shows the lived quality and significance of the experience in a fuller and
deeper manner” (Van Manen, 1990, p. 10). The experiences and perspectives of the
students were analyzed and compared to identify the essence of greater access to and per-
sistence in college through the theoretical framework of social capital or support
networks and the opportunities and availability of these institutional agents and resources
at the two schools in the study (Patton, 2002). Commonalities are part of the analytical
process in a phenomenological study. The quantitative survey data available from
NCREST (2011) guided the development of the following questions for the focus groups:
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
44
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it better if
at all with your formal schooling?
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differ-
ently? Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting
in and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and retention?
4. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
5. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
6. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as
a major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college courses
and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the school encour-
age graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental General Education
Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of California (UC) school since
you are at a middle college school?
7. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
These questions were not asked exactly as written but with a neutral, comfortable,
and simple approach to facilitate further discussion about why these students thought that
they would access to and persist in college. Students had the opportunity to review the
45
transcripts of the session and what was paraphrased so they were aware that this was a
real study using their words and to ensure that their responses had been interpreted cor-
rectly. This process ensured utmost ethical, confidential, and secure elements in this
informal interview process and ensured that the students would feel comfortable and safe
to talk freely. Occasionally, elaborative questions were asked to gain more insight, such
as, “Can you give me an example or experience that makes you feel that way?”
Data Analysis
Data from the 2009-2010 NCREST survey were made available in 2011 during
the Middle College National Consortium in New Jersey, which was produced by
researchers and assistant researchers at Teachers College, Columbia University. This
information was analyzed to generate the initial round of open-ended questions presented
above, which was used to interview the student focus groups as part of a purposeful and
phenomenological study of two schools regarding the students’ perceptions as to why
they are succeeding in high school and accessing and persisting at their community
college and why they thought they would succeed once they graduated and enrolled in a
4-year institution. The conversational data were paraphrased and then analyzed, as
reported in Chapter 4.
Although inferences can be made about the sample of students who were sur-
veyed via informal conversation, the main purpose of this study was to describe, report,
and analyze what the participants experienced, with the intention of discovering com-
monalities and patterns in their discussions. Analysis of the data identified core percep-
tions and reasoning regarding the middle college and early college schools. The theory in
action, social capital theory, was applied to compare levels of support that students bring
46
when they enter the program and gain during participation in the program. Their stories
painted a picture of how school and life was before and during the middle college and
early college experience.
Limitations of the Study
The central limitation of this study was that not all of the students at the two
schools were interviewed. Unfortunately, restrictions of time, resources, and school
district policies prevented this type of extensive study. The students were handpicked
through the purposeful sampling method, which creates a potential bias. These students,
who were presumed to utilize every accessible opportunity, provided information that
could not be collected via a survey or empirical research.
The other limitation of this study was that observational data were not collected.
According to Patton (2002), in an all-encompassing phenomenological study, “The only
way for us to really know what another person experiences is to experience the phenome-
non as directly as possible for ourselves” (p. 106). Observations were not applicable in
this study, as the sole purpose was to gather data regarding the students’ perspectives.
This information was not used to infer, but only to reveal the similar and different experi-
ences that these students related regarding their access to and retention in college. Lester
(1999) expressed tentativeness in suggestions to the whole population. According to
Patton (2002), “Social, cultural, political, and interpersonal factors can limit the nature
and degree of participation in participant observation” (p. 266). In general, this study is
about perspectives, not about observations.
47
Significance of the Study
The factors presented in the literature review and the data collected from partici-
pants through responses to open-ended questions and discussions should reveal perspec-
tives and experiences about these schools. Prior research implies that at-risk students are
not expected to persist because of their inadequacies and the staggering statistics about
access and retention. The phenomenological approach was expected to provide new
insights that lead to recommendations to the middle college and early college high
schools, although Lester (1999) suggested some reservation. Both the middle college and
early college initiatives and participating schools use data generated by NCREST (2011)
to influence various elements and issues; to limit school improvement in this way is a
disservice to at-risk students because a comprehensive approach is not being utilized.
Figure 2 summarizes the purpose of this study: to analyze student perspectives in the light
of social capital theory. Data collected in the current study were compared to the
NCREST (2011) survey results because the current study was designed to be a phenome-
nological qualitative study on student perspectives in accordance with the theory of
support networks that create the opportunity for greater access to and persistence in
college and beyond.
48
Figure 2. Design of the study.
49
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate student perspectives at middle
college and early college high schools and to discover the phenomena of higher access
and persistence for at-risk students that are unreported and undiscovered through other
studies of low-socioeconomic-class students, specifically African Americans and Latinos.
The literature review provided findings regarding why access and persistence throughout
college are significantly lower for African Americans and Latinos than for their White
and Asian counterparts. Academic preparation, college planning, financial issues, mini-
mal support, and low aspirations are significant problems for at-risk student access to and
persistence throughout college (Choy, 2002; Cooper, 2008). This chapter presents an
analysis of student perspectives at middle college and early college high schools in
accordance with the literature review. Specifically, the social capital theory in action,
past studies on middle and early college high schools, and the survey data reported by
NCREST (2011) at Teachers College, Columbia University, provides detailed survey
data on middle college and early college high schools and their students.
The subjective student perspectives and insights collected from Schools A and B
address the research questions about each school’s institutional support, the students’
perceptions about access and persistence in college, and identification of the specific
problems that are not addressed in the literature review: the voices of these students and
why they think they are succeeding and will continue to succeed. The analysis of find-
ings is reported according to the four research questions; specific interview protocol
probing questions are included within the report for each research question to show
50
correlation. Several protocol questions are associated with each research question. To
minimize redundancy, if one of the protocol questions applies to more than one research
question, the student’s responses will refer to responses from the prior research question
with the same protocol question. Each student’s perspectives are paraphrased or directly
quoted, with a summary in the appendices. The mixed-methods approach of informal
interviews and focus group discussion were used. This mixed methods approach “offers
the interviewer flexibility in probing and in determining when it is appropriate to explore
certain subjects in greater depth, or even to pose questions about new areas of inquiry that
were not originally anticipated in the interview instrument’s development” (Patton, 2002,
p. 347). Other relevant questions were used to probe because a “go with the flow” style
of conversing and answering specific questions were the goal so students would feel
comfortable in providing feedback about their current school and its readily available
agents and resources, either directly or indirectly. The findings are reported by school
and then by student (pseudonym). This format is standard in addressing research
questions in a dissertation, particularly in this study on student perspectives. Further
explanation is provided in detail in the section describing the participants.
Past studies on middle college and early college high schools and NCREST
(2011) survey data and student perspectives were compared to identify consistencies,
discrepancies, and phenomena. The middle college and early college high school design
principles emphasize the importance of social capital and other support mechanisms and
networks, and an analysis of student perspectives validates whether that student’s school
and staff are practicing the mission, vision, and goals of the school and the design princi-
ples of the initiative.
51
The goal of this phenomenological study was to discover the maximum amount of
deep information and perceptions by a qualitative method of discussion and informal
questioning to represent the perspective of the students. The mixed-methods approach
was used to gain information pertinent to this study’s goal of learning what is working,
what is not working, and what was newly discovered at the two schools.
Participants
The data for this analysis came from two middle college and early college high
schools in an urban setting that served a high percentage of low socioeconomic at-risk
students in the 2011-2012 school year. A majority or all of the students attending these
schools were African American or Latino from the local community, and the selected
students were representative of this population. Four students from each school were
selected by their respective staff by purposeful sampling for illuminative and
information-rich perceptions to discover phenomena (Patton, 2002). The principals were
asked to locate students who were highly impacted, academically and socially, by
attending their current high school on a college campus. They were asked to consult with
their teachers, if necessary.
Inner City High School A at Inner City Community College A is cited herein as
School A, and Inner City High School B at Inner City Community College B is cited as
School B. Pseudonyms are used to identify individual students and their responses to the
research questions and correlating interview protocol probing questions. Past studies on
middle and early college high schools and NCREST (2011) survey results were compared
and contrasted to find consistencies, discrepancies, and phenomena.
52
The participating students from School A were (a) Antonia, a Latin American
student in Grade 10; (b) Claudius, an African American student in Grade 11; (c) Drusus,
an African American student in Grade 12; and (d) Tiberius, an African American student
in Grade 12. Students from School B were (a) Caligula, an African American student in
Grade 11; (b) Lucius, a Latin American student in Grade 12; (c) Messalina, a Latin
American student in Grade 12; and (d) Postumus, an African American student in Grade
12.
The students from School A who were interviewed arrived at the front office at
the start of lunch on the selected date. A classroom was used to conduct the informal
interviews. Since this was a group setting, students were encouraged to provide com-
ments. However, they were instructed that these would be one-on-one interviews in a
group setting.
The four students from School A participated as the first group interviewed. This
was done in an orderly format, with some out of order commentary by other participants.
Each student was asked the same research and interview protocol questions, with minor
variability. First, Antonia responded to each question. Second, Claudius was asked to
answer the same questions. Drusus went third, followed by Tiberius. All students pro-
vided insights in this orderly format because this was a group setting and a mixed-
methods approach was utilized.
The four students from School B also participated as group in an orderly format,
with some out-of-order commentary. Caligula was the first student to respond, followed
by Lucius, Messalina, and Postumus.
53
The students were interviewed in a group format. However, they were inter-
viewed one at a time, as discussed above, in the order mentioned. Each student
responded to the questions before the interview moved to the next student. Since each
school’s interviews were held during the lunch times, the interview sessions lasted
approximately 40 minutes, devoting 10 minutes or less to each student. Chapter 5 will
discuss the limitations experienced in conducting one-on-one interviews in this group
format.
Questions for both groups of schools and students were posed with some variabil-
ity to honor the “go-with-the-flow” style. However, the majority of the questions were
very similar to maintain a consistent account of similar students in comparable schools.
Some questions were omitted, added, or modified to generate maximum input. The tran-
scripts of the interviews are presented in Appendices A through H.
All students expressed confidence that they would access and persist throughout
college after graduation from high school, with aspirations to become professionals or
continue to graduate school to further their goals (with the exception of Tiberius from
School A, who planned to enlist in the armed forces). During each interview, students
were first asked, Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College? This was
followed by the interview protocol questions in accordance with the research questions.
These personal questions were asked of each student to understand as much as possible
within the amount of time who they were and what they wanted to be, to lead into the
research and interview protocol questions. In-depth personal information was thus
gained before each research and interview protocol question was answered by the
students.
54
Antonia
Antonia is a 10th-grade Latina who came from private schools and currently plays
softball. Her future goals are to graduate from high school with an AA degree. She plans
to go out of state for college. Her goals are to enter a profession involving criminology.
She was referred to School A by a friend and then she investigated the school online. Her
mother is well educated, as she is in a doctoral program of study.
Darius
Darius is an 11th-grade African American male who came from large public
schools. He plans to go out of state for college to enter the field of aeronautical
engineering. His father pressured him to go to School A but he does not regret it. How-
ever, campus organizations are not diverse enough for Darius. Darius viewed himself as
immature at the beginning of high school but he has grown to be a responsible student
with priorities.
Drusus
Drusus is a 12th-grade African American male who came from a large public
school system. He plans to attend a California state university to major in computer
science because he enjoys mathematics and computers. Students from School A visited
his public school and described the benefits of the school, which were an Associate
degree and college credits. His mother pressured him to enroll after he explained what
School A was about. Drusus was somewhat reserved during his interview.
Tiberius
Tiberius is a 12th-grade African American male who attended a large public
middle school, which is a common theme of these students’ background from both
School A and School B. He will enlist in the U.S. Air Force because of the benefits and
55
experiences he plans to leverage, and he believes that his parents make too much money
to get financial aid to go to college for less, so he is delaying this until his service in the
Air Force. Tiberius was also somewhat reserved. However, he believed he described
that he is more outgoing now than before.
Caligula
Caligula is an 11th-grade African American male who attended a large public
middle school. He plans to attend college and law school to become an attorney. He is a
member of Upward Bound and a participant in the Middle College Student Leadership
Conference. Caligula also played basketball for his school.
Lucius
Lucius is a 12th-grade Latino. He received a full scholarship to a prestigious out-
of-state university. He is planning to major in business management. His goals are to get
civically engaged and enter politics. He is a member of the Constitutional Rights Foun-
dation. He viewed himself as a troublemaker in middle school and believed that he
would not be who he is today if he had continued down the same path as his former
peers. Lucius was involved in school sports, such as cross country and soccer.
Messalina
Messalina is a 12th-grade Latina. She plans to enroll in nursing school to become
a registered nurse. She was not always the top student, academically or behaviorally.
However, she has developed with age to focus on academics and her career to become a
professional.
56
Postumus
Postumus is a 12th-grade African American male. He plans a double major in
kinesiology and dietetics. His goals are to enroll in medical school after college and to
enter the field of sports medicine. Postumus played basketball and ran track for his high
school.
The students responded to the personal questions before they were asked the
questions below. Each question was related to a research question and the relevant inter-
view protocol questions. Instead of initially separating Chapter 4 by individual, then
listing their answers to each research question, the results are reported according to the
research questions to provide clarity regarding the commonalities and differences in per-
spectives. The students’ responses revealed more commonalities and were organized
properly by this format instead of by each student’s responses to each research question.
This may have been due to the limitation of having these groups in one room together
while the others were listening and waiting for the prior student to finish answering all
research and interview protocol questions. There was head nodding at times in agree-
ment with some of the other students. Disagreements were not a factor. However,
student experiences were very common, which is the primary reason for agreement and
student commonalities in perceptions. The affect of one student on another was not
measurable but must have had some influence.
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, Why do high school students think they are limited in
their access to and success in college? Students addressed this question by responding to
these interview questions: (a) Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big
differences? Tell me how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any
57
benefits? How is it better, if at all, than your formal schooling? (b) Would you say the
teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently? Do they go beyond what
they are supposed to do besides teach?
None of these interview protocol probing questions was asked exactly as it was
written. Students responded in an organized manner, but at times spoke out of turn, since
they were in a group setting with one-on-one interviews providing feedback pertinent to
their achievements and successes.
School A
Antonia reported that she had attended private schools all her life, and she
described these schools as “a little behind.” She said that, since attending School A, her
knowledge base about academic subject matter had increased. Inadequacies in her
former schooling were expressed through her perceptions of her former academic cur-
riculum. She briefly mentioned that her current teachers are more understanding and
more connectable or relatable. Antonia reported a positive relationship and view of her
teachers. According to Lopez (1996), social capital is a product of attention and high
expectations from relationships, and Antonia clearly had a positive relationship with her
teachers. The more networks one establishes and continues, the more one is likely to
realize academic success.
Claudius provided several positive insights about School A by criticizing his
experience in a large public middle school. He noted that “you can walk across the
school [School A] in a second, and I think I work better in a tighter environment.” The
physicality of the school benefits his opportunities to succeed. He then discussed School
A’s accomplishments, such as its reputation for graduating 100% of its students, the
58
opportunity to obtain an Associate’s degree at the community college, and recognition of
the school’s success by 4-year universities. The large school environment from which
Claudius had come was a factor in his perception of why he works better in a “tighter
environment.” He also provided a unique opinion about the teachers: Because of the
small size of the school, the teachers can get to know the students. “Teachers know every
single student at this school because they had them and they are going to have them.”
Barrett (2003) concluded that students benefitted from support agents and the physical
aspects of the school, in agreement with Claudius’ statement. Students gain social capital
in the small school environment, but so do teachers, in the point of view of Claudius.
Drusus had attended a public middle school before joining School A. He did not
elaborate on the differences between the two schools. However, he provided several
insights about his teachers at School A. “The teachers here, it seems if they care more
about their students even though they’re more strict.” He noted that certain teachers push
students to do their best and have exceedingly high expectations. Teacher support is a
positive perception offered by Drusus. The role of the adult agent described by Stanton-
Salazar (2010) is fulfilled by the teachers in his case. Institutional support through high
expectations created a positive perception of how the institutional agents (teachers) at
School A helped him to succeed. He reported that teachers care about students, although
expectations are high and strict, which he did not express as an issue.
Tiberius shared negative perceptions of his former public middle school,
describing problems of relationships between teachers and students. “Most of the
students don’t care, and the teachers don’t care” at his large former public middle school.
Tiberius implied through his statement that large public schools have students and
59
teachers who do not do what they are supposed to do, which is to care about one another
academically and socially. Stanton-Salazar (1997) defined social capital as a network
analytical framework for understanding the role of institutional agents through previous
students’ experiences with distrust created from economically disenfranchised urban
communities and their schools. Not caring can vary according to the specific context of
the matter, and Tiberius saw significant differences between his former and current
schools and teachers, which validated the definition of social capital by Stanton-Salazar.
Tiberius had strong views about his former teachers, who were significantly dif-
ferent from those at his current school. According to Tiberius, teachers at School A care
about their students. Wolk (2005), Huebner et al. (2006), and Feldman and Assaf (1999)
concluded that social capital is a key component of college access and retention, as well
as a successful education in general. Tiberius identified institutional support through
teachers caring about students, which was absent in his former school and which was
why he was succeeding at School A and would persist in higher education.
School B
Caligula had attended a public middle school and did not have any opinion of the
school other than some comparisons. However, he expressed his views of School B.
Caligula was asked whether there were any benefits to attending his current school; he
stated,
Yes, because this school is a lot smaller and more socially integrated . . . . when it
comes to bigger schools, you always find people you’ve never seen before, but
when it comes to this school, you will always see someone every day, so you get
used to it . . . it’s more comfortable.
The intimacy at School B has created benefits of comfortable sociability. The literature
review reported a study on charter schools by Barrett (2003) that identified the benefits of
60
attending these smaller schools. These smaller schools are not identical to middle college
and early college high schools but the physical sizes of these schools are similar and, as
Caligula expressed, small schools are more comfortable because of the sociability and
intimacy involved with the people. He also commented about the teachers at School B,
“Teachers can also become more comfortable with students because it’s a smaller envi-
ronment.” Claudius from School A had expressed the same sentiments, although at two
different campuses but with similarities in all other variables. Caligula compared the
teachers at School B to the ones at his former public middle school. “Yes, they have dif-
ferent teaching styles. They relate to the students more to get them . . . they really care
about the students,” but he also briefly stated that these were specific teachers and did not
talk about inadequacies of his former schooling, as most students did.
Caligula discussed another support agent, the counselor, who was perceived to be
a key facilitator in preparing for the future. According to Caligula, the counselor does
this by knowing each student and his or her goals and knowing what classes the student
should take at the high school and in community college. Cooper (2008) concluded that
not all adult agents at school will have the same relationships with everybody, and he
mentioned specific teachers and the counselor.
Lucius had gone to a large public middle and expressed detailed negative percep-
tions of his former school:
size, behavior, teachers . . . you get to know most of the teachers at . . . but not all
of them . . . at middle college it’s more personal, they don’t necessarily have to
care about your intentions or what not, but as long as they execute their job effec-
tively, they can definitely inspire the student academically.
He focused more on the middle college and early college design principle of academic
rigor and college-level curriculum, although he provided feedback about his current
61
teachers that was similar to that expressed by the other students interviewed in this study:
specifically, student support through high expectations and providing opportunities to
sustain success, which the NCREST (2011) survey data also revealed. He mentioned that
some teachers go beyond the design principles and talk about interests other than aca-
demia. He did not mention specific teachers but expressed a generality about relation-
ships with teachers. Coleman (1988) identified relationships as key components to
producing economic, cultural, and human capital, and Lucius supported Coleman’s con-
clusion through his positive perceptions of his teachers at School B.
Messalina had gone to a large public middle school with thousands of students.
When asked differences between that school and School B, she said “You get to know
people, students” at School B. Messalina was specific in identifying support agents by
emphasizing the school counselor as beneficial to academic success, in agreement with
Cooper (2008). She said, “He helps me a lot” by telling her what classes she should take,
as well as describing the college application process and how to get financial aid. Inade-
quate planning and readiness was not an issue for Messalina as it is for other at-risk youth
reported in the literature review (Choy, 2002). When asked about her current teachers,
Messalina said, “I think they actually care more about the students since we are less
students . . . specific teachers,” not all. She also mentioned high expectations from these
teachers.
Postumus had attended a large public middle school but had also attended a small
charter school before attending School B. When asked about his former large public
school, he was not hesitant in discussing it: “A lot of negative people there and felt like I
was becoming part of that group so mom put me into a charter school which was kind of
62
like the school I am in now—small and everybody there was positive.” The small school
system played a significant role in his perceptions about School B compared to his large
public middle school. He focused his perceptions on institutional agents, as did many
other students in this study, by stating, “We didn’t get a lot of attention and teachers to
me, didn’t seem they cared so much” at his former large public school. Social capital
through caring relationships is an essential component to student academic success
(Wolk, 2005). Postumus said about current institutional support at School B, “In ninth
grade they kind of just put us in the water and tell us how to swim. And I think it helped
because they put us into the community college and find our way.” Postumus stated this
with neutrality and did not elaborate for clarification, so he was asked to explain. He
continued, “But if it wasn’t for middle college, I would have never took those class so it
kind of helped me—motivated and pushed me.” The high expectations and academic
rigor that he perceived as reasons to his success validated the effects of social capital
through institutional agents and resources, which are key ingredients to the success of
middle college and early college high school students.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What type of support mechanisms are students
reporting at middle college and early college high schools to facilitate access to and
success in college? Students addressed this question by responding to these interview
questions: (a) Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you dif-
ferently? Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach? (b) Do you
believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in and persisting
throughout? What are the major factors to this access and retention? The protocol
63
questions correlated with the research questions; redundancy was minimized by reflecting
on answers related to these research questions.
School A
Antonia responded to the question of what was facilitating her future access and
persistence in college by answering the same interview protocol questions about her
former and present school. Earlier, she had mentioned that she had a positive relationship
with her teachers because they were relatable. She continued to answer the second set of
questions by discussing a support mechanism at School A known as Advanced Via Indi-
vidual Determination (AVID). AVID is a college readiness system for elementary
through postsecondary that is designed to increase schoolwide learning and performance.
The AVID College Readiness System (ACRS) accelerates student learning, uses
research-based methods of effective instruction, provides meaningful and motivational
professional development, and acts as a catalyst for systemic reform and change” (AVID,
2012). AVID and the middle college and early college high school design principles are
making college access and persistence a confident reality for Antonia.
Claudius had a unique view of teachers, as reported in his responses to the first
set of questions. He commented that the teachers benefited from the small school envi-
ronment. Similar to Antonia, the support mechanism that he viewed as helping him get
into college and succeed was AVID. Claudius discussed AVID’s role, which is a college
preparatory class that incorporates information on the SAT, financial aid, academic
subject areas, essay writing, and note taking. He had a positive perception of AVID; he
noted that graduated students come back to School A and testify to AVID’s note-taking
strategies (Cornell Notes), which had helped them to succeed in higher education.
64
Drusus praised the teachers at School A, describing them as caring, strict, and
having high expectations for students. He elaborated on the teachers in response to the
first set of questions. When asked whether his school was preparing him for college
access and success, he replied positively and expressed appreciation for the teachers at
the high school and community college. He did not elaborate on this response. However,
he discussed AVID as a major reason for the school’s success in achieving high rates of
student achievement. The literature review did not report features of AVID but identified
various programs such as the Chicago-based I Have a Dream (IHAD) program and the
social capital created by institutional agents for African American and Latinos that had a
strong effect on academic achievement (Coleman, 1988; Cooper, 2008; Kahne & Bailey,
1999; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush, 1995).
Tiberius answered the second set of questions by briefly discussing the high
levels of work at both the high school and the community college. With regard to
support mechanisms, Tiberius expressed negative feelings about his former public school
peers and teachers, and again briefly described his current teachers as caring: “They listen
to you.” Tiberius did not elaborate on any of the interview protocol questions and did not
answer as thoroughly and clearly as the others from his school. His response with regard
to support agents was to talk about teachers listening to students, which he had not
witnessed as his former school. The support mechanism of the caring and supportive
teacher is essential for college access and persistence because a sense of belonging is
created, which may be absent in the home (Feldman & Assaf, 1999). According to the
literature review (e.g., Wolk’s [2005] study conducted by the Harvard Graduate School
of Education on student perceptions at two early college high schools), a sense of caring
65
is a predictor of academic achievement. However, Tiberius did not talk about AVID, as
did the other students at School B. His reasons are explained in the findings related to
Research Question 3. Tiberius summed his perceptions of teachers simply: “They listen
to you.”
School B
Caligula talked about his teachers and counselor as essential support mechanisms
for success in accessing and persisting throughout college. In response to the first set of
questions, Caligula discussed the benefits of being in a small school and the benefits for
the teachers, similar to what Claudius from School A had mentioned. However, Caligula
did not report the strong support mechanisms at School B (provided via AVID) that were
reported by three of the four School A students. Although access to community college
classes alone are not a support mechanism, Caligula had strong views of community
college classes: “This school is most definitely preparing us for college, primarily by
giving us college classes so we can get comfortable in that environment and know what
to expect when we get to college.” Caligula was asked to discuss whether his high school
classes were doing the same; he answered, “Yes, they are because I’ve taken high school
classes that relate to the college classes and know what’s going on.” Academic rigor is
an important part of the design principles.
Lucius expressed his perceptions about teachers in his responses to the first set of
questions. He did not give all the credit to the teachers, as most of the other students
from both schools did, but to specific teachers. This support mechanism was evident in
his discussion about how specific teachers were more personal, “but as long as they do
their job effectively, they can definitely inspire the student academically.” Lucius was
66
more concerned about giving credit to his family, community, and friends as the most
important support mechanisms providing social capital and other types of support in cre-
ating strong confidence that he will access and persist throughout college. Cooper (2008)
noted that people benefit from social capital from a variety of sources, and Lucius
attributed the majority of his gratitude to people outside of school, which is a major com-
ponent of social capital through voluntary associations (Feldman & Assaf, 1999). Social
capital creates information and knowledge and feelings of confidence, as Lucius
expressed what was helping him to achieve academically and will continue to help as he
moves on to higher education.
Messalina gave strong accolades to the school counselor as the key support
mechanism in creating social capital, as discussed in the relation to the first research
question. She identified the benefits that the counselor had provided throughout her 4
years at School B. Specific teachers also supported her endeavors; she noted that the
small school environment created these types of relationships, which resulted in her
trying harder academically (Barrett, 2003; Cooper, 2008). She perceived that the com-
munity college classes were getting her ready for success at a 4-year university.
Messalina did not provide details about college instructors other than to express her
opinions about why she will succeed in college.
Postumus expressed views of community college classes similar to those
expressed by Caligula. The simple fact of enrollment and learning in a community
college class had given both of them a sense of comfort and confidence that they will
succeed in a 4-year college. The literature review on the benefits of middle college and
early college high schools validated Caligula’s feelings of enthusiasm, motivation, and
67
confidence in her future access to and persistence in higher education. Postumus also
said that all of the teachers were providing essential information to help in access to and
persistence throughout college: “The whole staff, even the janitor sometimes gives me
encouraging words.” This is consistent with several definitions of social capital pre-
sented in the literature review as people and relationships with essential knowledge and
information. However, teacher expectations from the community college were not identi-
fied by Postumus, or by most of the students from both schools.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What are the perceptions of students at middle college
and early college high schools about the effectiveness of their institutional agents and
resources? Students addressed this question by responding to these interview questions:
(a) Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently? Do
they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach? (b) Do you believe this
school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in and persisting throughout?
What are the major factors to this access and retention? (c) How would you improve,
terminate, or add to what your school provides as opportunities to succeed? (d) Why is
this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student achievement? How?
(e) How is your experience with the college courses and teachers? Is the college doing
more than the high school? Does the school encourage graduation with an Associate
Degree (AA) or Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to
transfer to a University of California (UC) school since you are at a middle college
school? Some of the protocol questions correlated with the research questions;
68
redundancy was minimized by reflecting on student responses to the two previous sets of
questions.
School A
Antonia responded to the central research question by providing her opinion
about her former teachers and school: “They are a little behind.” However, she reported
that her current school is expanding her knowledge. According to Antonia, School A has
institutional agents who are empathetic and relatable. Institutional agents and resources
available through AVID and School B had given her a sense of confidence to succeed in
college. “They’re hard on us . . . they keep us all in one big group . . . and they make sure
we do all our work.” Inadequate academic preparation and support are primary reasons
given in the literature review (Choy, 2002; Cooper 2008) that students do not gain access
to and persist throughout college. Antonia perceived that her former school was behind,
academically, by providing her perspective of her former school versus her current
school, especially the teachers and AVID. She did not comment directly on the academic
rigor of School A, but her perceptions of the staff were of high expectations.
Claudius perceived that the teachers were benefitting just as much as the
students from being on a small campus. He noted how quickly one could move from one
class to another, which affected his perceptions of why School A was succeeding aca-
demically. AVID was also recognized by Claudius as a critical support system for aca-
demic and social mobility. He discussed his perception of the teachers: “Every teacher
here gives us college-level work and expects more of us since we do go to class at the
college, so they treat us the same as college students.” Claudius validated the middle
college and early college high school design principles by validating that some of his
69
high school teachers’ expectations were high as they distributed college-level curriculum
and treated the students as young adult college students, which may be different from
how other teachers treat high school students. He discussed the research questions with
regard to his perceptions of School B’s institutional agents and resources through the
unavailability of more clubs:
At regular high schools, they have more clubs and things to choose from. It’s like
the same clubs each year, and if someone doesn’t really think like these clubs
connect with them, then they will not have anything to put for college that is
interesting.
Claudius is a product of social capital who is knowledgeable about the college applica-
tion process to access a 4-year university being more than just grades and SAT scores.
Drusus described his teachers at School A as strict but compassionate at the same
time. With regard to institutional support, “the fact that we can take classes at the com-
munity college” was viewed as a vital factor to his success. He did not discuss his per-
ceptions of School A’s institutional support opportunities in as much depth as the other
students. However, there were no negative perceptions of institutional support mecha-
nisms that he utilized to gain human and social capital. His positive perceptions of
School A were expressed through succinct answers. When asked what was getting him
ready for college, he answered confidently and concisely, “the high school and college.”
Before enrolling in School A, seniors from his school had gone to his public middle
school and provided information on the benefits of enrolling, such as the opportunity to
take college classes and earn an Associate’s degree. Especially for Drusus, high expec-
tations and dual enrollment were the major reasons that access and persistence in college
were real possibilities.
70
Tiberius expressed positive perceptions about his former and present institutional
agents and resources. His former middle school had students and teachers who did not
care, but he considered that the majority of teachers at his current school care: “They
listen to you. . . . All the ones I had listen.” He commented on the academic rigor of
School A, “The work they give you is college level,” at both the high school and college.
However, he did not elaborate and did not see any personal benefit from the AVID
program. He nonchalantly provided his perceptions of AVID by stating, “I guess it’s
what you make it” and briefly mentioned that AVID is beneficial to some others but the
information and support provided had no personal benefit because he already knew how
to enroll in a 4-year college and obtain financial aid, which is why he decided that the
military was a better option for his future success. Tiberius had gained social capital, as
well as other types of information and network, throughout his adolescence from sources
outside of AVID. Outside-of-school agents, such as parents, provided the necessary
capital for the college application process, but he did not plan to enroll immediately after
graduation. Coleman (1988), Cooper (2008), Feldman and Assaf (1999), Kahne and
Bailey (1999), and Stanton-Salazar and Dornbush (1995) concluded that social capital
gained at home or outside the home, such as at school, predicted academic performance
and academic choices. However, social capital also created aspirations outside of aca-
demia, and Tiberius was proof that the social capital that he had gained had provided
future aspirations to join the military and then go to college.
School B
Caligula reported that specific teachers and the school counselor at School B
cared about students. He elaborated on his perceptions by talking about the teachers.
71
They “have different teaching styles. They relate to the students more to get them . . .
they really care about the students.” The counselor knew each student and his or her
goals, according to Caligula. Caligula expressed confidence in his opportunity to access
and persist throughout college by adamantly saying, “This school is most definitely pre-
paring us for college, primarily by giving us college classes so we can get comfortable in
that environment and know what to expect when we get to college.” He continued by
comparing the high school and college classes as similar in curriculum and instruction.
Caligula’s confidence was created through availability of social capital at School B. Spe-
cific teachers, as well as the counselor, provided information pertinent to achieve college
success by creating a caring relationship with the students and their individual needs; as a
result, confidence and efficacy were established (Coleman, 1988; Wolk, 2005). Caligula
validated the literature review on social capital by stating, “Primarily, teachers inspire us
to keep pushing forward and try harder at what we are doing” by providing academic and
life lessons.
Caligula perceived lack of funding for lunch, supplies, and athletic sports as the
only negative of these small dual-enrollment schools. These issues were not new to
middle college and early college high schools. The literature review provided skepticism
about these schools. Costs and funding were major concerns for these schools because
they are not always traditional schools in school districts (Allen, 2010; Andrews, 2001;
Clark, R. W., 2001; Johnstone & Del Genio, 2001; Kim, 2006; Krueger, 2006; Lerner &
Brand, 2007; Nodine, 2009). Caligula had not wanted to attend School B but now knew
that it was worth it because he was leveraging the benefits of taking college classes with
transferable credits.
72
Lucius had high praise for some teachers at School B, together with a mixed per-
ception of other teachers. Similar to most students of the interviewed students at both
schools, he reported that that some teachers cared about the students beyond teaching the
curriculum but others did not. However, he noted that even those teachers who did not
show exceptional care for students, “as long as they execute their job effectively, they can
definitely inspire to the student academically.” Lucius expressed that he has gained
inspiration and confidence to achieve a college degree. However, he was somewhat criti-
cal of the institutional support at School B. “I don’t want to give too much credit to
middle college, although it does play a big part; but when students are maturing, they
kind of soak in a lot of these things middle college provides . . . and take advantage of
these opportunities.” He mentioned several times that teachers played a minimal role and
noted that the size of the school helps students to succeed, in agreement with Drusus from
School A.
Messalina expressed positive perceptions, similar to those of Caligula, regarding
her current teachers and counselor, consistent with her responses to the questions related
to the first two research questions. “Teachers and [the] counselor are a big influence
because they want to see us succeed.” When asked about the counselor, she replied, “He
tells me what classes I should take . . . if they will help me out later on or not.” She said
that the teachers go beyond providing instruction and curriculum, with high expectations
for the students. She was specific about her interactions with current teachers: “Talk
about anything, like sports. We joke around. They’re cool.” She reported negative per-
ceptions of her former middle school teachers as uncaring but did not elaborate. Inade-
quacies in academic preparation and planning and unsupportive institutional support lead
73
to negative perceptions of schooling in general (Choy, 2002; Cooper, 2008). These insuf-
ficiencies were presented in the literature review and validated her feelings about her
former teachers and school. Her only suggestion for improvements to her current school
was the need for a bigger campus, which was consistent with comments made by other
students from School A and School B.
Postumus provided insights similar to those from Messalina by discussing his
caring relationships with all staff members, including the janitor. He stated that the high
expectations by teachers and the challenge of taking college classes were getting him
ready for college success. He did not discuss the need for a bigger campus but cited a
need for more teachers. Postumus, as well the other students from School A and School
B, identified minimal or no insufficiencies about their school, teachers, counselor, or
other institutional agents or resources, other than a need for more physical space, which
then could lead to more clubs, teachers, and a bigger campus.
Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, Are there support networks or intangible elements
other than those that the design principles supposedly offer? Students addressed this
question by responding to these interview questions: (a) Is there anything else you would
like to add, especially with regard to people and resources? Students from both schools
were asked this question to probe other support networks and to continue to look for phe-
nomena, especially outside of the design principles and literature review. Many of these
students provided similar answers in their informal interviews but elaborated differently.
74
School A
Antonia gave thanks to her mother and mathematics teachers. The example she
provided was that a certain teacher stood up for her when she had been accused of an act
that she did not commit. This teacher and others had supported her academic endeavors
and the development of proprietorship. She reported that those people were “helping us
to become more hard working and dedicated to our cause and make right decisions . . .
parties can come later on in life.” Social capital was also created from her home network,
especially her mother.
Claudius attributed his perseverance in high school to his brother, who provided
daily support. Similar to Antonia, Claudius also thanked the same mathematics teachers
for pushing him in his academics and life, in general. “He’s kind of like a therapist.” He
also perceived that his school had helped with his maturity and time management, and in
general had helped him to grow as a person. “If there’s a party or have homework, I
would choose homework over the party; that will help me a lot for college because I want
to achieve.”
Drusus recognized family and friends as his other support networks, especially
for emotional support. Unlike Claudius, Drusus did not have therapeutic relationships
with his teachers because he did not share his feelings with them and they did not share
their feelings with him regarding issues other than academics.
Tiberius discussed his current state of ease when he needs to “ask for help.” He
said that he did not speak out for himself before attending School B. He did not attribute
any individual for his success, other than the school in general. He noted in his responses
to previous questions his perceptions of AVID as not beneficial because he already knew
that information, for example, why he was not going to go to college, which was that his
75
parents made too much money, and he desired the military because of the benefits and
experience. Although his former school had been large and had the same deficiencies of
uncaring teachers, as reported by other students from both schools, Tiberius did not
mention anyone else. However, one can assume that social capital was available from
home but with obvious limitations if he believed his parents making too much money was
stopping him from enrolling in a 4-year institution of higher learning.
School B
Caligula expressed a desire to go to college because he would be the first in his
family, which would make them proud. His family provided social capital by supporting
and providing him information about schooling. They encouraged him to attend School
B. Caligula was in the Upward Bound program, which also provided him information on
School B. Social support was created through his family and the Upward Bound
program. Caligula said that his mother had inspired him to prioritize. He watched her
take care of her own mother, which led him to model that type of responsible behavior.
Lucius did not have the same perceptions as most of the participating students.
He did not give credit to the teachers except for a middle school teacher who not only
informed him but encouraged him to attend School B. His mother was also a large influ-
ence on his success, as well as his community; he did not elaborate on the latter. How-
ever, Lucius spoke of his mother as the one who provided essential social capital by
inspiring, motivating, and empowering him to succeed. Lucius said that attending School
B had saved his life as he had been heading in the wrong direction academically and
socially.
76
Messalina said that college access and persistence is possible for her because the
community college classes were preparing her, as she had mentioned in response to the
other research questions. She attributed much of her success and future aspirations to her
teachers and counselor but also discussed her family and friends: “Family, because they
always supported me and they always wanted me to do good,” and “Friends, of course
they also pushed me to do better when I was messing up.” She also noted that “some
teachers here motivated me to do better and they wanted me to succeed.” Messalina
recognized when others wanted her to do well, which is a form of social capital created
through her network of people and information.
Postumus discussed the support that he had received from his mother in response
to the first set of interview questions. Here he continued to credit institutional agents for
providing academic and social capital. He described the strictness and discipline that he
encountered at School B: “Staff is like an army. When I rode into middle college, it was
a positive community with one mission and one goal to pass all classes and go to college .
. . . Especially coming from a middle school that’s, wow!”
Social capital was defined in the literature review as institutional support via
people and resources. All students provided similar perspectives in their responses to the
fourth set of interview questions regarding family members. Some students continued to
discuss their institutional resources at their schools. However, family members, as well
as local community and outside-of-school programs such as Upward Bound, were
credited with creating social capital and the confidence that access to a 4-year college and
persistence throughout were a foregone conclusion.
77
Chapter Summary
Schools A and B were different schools in different neighborhoods. However, all
other traits were similar. The participating students were African American and Latino.
They came from similar low-socioeconomic neighborhoods and from similar dual-
enrollment schools on community college campuses. The students from School A and
School B had many similarities and few differences with regard to their perspectives of
their former and current schools, the institutional support opportunities, and their opti-
mistic perspectives of access to and persistence in college, either a 4-year university or
community college. These three variables work together in unison; without one, the
others cannot occur. The purpose of this study was to find phenomena at schools that are
a phenomenon by itself, because most schools in both neighborhoods had the same
unfortunate statistics on at-risk youth in high school and college. They do not survive.
78
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
At-risk youth are at a stagnant state in building academic, economic, human, and
social capital. The statistics regarding high school and college graduation rates for Afri-
can American and Latin American youth in low-socioeconomic areas and rural areas are
lower than those for their White counterparts. The purpose of this phenomenological
study of student perspectives at middle college and early college high schools was to
determine why at-risk students at these dual enrollment high schools graduate from high
school and persist throughout college. The universal problem is apparent. However,
almost all at-risk students from the two student groups that were informally interviewed
in two separate focus groups provided perspectives about why they believed that college
would not be an issue once they graduated from high school, and the literature review
illustrated that this issue is consistent today, as well as in the past, and most likely will be
in the future. These two schools are in neighborhoods that are quite different from sub-
urban communities and affluent areas. Race also plays a large role in comparing aca-
demic success and the type of students who are enrolled at these schools. When the
problem is graduation from high and college, a solution is necessary to combat a trickling
effect when one deficiency adds to other deficiencies—in this study, the absence of social
capital, which is defined throughout as institutional support.
Four research questions were developed to address the overall question of why
these students graduate from high school and continue to higher education and graduate.
1. Why do high school students think they are limited in their access to and
success in college?
79
2. What type of support mechanisms are students reporting at middle college and
early college high schools to facilitate access to and success in college?
3. What are the perceptions of students at middle college and early college high
schools about the effectiveness of their institutional agents and resources?
4. Are there support networks or intangible elements other than those that the
design principles supposedly offer?
None of these questions was asked verbatim but addressed through a series of
interview protocol questions. Students provided their perspectives to the interview proto-
col questions, summarized by School A and School B and a final summary of both
schools in aggregate.
Summary of Findings
Chapter 4 presented detailed student perspectives. References to validate student
perceptions to findings from past studies were detailed. This chapter addresses similari-
ties and differences between schools and students at School A, School B, and collec-
tively. This section is organized by the four research questions, then by school, and then
as a summary of both.
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, Why do high school students think they are limited in
their access to and success in college?
School A students perceived their former schools as inadequate in academic
preparation and institutional support. Antonia said that her former school was behind in
curriculum and instruction. She reinforced Coleman’s (1988) position that human capital
is reliant on the supply of social capital, as she described the teachers at School A. Other
80
students discussed institutional support at both schools. Former teachers did not take
personal care for reasons such as being at a large public school, compared to the current
SLC on a community college. These students also reported high expectations from their
current teachers. Students from School A perceived high expectations and a caring rela-
tionship as reasons their former school had limited their academic success. Lopez (1996)
defined social capital through high attention and expectations from relationship building,
and School A students exemplified this definition through their perceptions of their
teachers. Wolk (2005) concluded that caring relationships and a challenging school envi-
ronment create higher access and persistence in college.
School B students perceived their former schools as inadequate in institutional
support. Unlike Antonia from School A, all students from School B perceived their
former schooling as unsupportive by expressing their views on their current teachers and
counselor. They reported that institutional agents at School B went beyond teaching.
The NCREST (2011) survey provided data on building capital beyond instruction.
According to the survey, approximately 80% of the students reported that they had
received help from their middle college high school on their college applications and
financial aid and scholarship forms, which is the type of information generated from the
social capital that Messalina attributed to her academic success and future. High expec-
tations, as well as creating personal relationships, implied what was absent from their
former schools because no accolades were given for the latter. Also, students from
School B described their former schools as large and uncaring.
These middle college and early college high school students from both schools
provided similar perceptions. A caring relationship between teachers and students
81
provided the necessary academic and social capital to continue education after gradua-
tion. None of the students credited their former schools, which were larger than their
current schools. However, students from School B discussed the benefits of the school
counselor, which was not mentioned by students from School A.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What type of support mechanisms are students
reporting at middle college and early college high schools to facilitate access to and
success in college?
School A students answered this question by discussing the benefits of having a
caring relationship with high expectations from their current teachers. These relation-
ships provided academic support, as well as other types of knowledge, skills, and feelings
of confidence. Most of these students planned to attend a 4-year university and acquire
professional employment. Three of the four students from School A also gave high
praise to the AVID program as their main support mechanism in providing information to
ease academic preparation and the college application process. The NCREST (2011)
survey data did not mention AVID by name but did mention seminars, which is institu-
tional support. While 80% of the surveyed students considered AVID to be helpful, 86%
also cited extra help from high school teachers as helpful. These high percentages of
student perceptions mirror the opinions expressed by Antonia and Claudius in Chapter 4
about their support agents at School A.
School B students answered this set of questions about support mechanisms by
discussing teachers and their caring relationships. However, these students discussed the
community college classes without elaboration as to how they supported their academic
82
success. Some of the students perceived being in community college classes as assuring
that access to and persistence throughout college after graduation would not be a
problem. None of the students viewed the community college classes as a support
mechanism. The simple fact of enrollment in higher education created confidence in
some of these students. Caligula and Messalina were confident about how college would
be because of their dual enrollment at School B and the community college. NCREST
(2011) survey data confirmed these perceptions of the community college. A majority of
the surveyed students agreed that the high school and college both provided instructional
assignments, expectations, and relevance, as similar in quality. This does not necessarily
mean that quality is high in every aspect of curriculum and instruction, but similar in type
of quality.
Students from both schools recognized their institutional agents or teachers.
These instructors are primarily from the high school and the AVID program. School A
students did not mention the school counselor but in discussion with these students AVID
served as the counselor as information about all aspects of college is delivered in this
program. Few students mentioned support mechanisms outside of school, such as tutor-
ing or Upward Bound.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, What are the perceptions of students at middle college
and early college high schools about the effectiveness of their institutional agents and
resources?
The perceptions were positive for students at School A. The teachers and AVID
provided knowledge, skills, high academic rigor through expectations, and feelings of
83
confidence in access to and persistence throughout college after high school. However,
some students recognized the absence of a variety of social organizations at School A.
The NCREST (2011) survey did not measure student opinion regarding social organiza-
tions but did address a sense of belonging. Approximately 82% of the surveyed students
stated that they were part of their middle college. There are limitations to this variable
because student perspectives about why they felt accepted were not discussed. This pre-
sents a major reason why a study on student perspectives at these types of dual enroll-
ment schools is necessary to address the large-scale problem of at-risk students’ access to
and persistence in college.
Students from School B perceived their institutional support in a positive manner
by discussing the personal relationships with the teachers and counselor, and with one
student, the janitor. Some of these students also perceived being enrolled in community
college classes as a benefit because of the experience and knowledge created by college
instructors and curriculum. Lucius did not give as much credit to the teachers as did the
other students. His perceptions focused on the design principles of academic rigor, con-
sistent with the high expectations reported in the NCREST (2011) survey. Some students
mentioned the same deficiency as a student from School A, which was, in School B’s
case, the absence of what large comprehensive schools provide: better lunches, larger
campus, more sports and clubs, and more teachers and classes at the high school. The
NCREST (2011) survey data, as well as the rest of the literature review, did not discuss
negative perceptions or conclusions regarding physical restrictions. However, the
NCREST survey data showed that the third most frequently cited reason students left
their middle college school was that they wanted to go back to their “regular” school,
84
without any mention of reasons. The second, third, and fourth-to-last reasons students
were leaving was that they perceived that no one cared about them, thought the school
was not challenging enough, and did not received the tutoring or academic help that they
needed, which was a rarity since these numbers were significantly low.
Students from both schools perceived their institutional support mechanisms as a
positive benefit in their future access to and persistence throughout college. Teachers,
AVID, and the counselor provided knowledge and skills beyond academic capital. One
student from School A and two from School B perceived that their teachers benefitted
from the small school environment, also.
Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, Are there support networks or intangible elements
other than those that the design principles supposedly offer?
Students from both schools answered this question by discussing institutional
agents and resources in relation to the other sets of questions. Almost all students per-
ceived their families as an important contribution to their current and future academic
success; most identified their mothers. Some students identified their teachers and coun-
selor. The mention of friends was minimal, and one student gave credit to his community
without elaboration. Some students from School B perceived outside-of-school programs
such as Upward Bound as providers of social capital. The NCREST (2011) survey data
were not conclusive regarding assistance outside of school in gaining social capital.
Some students received more assistance than others. For example, 34% of the surveyed
students said that they never got assistance from parents or family members with regard
85
to school-related support, while 10% reported that they received assistance almost every
day.
Overall, students from both schools offered similar perceptions regarding why
they would access and persist in higher learning. Institutional support, outside-of-school
programs, and family were the consensus. Are there other perceptions besides what was
mentioned by these eight students? Are there other questions that should be asked?
Should students been interviewed separately? Since they were in a group setting, should
there have been more discussion in a roundtable format? These questions are addressed
in the limitations of the literature review, as well as throughout the methodology chapter
and Participants section of Chapter 4 when describing the setting and participants.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations discussed in the literature review of middle college high schools
were apparent in this study of student perspectives. They were identified as (a) quantita-
tive data of outcomes to support the supposed benefits, (b) quality of academic rigor, (c)
competence of high school teachers of college level instruction, (d) transferability of
college credits to cover high school A–G requirements as well as other colleges or uni-
versities, (e) financial expenses and support, (f) access for at-risk students and other
students, and (g) academic quality at both the high school and college (Allen, 2010;
Andrews, 2001; Clark, R. W., 2001; Johnstone & Del Genio, 2001; Kim, 2006; Krueger,
2006; Lerner & Brand, 2007). However, the caveat to this study and other studies of dual
enrollment high schools is a lack of comprehensive data for outcome analysis (Karp et
al., 2007). Are these students succeeding as well as they report? NCREST at Teacher’s
College, Columbia University, is working with the National Student Clearing House and
86
several middle college and early college high schools to retrieve data on their students in
college after graduation. These longitudinal data could validate the students’ perspec-
tives of access and persistence throughout college until graduation. Did they need help?
Did they drop out? What were their GPAs? What were their majors? All of these
questions should be answered to validate these schools.
The most severe limitations were associated with conducting one-on-one inter-
views in a group setting along with the time constraints and small number of student par-
ticipants. Only four students from each school were interviewed. Again, one group of
four from School A and one group of four from School B provided descriptive and
detailed perspectives and insights. This severely limited student responses because of the
lack of variability through the influence of one another's responses. The students con-
sistently provided similar perspectives of their former and present institutional agents,
which was the action of caring. Student responses were greatly influenced by one
another if the variability of perspectives was minimal. Also, the four students from
School A and the four students from School B provided similar responses although they
were interviewed separately.
The newly discovered limitations centered on the administrative process of the
focus group informal interviews. Time was a concern. Students were interviewed one on
one in a group setting for approximately 40 minutes at each school, which is equal to
about 10 minutes per student. Detailed elaboration was limited due to the time con-
straints. With more time, discussions could have been more insightful. Probing ques-
tions could have been expanded regarding background and social capital from home and
elsewhere. For example, questions regarding academic status and behavior prior to
87
arriving at School A and School B were variables that were not explored. Questions
about socioeconomic situations could have added to the type of social capital gained or
lost from home, school, and other networks.
The number of student participants was limited to four from each school. More
students could have provided variability in perceptions along with separate one-on-one
interviews instead of having them in a group setting. All eight students perceived their
institutional support as contributing to their current and future academic success and con-
cluded with similar insights in regard to the reception of caring from teachers. although
they were grouped into fours according to their schools. A larger sample could have
included other characteristics of the students, such as socioeconomic status and parents’
education. However, for the purpose of this study, two middle college high schools were
investigated to identify phenomena at these schools for at-risk students. The implications
for practice are discussed below.
Implications for Practice
The recommendations from studying student perspectives at two similar middle
college and early college schools were to find phenomena. Chapter 4 revealed that
student perspectives were consistent with the literature review and the NCREST (2011)
survey data. Institutional support was the essential contributor of social capital for most
students at both schools, with some family support. Outside-of-school programs were
mentioned minimally. This study was conducted to discover phenomena and did pre-
cisely that. What is happening at these two schools, along with what they receive from
home, was the simple reception and distribution of caring. This word should be cau-
tiously used because caring is interpreted in different ways. In the case of these students,
88
caring was comprised of actions. According to these students, caring has several support
elements: high academic expectations, providing more than the standard curriculum,
personal relationships, counseling, mentoring, and the AVID program. All were
subcharacteristics of social capital, which in this study was referred to as institutional
support.
Caring is an action, not just the ability to say the right things to motivate and
inspire one another. To actually create a personal relationship with students and to
provide support through the middle college and early college design principles is not the
ultimate solution to creating access to and persistence throughout college for at-risk
students.
Caring is a universal action that anyone can do. However, at institutions with at-
risk students, caring is absent. The eight students in this study perceived their former
schools as uncaring. If teachers do not care about their students, do students reciprocate
this attitude? This is not known, since everyone reacts differently to actions or the lack
of actions. However, these eight at-risk students benefitted from the caring personal
relationships created with their institutional agents who provided institutional support to
further the students’ academic endeavors.
The action of caring is not an inborn characteristic or trait; professional develop-
ment and measures of accountability are necessary for implications for practice.
NCREST is already doing this by their annual survey to students, and there are winter
and summer institutes run by the Middle College National Consortium to analyze data
and attend workshops on professional development of the design principles. However,
not all middle college and early college high schools participate in these professional
89
development conferences. Financial constraints create caveats to participation. Are there
other ways for teachers and administrators to learn how to care and stay consistent with
what they should do to create social capital in these students so they feel confident in
their future access to and persistence throughout college? No. Professional development
is inevitable if institutional support is inadequate.
Is a caring relationship the only element needed to create confidence and effi-
cacy? No. Institutional agents and resources must be competent and relevant in their
academic curriculum and instruction. However, none of the students discussed learning
strategies, academic experiences, or how they learn. These students talk about one thing
only: the institutional agents and their caring relationships that created positive percep-
tions of these students’ future endeavors.
Future Research
The study of dual enrollment high schools is expanding to include longitudinal
data to follow these students once they graduate high school and enter college. The
National Student Clearing House is working with NCREST and middle college and early
college high schools to look at how these students are doing after high school graduation.
The limitations discussed in Chapter 1 and the literature review called for future research
that collects quantitative data as well as qualitative data.
The number of students who access and persist throughout college at these
schools from each high school graduating year to year is necessary to confirm this study
of student perspectives, as well as other dual enrollment studies. Measuring success
through student voices is one method of study but reviewing quantitative data along with
their perspectives can validate the phenomena of these schools that serve at-risk students
90
in low-socioeconomic areas. Although these schools and their academic success rates of
graduating approximately all students are a phenomenon by itself, the true phenomenon
discovered in this study is caring.
Future research must also measure caring relationships. NCREST (2011) survey
did this, but there are limitations because Likert-type surveys and data eliminate the
details of what caring means. Future research should look at student perspectives without
the constraints discussed in this chapter: time and a larger number of student perspec-
tives.
Conclusion
The education problem of at-risk students has not changed. These students are
not graduating from high school and college. This leads to an uneducated work force and
society and affects the economy in negative ways, such as high unemployment. The
domino theory of communism during the cold war is no different from this problem in
education. If there is one deficiency, others will aggregate to detrimental outcomes.
Crime rates go up, the stock market goes down, and job rates continue to decline. The
solution is simple: Provide adequate and equitable education for all. However, this is not
occurring, and the future of education is currently questionable, as the media has por-
trayed. A solution is necessary, and there is no equation that works for all at-risk
students. However, there are ways to counter this problem, and that is dual enrollment in
high school and college. This is not a one-size-fits-all solution, which is why this study
was conducted to look at what students were saying about their future access to and per-
sistence in college.
91
The solution was customized for these two schools. However, the reasons behind
these positive perspectives of a caring relationship developed from (a) the middle college
design principles, (b) professional development for teachers and principals to be instruc-
tional leaders, and (c) SLCs.
The middle college design principles consists of (a) power of the site by college
attendance and campus proximity while in high school; (b) teaching and learning through
new, innovative, and research-based pedagogy; (c) student support through building an
environment that raises student expectations and knowledge about college, creating an
accelerated and aligned curriculum and providing support opportunities to sustain student
success; (d) formative and summative student assessment through alternative and
traditional means, which could be waivers and portfolios; (e) democratic school govern-
ance to include all stakeholders: parents, students, teachers, the college, and various
community leaders and groups; and (f) professional development for the staff to support
new, innovative, and research-based teaching and learning methods and strategies
(NCREST, 2011; Nodine, 2008). These design principles offered opportunities for
student success, but what was causing most of these teachers to care about their students
beyond teaching? The specific design principles did not guarantee that all teachers would
care for their students, as these eight students reported.
The design principle of student support through building an environment that
raises student expectations and knowledge about college, creating an accelerated and
aligned curriculum, and providing support opportunities to sustain student success was
validated by all students as factors in a caring relationship. Caring was an action carried
out by institutional agents at the two school locations, but where did they learn to care?
92
The Middle College Initiative hosts several professional development opportuni-
ties. Two of their major conferences are the Winter Principal Leadership Conference and
the Summer Professional Development Institute. These conferences, as well as other
professional development opportunities, focus on data analysis through workshops. Spe-
cifically, the NCREST (2011) survey data were reviewed and analyzed for further action
as an aggregate for the organization and school sites. The Likert-type survey revealed a
large amount of quantitative data on design principles. Several parts of the survey looked
specifically at student support. These statistics of progress or regress validated where a
school was or was not practicing the design principles to their fullest potential. Most of
the findings from students in this study were consistent with the survey results, as
confirmed in the summary of findings section in this chapter. At both conferences,
teachers, administrators from the high school, and staff members from their respective
community colleges reviewed and analyzed further actions. The information generated
through data analysis was then assembled into a formal document for proposed actions.
This declaration was then distributed to the Middle College National Consortium and to
the school sites as a genuine action plan to follow (NCREST, 2011). Do all teachers
reflect on their level of caring? Absolutely not, but this document of declaration is simi-
lar to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) action plan document
that schools create every few years to maintain accreditation. Institutional agents who
attend these workshops are accountable to several stakeholders, in this case, the NCREST
(2011) survey. No school or teacher wants to be singled out through an extensive survey
as insufficient.
93
SLCs contributed to creating a caring relationship between institutional agents
and students at both schools. Many of the students discussed the physicality of the
school, as well as knowing one another because of the number of students and staff.
However, not all small schools are successful in creating higher-than-average numbers of
students who display college access and persistence. Empirical research is available on
SLCs as both effective and ineffective in creating academic success. Oxley and Luers
(2010) concluded that school staff needs full support from various stakeholders such as
the school district. An SLC does not guarantee the results revealed in this study. How-
ever, an SLC with support mechanisms from the district, community, parents, profes-
sional development organizations, and others is comprised of accountable members to
whom school site staff must answer.
In apparent contrast to traditional high schools, the middle college design princi-
ples, the two major conferences and workshops, and the support mechanisms at SLCs
created the phenomenon discovered by inquiring about student perspectives on future
access to and persistence throughout college: caring.
Studies of dual enrollment programs are abundant but most research does not look
at all student perspectives. Survey data limit their voices. They may answer a Likert-
type survey with biases and opinions that they cannot express. That is why this study
was performed: to look for reasons not revealed. These eight students expressed why
they feel that they will be successful in higher learning and in life. The institutional
support networks at school, home, and elsewhere contributed to their positive feelings
about their current school, as well as the future school of higher learning. However, the
action and not just the words of a caring relationship is the true phenomenon.
94
A simple word such as caring is easily definable. What is involved in a caring
relationship is more than what Webster’s dictionary provides. It is what these students
voiced. High academic expectations, providing more than the academic curriculum, per-
sonal relationships, counseling, mentoring, and the AVID program were viewed by a
majority of the students as reasons they feel the way they do about their former and
current schools and their optimistic perceptions of academic success. This is how
students should feel about their future. Will there be issues once in college? This is yet
to be seen but soon to be known because outcome data are to be determined in the near
future by NCREST and the National Student Clearing House.
A caring relationship between institutional agents and students does not sound
like a unique discovery. However, from these students, having a caring relationship with
institutional support had been absent in their formal schools, so social capital was also
invisible, other than what they had gained from home and some other outside support,
which most students did not mention. These students gained social capital from school,
teachers, counselor, and programs such as AVID. Again, this is not the solution for all
students, for all at-risk students, or for students with an abundance of social capital.
Social capital is comprised of actions of caring, not just words. All individuals who
provide knowledge and skills must care about these future contributors to society. These
eight students, representing an at-risk population of students, perceived caring as the
most important factor of social capital from their home and school networks.
95
REFERENCES
ACT. (2005). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work (Executive
summary). Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/
crisis_exec_summary.pdf
Adelman, C. (1994). Lessons of a generation: Education and work in the lives of the high
school class of 1972. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Adelman, C. (2002). The relationship between urbanicity and educational outcomes. In
W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending
possibilities for all students (pp. 35–64). Albany, NY: State of New York Press.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2001). Access denied: Restoring
the nation’s commitment to equal educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
Author.
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2009). American public school law (7th ed.). Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Allen, D. (2010). Dual enrollment: A comprehensive literature and bibliography. New
York, NY: City University of New York, Office of Collaborative Programs.
Andrews, H. A. (2001). The dual-credit phenomenon! Challenging secondary school
students across 50 states. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
AVID. (2012). What is AVID? Retrieved from http://www.avid.org/abo_whatisavid.html
Azinger, A. (2000). A K-12 perspective on partnerships with community colleges. In J.
Palmer (Ed.), How community colleges can create productive collaborations with
local schools (pp. 17–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bailey, T. R., Hughes, K. L., & Karp, M. M. (2003). Dual enrollment program: Easing
transitions from high school to college (Community College Research Center
Brief No. 17). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College.
Bailey, T. R., & Karp, M. M. (2003). Promoting college access and success: A review of
dual credit and other high school/college transition programs. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Barrett, D. J. (2003). Evaluating education reform: Students’ views of their charter school
experience. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 351–358.
Bartlett, W. C. (2008). Dual credit/concurrent enrollment initiatives: A study of influ-
ences on students’ postsecondary decisions. Retrieved from http://libres
.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/umi-uncg-1635.pdf
96
Bedsworth, W., Colby, S., & Doctor, J. (2006). Reclaiming the American dream. Boston,
MA: Bridgespan Group.
Berger, A. R., & Adelman, N. (2007). Evaluation of the Early College High School Initi-
ative: Select topics on implementation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for
Research & SRI International.
Blanco, C., Prescott, B., & Taylor, N. (2007). The promise of dual enrollment: Assessing
Ohio’s early college access policy. Cincinnati, OH: KnowledgeWorks Founda-
tion.
Blanden, J., & Machin, S. (2010). Millennium cohort study briefing 13: Intergenerational
inequality in early years assessments. London, UK: Institute for Education.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Born, T. (2006). Middle and early college high schools: Providing multilevel support and
accelerated learning. New Directions for Community Colleges, 135, 49–58.
Boswell, K. (2001). Dual enrollment programs: Accessing the American dream. Educa-
tion Commission of the States, Office of Community College Research and Lead-
ership, Update on Research and Leadership Newsletter, 13(1), 1–3.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14,
723-744.
Bragg, D. D., & Kim, E. (n.d.). Middle college and early college high schools. Retrieved
from http://www.apass.uiuc.edu/publications/Middle%20College%20or
%20Early%20College%20High%20Schools%20w-header.pdf
Braswell, J. S., Lutkus, A. D., Grigg, W. S., Santapau, S. L., Tay-Lim, B.S.-H., & John-
son, M. S. (2001). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001-
517). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Re-
search and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., & Morrison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspec-
tives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective
college admissions. New York, NY: Century Foundation.
Cavalluzzo, L., Jordan, W., & Corallo, C. (2002). Case studies of high schools on college
campuses: An alternative to the traditional high school program. Charleston, WV:
AEL.
Choy, S. P. (2002). Access & persistence: Findings from ten years of longitudinal re-
search on students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Center for
Policy Analysis.
97
Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nunez, A., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps
at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college? New Directions
for Institutional Research, 107, 45–63).
Clark, M. A., Brooks, M., Lee, S. M., Daley, L. P., Crawford, Y., & Maxis, S. (2006).
Factors influencing the educational success of minority pre-service educators.
Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 121–135.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Per-
formance.
Clark, R. W. (2001). Dual credit: A report of programs and policies that offer high school
students college credits. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trust.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital [Special section].
American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (2000). Schools, families, and communities. In R. Arum & I.
R. Beattie (Eds.), The structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of educa-
tion (pp. 69–77). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
CollegeBoard. (2005a). Trends in college pricing (Trends in Higher Education Series).
Reston, VA: Author.
CollegeBoard. (2005b). Trends in student aid (Trends in Higher Education Series).
Reston, VA: Author.
Conklin, K. (2005). Avoiding a collision course: A state policy agenda for increasing high
school students’ college readiness. In Course corrections: Experts offer solutions
to the college cost crisis (pp. 20–31). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation.
Cooper, K. L. (2008). Urban high school counselors’ experiences with students’ access
and success in college (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, No.
3305614.
Coplin, B. (2005). Seven steps: Ways to reduce instructional costs and improve under-
graduate and graduate education. In Course Corrections: Experts offer solutions to
the college cost crisis (pp. 60–67). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation.
Cunningham, C. L., & Wagonlander, C. S. (2000). Establishing and sustaining a middle
college high school. In J. Palmer (Ed.), How community colleges can create pro-
ductive relationships (pp. 41–51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Doss, D., & Moore, C. (Producers). (2010). AC360—In Katrina’s wake: Building up
America. Retrieved from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/29/
se.02.html
Eimers, M., & Mullen, R. (2003, May). Dual credit and advanced placement: Do they
help prepare students for success in college? Paper presented at the 43rd Annual
Association of Institutional Research (AIR) Conference, Tampa, FL.
98
Feldman, T. R., & Assaf, S. (1999). Social capital: Conceptual frameworks and empiri-
cal evidence, an annotated bibliography. Retrieved from http://www
.worldbank.org/socialdevelopment
Fowler, M., & Luna, G. (2009). High school and college partnerships: Credit-based tran-
sition programs. American Secondary Education, 38(1), 62–76.
Gehring, J. (2001, March 14). High school, with a college twist. Education Week, 19(26),
36–41. Retrieved from http://linksprogram.gmu.edu/tutorcorner/
NCLC495Readings/Gehring_HighSchoolwCollegeTwist.pdf
Goldberger, S. (2007). Doing the math: What it means to double the number of low-
income college graduates. In N. Hoffman, J. Vargas, & A. Venezia (Eds.), Mind-
ing the gap: Why integrating high school with college makes sense and how to do
it (pp. 27–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Grier, T., & Peterson, K. (2007). Middle college high schools: A meaningful option for
disconnected high school students. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention
Center.
Grigg, W. S., Daane, M. C., Jin, Y., & Campbell, J. R. (2003). The nation’s report card:
Reading 2002 (NCES 2003-521). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2010). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Retrieved
from http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8890.html
Hartwell, J. A. (2009). Administrators’ perceptions regarding middle college/early
college academic support: Strategies and student performance (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3369254)
Heller, D. E. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college
enrollment. Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 65–89.
Hoffman, N. (2003). College credit in high school: Increasing college attainment rates for
underrepresented students. Change, 35(4), 42–48.
Hoffman, N. (2005). Add and subtract: Dual enrollment as a state strategy to increase
postsecondary success for underrepresented students. Boston, MA: Jobs for the
Future.
Hoffman, N., & Vargas, J. (2005). Early college high school initiative: Integrating
Grades 9 through 14. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Huebner, T. A., Corbette, G. C., & Phillippo, K. (2006). Rethinking high school: Inaugu-
ral graduations at New York City’s new high schools. San Francisco, CA:
WestEd.
99
Hughes, K. L., Karp, M. M., Fermin, B. J., & Bailey, T. R. (2005). Pathways to college
access and success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Vocational and Adult Education.
Jacobsen, J. (2005, March11). The early college experiment. Chronicle of Higher Educa-
tion, 51(27), A36–A38.
Johnstone, D. B., & Del Genio, B. (2001). College-level learning in high school: Pur-
poses, policies, and practical implications. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Jordan, W. J., Cavalluzzo, L., & Corallo, C. (2006). Community college and high school
reform: Lessons from five case studies. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 30, 729–749.
Kahne, J., & Bailey, K. (1999). The role of social capital in youth development: The case
of “I have a dream” programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21,
321–343.
Karcher, M. J. (2004). Connectedness and school violence: A framework for develop-
mental interventions. In E. Gerler (Ed.), Handbook of school violence (pp. 7–42).
Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Karp, M. M., Bailey, T. R., Hughes, K. L., & Fermin, B. J. (2004). State dual enrollment
policies: Addressing access and equity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ed-
ucation.
Karp, M. M., Bailey, T. R., Hughes, K. L., & Fermin, B. (2005). Update to state dual en-
rollment policies: Addressing access and equity. New York, NY: Columbia Uni-
versity, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Karp, M. M., Calcagno, J. C., Hughes, K. L., Jeong, D. W., & Bailey, T. R. (2007). The
postsecondary achievement of participants in dual enrollment: An analysis of
student outcomes in two states. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, National
Research Center for Career and Technical Education.
Kim, J. (2006). The impact of dual and articulated credit on college readiness and total
credit hours in four selected community colleges. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Office of Community College Research and Lead-
ership.
Kirst, M. W. (2003). College preparation and Grade 12 NAEP. Washington, DC:
National Assessment Governing Board.
Kirst, M. W., & Venezia, A. (2001, September). Bridging the great divide between sec-
ondary schools and postsecondary education. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 92–97.
Kisker, C. A. (2006). Integrating high school and the community college: Previous efforts
and current possibilities. Community College Review, 34(1), 68–86. doi:10.1177/
0091552106289821
100
Klekotka, P. (2005, June). Beyond high school: Improving transition programs for post-
secondary education. Policy Issues. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org/
policy/pubs/pdfs/pivol18.pdf
Krueger, C. (2006). Dual enrollment: Policy issues confronting state policymakers.
Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Lennon, T., Blackwell, P., Bridgeforth, C., & Cole, P. (1996). Pathways: School guid-
ance and counseling in EQUITY 2000 (Report). New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination.
Lerner, J. B., & Brand, B. (2007). The impact of secondary-postsecondary learning options on
college preparation. Peer Review, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/
doc/1P3-1256604941.html
Lerner, J. B., & Brand, B. (2006). The college ladder: Linking secondary and post-
secondary education for success for all students. Washington, DC: American
Youth Policy Forum.
Lerner, J. B., & Brand, B. (2007). The impact of secondary-postsecondary learning
options on college preparation. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_qa4115/is_200701/ai_n19198118/
Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taughton, NJ: Stan
Lester Developments.
Lieberman, J. E. (2004). The early college high school concept: Requisites for success.
Retrieved from http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/ECHSConcept.pdf
Lopez, E. S. (1996). Social capital and the educational performance of Latino and non-
Latino youth. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Julian Samora
Research Institute.
Lords, E. (2000, June 30). New efforts at community colleges focus on underachieving
teens. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(43), 45–47.
Loury, G. (1977). A dynamic theory of racial income differences. In P. A. Wallace & A.
Le Mund (Eds.), Women, minorities, and employment discrimination (pp. 153–
186). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Maguire Associates. (2005). The Chronicle of Higher Education survey of college and
university presidents: Key findings. Concord, MA: Author.
Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college
access and success for low-income and minority youth. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College Network.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure
opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
101
McDonough, P. M. (2005). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and organiza-
tional commitment in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Nine proposi-
tions relating to the effectiveness of college preparation programs (pp. 69–88).
New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
McPherson, M. S., & Shapiro, M. O. (1999). Tenure issues in higher education. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 13, 85–98.
McPherson, M. S., & Shapiro, M. O. (2002). The blurring line. Change, 34(2), 38-46.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. (2011). Middle
College National Consortium survey report 2010. New York, NY: Columbia
University, Teachers College.
Newton, A. (2008). Empowering students: How Georgia college early college changes
student aspirations. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Ng, J. C., Lee, S. S., & Pak, Y. K. (2007). Contesting the model minority and perpetual
foreigner stereotypes: A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in educa-
tion. Review of Research in Education, 31, 95–130.
Nodine, T. (2009). Innovations in college readiness: How early college high schools are
preparing students underrepresented in higher education for college success.
Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Noeth, R. J., & Wimberly, G. L. (2002). Creating seamless educational transitions for
urban African American and Hispanic students. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Ogbu, J. (1992). Adaptation to minority status and impact on school success. Theory Into
Practice, 31, 287–295.
Oxley, D., & Luers, K. W. (2010). Lessons learned from high school SLC and small
school reform efforts. Lessons Learned, 1(1), 1-4.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First genera-
tion college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes.
Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249–284.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Peng, Z. (2003). A comparison of grade point averages and retention rates of dual enroll-
ment students and non-dual enrollment students in public four-year universities
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Perna, L. (2000). Racial and ethnic group differences in college enrollment decisions. In
A. F. Cabrera & S. M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the college choice of disad-
vantaged students (pp. 65–83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
102
Plank, S. B., & Jordan, W. J. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions on
postsecondary destinations: A study of talent loss. American Educational
Research Journal, 38, 947–979.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.
Prevatt, F., & Kelly, D. F. (2003). Dropping out of school: A review of intervention pro-
grams. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 377–395.
Rendón, L. I., García, M., & Person, D. (2004). A call for transformation. In L. I. Rendón,
M. García, & D. Person (Eds.), Transforming the first-year experience for stu-
dents of color (Monograph No. 38, pp. 3–22). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Rich, L. M. (2011). A different kind of leader: Characteristics of effective middle college
and early college principals. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticutt.
Rooney, P., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Choy, S., Hampden-Thompson, G., Provasnik, S., &
Fox, M. A. (2006). The condition of education 2006 (NCES 2006-071). Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Ryu, M. (2008). Minorities in higher education 2008: 23rd status report. Washington,
DC: Center for Policy Analysis, American Council for Education.
Salkind, S. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seastrom, M., Hoffman, L., Chapman, C., & Stillwell, R. (2005). The averaged freshman
graduation rate for public high schools from the common core of data: School
years 2001-02 and 2002-03 (NCES 2006-601). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Shirazi, A., & French, C. (2005). Early college awareness as an enrollment management
strategy. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29, 649–650.
Sias, B. A. (2008). Marginalized students’ perspectives of school consolidation: A case
study in rural West Virginia (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-
sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3323366)
Slade, J. R., Jr. (2006). A theoretical framework toward implementing and sustaining
middle and early college high schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni-
versity of North Carolina, Greensboro.
Smerdon, B., & Means, B. (2006). Early college high school initiative: 2003–2005 evalu-
ation report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and SRI Interna-
tional.
103
Spence, K., & Barnett, E. (2008). Highlights from the MCNC Graduating Student Survey
data: Early college high schools (2006–07). New York, NY: National Center for
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching.
Spurling, S., & Gabriner, R. (2002). The effect of concurrent enrollment programs upon
student success at City College of San Francisco: Findings. San Francisco, CA:
City College of San Francisco, Office of Institutional Development, Research and
Planning.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socializa-
tion of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1),
1–40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin
support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. In
M. A. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S.
Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 18–38). New York, NY:
Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Un-
published manuscript, University of Southern California, Rossier School of Edu-
cation.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the social repro-
duction of inequality: The formation of informational networks among Mexican-
origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 116–135.
State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2005). State higher education finance FY
2005. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef_fy05_full.pdf
Steinberg, A., & Almeida, C. A. (2008). Raising graduation rates in an era of high
standards. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Stoops, N. (2004). Educational attainment in the United States: 2003 (Current Popula-
tion Reports P20-550). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Eco-
nomics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.
Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A., & Bernal, E. (2001). Swimming against the tide: The poor in
American higher education (College Board Research Report No. No. 2001-3).
New York, NY: The College Board.
Tross, S. A., Harper, J. P., Osher, L. W., & Kneidinger, L. M. (2000). Not just the usual
cast of characteristics: Using personality to predict college performance and reten-
tion. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 323–334.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics. (2005). The condition of education 2005 in brief (NCES 2005-
095). Washington, DC: Author.
104
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action-
sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: State University of New York.
Venezia, A., Kirst, M. W., & Antonio, A. L. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How
disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student aspi-
rations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.
Wechsler, H. (2001). Access to success in the urban high school: The middle college
movement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
West, L. L. (1991). Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Wolk, R. A. (2005). “It’s kind of different”: Student experiences in two early college
high schools. Retrieved from http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/
KindOfDifferent.pdf
105
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: ANTONIA
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 10
th
grade. Graduate h.s. and community college with AA. Go out of state for
college. Enter a profession involving criminology.
- Found school online and referred by friend.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to private schools. Academically, private schools were “little behind,” and
now, her knowledge is expanding. Learning about different subjects. Better in
public school.
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
- Classes, lunch, and softball. College is on Tues and Thurs. Life is different
because block schedule provides more time.
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- Yes, they are more understanding and more connectable or relatable.
106
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- Yes. Also believes, remediation is unnecessary once in college. Academic
preparation and “social wise…mingling with others and getting feedback.”
Friends are a sense of support.
- AVID, specifically, Cornell note-taking and academic tutorials.
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- No.
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
- “They’re hard on us . . . they keep us all in one big group . . . and they make sure
we do all our work.”
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
107
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- AVID
-
- Words:
o “Striving for our goals and helping us to become more hard working and
dedicated to our cause and make right decisions . . . parties can come later
on in life.” Mom is support and same math person as Darius. And other
math teacher. They stand up for you when accused of doing something
wrong is false.
108
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: CALIGULA
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 11
th
grade. College and become lawyer.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to public middle school.
- “Yes, because this school is a lot smaller and more socially integrated . . . when it
comes to bigger schools you always find people you’ve never seen before, but
when it comes to this school, you will always see someone every day, so you get
used to it . . . it’s more comfortable.”
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
- Every other day have an easy schedule because of community college class which
there’s breaks in between. 30 minutes.
- Basketball, also.
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- In his opinion, “Teachers can also become more comfortable with students
because it’s a smaller environment.”
109
- “Yes, they have different teaching styles. They relate to the students more to get
them . . . they really care about the students.” Specific teachers.
- Counselor helps a lot. Available and knows students and their goals. To under-
stand what’s going and to take care of and what classes to take.
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- “This school is most definitely preparing us for college, primarily by giving us
college classes so we can get comfortable in that environment and know what to
expect when we get to college.”
- “Yes, they are because I’ve taken high school classes that relate to the college
classes and know what’s going on.”
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- Funding. “It would help give us better lunches . . . more supplies for basketball or
other sports at this school.”
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
- “Primarily, teachers inspire us to keep pushing forward and try harder at what we
are doing . . . .”
110
- Gives academic and life information.
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
- Some of the high school classes are harder than the college classes.
- Was not really concerned but now knows it’s worth it to go to this school.
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- Upward Bound informed him and parents didn’t want him to go to the big public
school.
- Students need to recognize the advantages other schools and students don’t have.
- Family is big support. No one has gone straight to college out of high school.
Make them proud.
- “Prioritize”
o Ties into maturity and what’s important now for the future
o Contributes to mother. Inspired him to prioritize. She watches over
grandmother.
111
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: CLAUDIUS
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 11
TH
grade. Go out of state to study aeronautical engineering.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Large public middle school in the neighborhood.
- “Size of this campus . . . you can walk across the school in a second and I think I
work better in a tighter environment.”
- 100% graduation rate.
- Can get an AA degree but budget cuts are limiting this.
- Recognition of school from colleges gives more opportunities to go to college
because of reputation.
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- Yes. One of the things that influence the teachers is the size of the school. Big-
ger schools, teachers do not get close to students because so many students.
112
“Teachers know every single student at this school because they had them and
they are going to have them.”
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- Yes. AVID. A college preparatory elective class. SAT’s, financial aid, aca-
demic, essay, help with notes. Students don’t know how to take notes and former
students come back and praise AVID’s preparation for note-taking.
- “Mentally and maturatily” [sic]. “Every teacher here because they give us college
level works and expect more of us since we do go to class at the college so they
treat us the same as college students.”
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- “At regular high schools, they have more clubs and things to choose from.” “It’s
like the same clubs each year, and if someone doesn’t really think like these clubs
connect with them, then they will not have anything to put for college that is in-
teresting.”
- All students interviewed are in clubs.
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
113
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- Received some pressure to go to this school. Not first choice. Dad wanted him to
go there and does not mind anymore.
- AVID tutorials really help if done right. “Ask questions with meaning.” “A lot
of people really don’t go to their teachers for help and helps you go to your
teacher for help . . . .”
- Words:
o Maturity: didn’t know how to cope with high school environment and
work ethic was bad. Childish, didn’t listen to teachers. School helped
with maturity and time management and helped grow as a person. “If
there’s a party or have homework, I would choose homework over the
party that will help me a lot for college because I want to achieve.”
o Perseverance: used to give up but now needs to figure things out. Con-
tributes this to his brother who is in the army. Provided daily support.
114
Math teacher always stays on him. Homework or life in general. “He’s
kind of like a therapist.”
115
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: DRUSUS
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 12
TH
grade. Cal State, and major in computer engineering because likes math
and computers.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to public middle school, and seniors from current school had orientation
meeting where seniors talked about the school and earn an AA degree. Told mom,
and she said you can cut 2 years.
- 100% graduation rate and eliminating 2 years of college by taking college classes.
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- “The teachers here, it seems if they care more about their students even though
more strict.”
- Certain teachers push students to do their best, and have very high expectations.
- “And the fact that we can take classes at the community college.”
116
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- Yes. The high school and college.
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
- AVID. Requires organization.
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- Summer Bridge helped manage time.
117
- Words:
o Support: Friends and family help with decisions on college and current
school issues. Emotional support from friends and family. Some friends
from school. Not from teachers because doesn’t talk to them or vice versa
about this stuff.
o Dedication: Did not elaborate . . .
118
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: LUCIUS
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 12
th
grade. Major in business management and civically engaged and get into
politics. Community, school and family are big influences for these goals.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to large public middle school.
- “Definitely, size, behavior, teachers . . . .you get to know most of the teachers at .
. . but not all of them . . . at middle college it’s more personal, they don’t neces-
sarily have to care about your intentions or what not but as long as they execute
their job effectively, they can definitely inspire to the student academically.”
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- Some teachers go beyond their job but not all, and they like to talk about personal
interests, such as family and sports.
- “Definitely, size, behavior, teachers . . . .you get to know most of the teachers at .
. . but not all of them . . . at middle college it’s more personal, they don’t
119
necessarily have to care about your intentions or what not but as long as they exe-
cute their job effectively, they can definitely inspire to the student academically.”
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- Yes. Confident but there will be differences, because of the caliber of a university
is different from the high school that may not meet.
- Confidence comes from family, community, posse, friends, and teachers.
- Internship. Constitutional Rights Foundation helps also.
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- Eating area.
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
- “I don’t want to give too much credit to middle college although it does receive a
big part but when students are maturing they’re growing and they kind of soak in
a lot of these things middle college provides . . . and take advantage of these
opportunities.”
- Teachers play a small role. Size of school helps.
120
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
- These things are irrelevant to why you went to this school.
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- Came to this school to save his life. Other teachers, family, and friends helped.
Freshman and sophomore year was bad.
- Teacher at middle school informed about this school.
- “Mother”
o Inspirational and motivational. “Empowered me”
- Middle school teacher with information about middle college for academic
success
- Community
- Family
o They are motivation and want to make them proud since first to graduate
from high school.
121
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: MESSALINA
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 12
th
grade. Registered nurse so going to nursing school after.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to large public middle school. 1500 to a few hundred students.
- “Yeah, you get to know people, teachers and students.”
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
- Only come to school 2 to 3 times a week since senior.
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- Emphasized counselor. “He helps me out a lot.” “Tells me what classes I should
take . . . if they will help me out later on or not.”
o College process and financial aid.
- “I think they actually care more about the students since we are less students . . .
specific teachers.”
- “I think they care more just because . . . some of them just push you more because
they want to see us succeed.”
122
o Interactions beyond human capital, “Talk about anything, like sports. We
joke around. They’re cool.”
o Middle school teachers, “can care less.”
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- “Most definitely! Just by the name. We do take college classes for a reason.”
- “I’m not saying it’s going to be easy but I’m not saying it’s going to be that diffi-
cult because we already know how college life is going to be.”
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- Bigger campus.
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
- “Teachers and counselor is big influence because they want to see us succeed.”
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
123
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
- Brother and sister recommended school. They didn’t want her to go to home
school.
- Didn’t consider all the benefits until she got here.
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- “Family, because they always supported me and they always wanted me to do
good.”
- “Friends, of course they also pushed me to do better when I was messing up.”
- Counselor, since freshman year. “That’s when I messed up.”
- “Teachers, some teachers here motivated me to do better and they wanted me to
succeed.”
124
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: POSTUMUS
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 12
th
grade. Double major in kinesiology and dietetics. And eventually go to med
school and focus on sports medicine.
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to large public middle school and transferred to small charter.
- “A lot of negative people there and felt like I was becoming part of that group so
mom put me into a charter school which was kind of like the school I am in now.
Small and everybody there was positive.”
- Cousin told family about middle college. Mom chose school but the benefits of
school were reason why he went.
- Not much differences with charter school and middle college.
- Big school no interaction.
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
- Only come to school 2 to 3 times a week since senior.
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
125
- “We didn’t get a lot of attention and teachers to me didn’t see they cared so
much.”
- Classrooms were chaotic.
o Other students said there classes were very chaotic.
- “In 9
th
grade they kind of just put us in the water and tell us how to swim. And I
think it helped because the put us into the community college and find our way.”
- They put you in college classes in 9
th
, same ones for everyone.
- “But if it wasn’t for middle college, I would have never took those class so it kind
of helped me. Motivated and pushed me.”
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- “The whole staff, even the janitor. Sometimes she said and gives me encouraging
words.”
- Some relations are better than others but talks to everyone.
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- Bigger staff to have more students.
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
126
- “High expectations they have for us.”
- “Every teacher.”
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- “Staff is like an army. When I rode into middle college, it was a positive com-
munity with one mission and one goal to pass all classes and go to college.”
o Strict and disciplined
o “Especially coming from a middle school that’s, wow.”
127
APPENDIX H
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: TIBERIUS
1. Tell me about yourself. Grade? Future goals? College?
- 12
TH
grade. Enlisting in Air Force. Benefits and on the job potential experience.
- “Because the cost of colleges, and my parents make too much money and cannot
get financial aid and they do not want to get loans.”
2. Where did you go to school before here? Do you see big differences? Tell me
how. So is this why you came to this school? Are there any benefits? How is it
better if at all with your formal schooling?
- Went to large public middle school.
- Differences seen in students and teachers. “Most of the students don’t care, and
the teachers don’t care.”
3. Tell me about your typical day? Is it much different from before?
4. Would you say the teachers are different? Do they interact with you differently?
Do they go beyond what they are supposed to do besides teach?
- Differences seen in students and teachers. “Most of the students don’t care, and
the teachers don’t care.”
- Majority of current teachers care. “They listen to you.” “All the ones I had
listen.”
128
5. Do you believe this school is getting you ready for college success? In getting in
and persisting throughout? What are the major factors to this access and reten-
tion?
- Yes. “The work they give you is college level.” At high school and college.
6. How would you improve, terminate, or add to what your school provides as
opportunities to succeed?
- AVID does not help. “I guess it’s what you make it.” Doesn’t need the infor-
mation they provide. However, some do need the information.
7. Why is this school succeeding, if at all, in producing a high rate of student
achievement? How?
- “Students that come here they generally want to be here, and if they don’t, they
leave, or they’re asked to leave.”
- All four students wanted to be here.
8. Many of you have mentioned the opportunity to take college in high school as a
major factor in attending this school. How is your experience with the college
courses and teachers? Is the college doing more than the high school? Does the
school encourage graduation with an Associate Degree (AA) or Intersegmental
General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to transfer to a University of
California (UC) school since you are at a middle college school?
129
9. Is there anything else you would like to add about this school, especially with
regard to the people and resources?
- Went to small schools most of the time so current school fits.
- Words:
- “Learning how to ask for help.” Didn’t really talk as much but speaks for himself
more and asks for help. Having to keep track of grades on your own.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study on student perspectives at middle college and early college high schools was to investigate how these institutions create greater access and persistence for at-risk students who attend postsecondary schools when studies report regression and skewed differences among ethnic and racial groups and socioeconomic classes at this level. There is clearly a problem in this country between majorities and minorities and among socioeconomic classes. This is not improving nor does it promise to improve in the near future. However, certain schools overcome this problem. This study focuses on the phenomenon of middle college and early college high schools and their design principles. ❧ Middle college and early college design principles require and encourage schools to utilize the theoretical framework on which this study is based: the theory of social capital through agents and resources. Support networks help to drive these schools toward academic success while adhering to each school’s visions and principles. The schools and students sampled for this study were from two middle college and early college high schools in similar low socioeconomic urban neighborhoods. The main purpose of this study was to collect phenomenological data about the subjective perspectives of a group of students from these schools and compare the data to those reported in the literature, including data reported by the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST) at Teachers College, Columbia University, which guided development of questions for this study. This includes the theory in action, social capital theory, which was applied and compared to student insights to supplement future endeavors in the field of education.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The middle college high school: a case study
PDF
The impact of the Norton High School early college program on the academic performance of students at Norton High School
PDF
Play-testing a video game prototype with low-SES college-bound urban high school students
PDF
Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting
PDF
Middle school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying
PDF
Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school
PDF
The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students
PDF
Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school
PDF
College readiness in California high schools: access, opportunities, guidance, and barriers
PDF
Strategy and college participation: a comparative case study of two early college high schools
PDF
School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions
PDF
Building a college-going culture: a case study of a continuation high school
PDF
Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students
PDF
An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school
PDF
The missing voice: graduate students' perceptions of the school counseling profession
PDF
A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? Lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools
PDF
Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy
PDF
Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools
PDF
Everything you need to prepare for college in the palm of your hand: a mobile app for low income, middle school students
PDF
The effect of reading proficiency on student success in online credit recovery programs
Asset Metadata
Creator
Yi, James
(author)
Core Title
Student perceptions at middle college high schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/25/2012
Defense Date
06/25/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
middle college high school,OAI-PMH Harvest,student perceptions
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee chair
), Dwyer, David C. (
committee member
), Thorossian, Katherine Fundukian (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jamesyi76@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-64526
Unique identifier
UC11290290
Identifier
usctheses-c3-64526 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-YiJames-992.pdf
Dmrecord
64526
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Yi, James
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
Tags
middle college high school
student perceptions