University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Ninth grade freshman focus: shifting the trajectory for multiple need students

(USC Thesis Other)

Ninth grade freshman focus: shifting the trajectory for multiple need students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 1
NINTH GRADE FRESHMAN FOCUS: SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY OF
MULTIPLE NEED STUDENTS

by

Tanya V. Stoddard

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

May 2013

Copyright 2013 Tanya V. Stoddard
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 2
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my family. To my daughter Sofia, thank you for your
support, Sweet Pea. You knew what a dissertation was well before most adults. You
were entering kindergarten when this all started. You are now in third grade. You are
my favorite and my best. Thank you for allowing me the time I needed to get this done.
Thank you for giving me hugs and neck massages when I needed them. I love you, baby.
To Jim, thank you for giving me the time. You listened to me as I worked
through my thoughts. Thank you for the spa days when I needed them. Thank you for
your friendship and love.
To Geawgee, thank you for pushing me to finish this in some of my darkest
hours. You baited me, pushed me, lectured me, harangued me, and cheered me on.
To my mother, thank you for believing in me and serving as a mom, grandmother,
babysitter, and being my champion. Thank you for the prayers.
To the Neil and Coppola families, thank you for providing me the quiet space to
work in such a beautiful locale. There is nothing that gets the creative juices flowing like
a picturesque old beach house with a tremendous view.
Para mi abuelita, gracias por todas las oraciones, y todo su amor.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 3
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia for your time. Thank you
so much for your belief in me at the eleventh hour when I needed you most.
To my second committee member, Dr. Michael Escalante, thank you for your
support. Thank you for seeing me as an educational leader all those years back when I
was a classroom teacher, and very strongly encouraging me into continuing my studies
first towards my master’s degree, and now my doctorate. Thank you for encouraging me
to continue to seek higher levels of school leadership and teaching me so much about
being a leader.
To my behind the scenes angel, and third committee member, Dr. Linda Fischer,
your support and guidance through this process has been everything to me. You helped
me in my darkest hours and brought light to the end of the dissertation tunnel.
I would like to thank my Ohana for allowing me the time to work on this
dissertation. Thank you for taking my coverages and working around my schedule so
that I could continue my education.
To Dr. Jennifer Earl, thank you so very much for being a soul-sister and providing
me with the support and courage to get through this. You have been and continue to be
an inspiration.
Thank you to everyone at USC who helped me along the way. My professors, my
advisors, and my dean were integral in making this happen. A special thank you to
Nadine, Yevy, Rocke, and Katy!!!
Finally, this dissertation is the expression of my own resilience. Who knew that
this once homeless, high school dropout could end up earning a doctorate from the
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 4
esteemed University of Southern California? Please let this serve as a beacon of hope for
those who are struggling through school for whatever reason. Remember, sustained
quality effort over time equals success.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 7

List of Figures 8

Abstract 9

Chapter One: Overview 10

Background of the Problem 12

Statement of the Problem 14

Purpose of the Study 16

Limitations 17

Significance of the Study 17

Definition of Terms 18

Organization of this Study 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review 22

School Leadership 23

School Connectedness 31

Resilience 36

The Importance of Consistency over Time 41

Summary 47

Chapter Three: Methodology 49

Research Settings 51

Physical Setting 51

Cultural Setting 52

Demographic Setting 55

Freshman focus historical setting 57

Criteria for Participant Selection 59

Instrumentation 61

Data Collection Procedure 62

Data Analysis Procedure 64

Ethical Considerations 65

Chapter Four: Results 66

Participants 67

Students 67

Parents 70

Faculty 70

Results 71

Theme one: Positive Relationships with Caring Adults 75

Discussion theme one 80

Theme two: Improved problem-solving skills 81

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 6
Discussion theme two 90

Theme three: Increased school involvement 91

Discussion theme three 94

Theme four: Self-Efficacy/Goal Orientation 95

Discussion theme four 97

Summary of Results 98

Chapter Five: Conclusions 99

Summary of Findings 99

Positive adult relationships 100

Conflict resolution 101

School involvement and attendance 101

Grades 102

Implications for School Leaders 102

Recommendations for Research 104

References 106

Appendix A: Comprehensive Longitudinal Record Study 111

Appendix B: Interview Questions for Students 112

Appendix C: Parent/Guardian of Students Questions 114

Appendix D: Faculty Focus Group Questions 115

Appendix E: Student Survey of Resilience 116

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 7
List of Tables
Table 1: California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Friendship Domain C2015 84

Table 2: California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Friendship Domain- C2014 84

Table 3: California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Personal Domain - C2015 86

Table 4: California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Personal Domain - C2014 88

Table 5: California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Home Domain - C2015 89

Table 6: California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Home Domain- C2014
Discussion Theme 2

90

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 8
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Model for the resilience and youth development module
(Hanson & Kim, 2007, p. 5)

41

Figure 2: Bronfenbrenner’s Model

43
Figure 3: Adapted Bronfenbrenner Equation as created by Stoddard, 2012 46

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 9
Abstract
Student, parent and staff perceptions were analyzed along with student responses
to a resilience survey and a collection of student records in an effort to describe the
phenomenon of improved school connectedness and resilience over time for students at
comprehensive risk for high school dropout. The result of the study found when school
leadership focuses on fostering school connectedness and resilience in their high risk
youth, students become more connected and resilient. This was evidenced by
improvements in attendance, behavior, and extracurricular participation. This also
stabilized, and in some cases improved, the course pass rates for this population of high-
risk students with a history of course failure.

Key Words: dropout, school connectedness, resilience, early warning systems, protective
factors, multiple-need, high-risk, comprehensive-risk

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 10
Chapter One: Overview
There is a clear and present danger in education today. Students drop out of high
school at the alarming rate of one every twenty-six seconds across the nation (The Silent
Epidemic, ret. 2009). More importantly, students drop out at varying levels by ethnicity.
For example, the dropout rate for Hispanics and African-Americans is vastly greater than
that for Whites and Asians. The dropout rate is having a real economic impact on the
United States:
The government would reap $45 billion in extra tax revenues and
reduced costs in public health, crime, and welfare payments if the
number of high school dropouts among 20-year olds in the U.S. today,
which numbers more than 700,000 individuals, were cut in half. (The
Silent Epidemic, ret. 2009)
The National High School Center further describes the impact of high school
dropouts on the United States economy:
Almost 1.3 million students didn’t graduate from US high schools in
2004, costing more than $325 billion in lost wages, taxes, and
productivity over their lifetimes. The Alliance for Excellent Education
has estimated that the more than 12 million students who will drop out
over the next decade will cost the nation $3 trillion dollars. (Monrad,
2007, p. 3)
These numbers are staggering at a time when the economy is struggling to
staunch the flow of money from two protracted wars, a debilitated stock
market, and skyrocketing unemployment.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 11
While dropouts have an astonishing economic impact on our economy,
there is a moral and ethical impact on the individual and society when a
student drops out of high school. High school dropouts are more likely to live
in poverty, more likely to be incarcerated and have substantially shorter
lifespans. In a recent study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at
Northeastern University, Sum et al. (2009) discuss several findings. “For all
young males, high school dropouts were 47 times more likely to be
incarcerated than their similar aged peers who held a four year college degree”
(p. 9). Seventy percent of all inmates do not have a high school diploma. High
school dropouts are more likely to have children as single mothers and at much
younger ages than their graduate peers. They are more likely to be
underemployed or unemployed. Levin (2005) found that 65 year-old graduates
fair better in health than do 45 year-old dropouts. The life expectancy of a
high school dropout is nearly a decade shorter than their peers with high school
diplomas. A compounding factor is that a disproportionate number of high
school dropouts are from marginalized segments of our population. This
makes finding practical solutions for halting and reversing the dropout
epidemic a matter of social justice. The purpose of this study was not to
validate the program as a whole. The purpose of this study was to look into the
practices employed by the school leadership at one school site, and determine
if those practices were effective in increasing school connectedness and
resilience in an effort to improve the trajectories of its multiple risk students
towards on time graduation.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 12
Background of the Problem
Dropping out of high school is not a single event. Researchers assert a student is
not likely to be a dropout merely for belonging to a demographic subgroup (Catterall,
1998; Cove, Eiseman & Popkin, 2005). Catterall (1998) states, “While researchers
pursuing such works would hardly agree that all members of the risk groups they target
are truly at risk, there is a tendency in the framing of their analyses to equate risk with
group membership” (p. 304). Listing all Hispanic, special education, English language
learners or low-income students is neither sufficient nor effective in identifying those
who are truly high-risk. Jose is not at risk for high school dropout because he is
Hispanic, has special needs or because he is from a low-income family. Tom may be at
risk for high school dropout because he has been dealing with the loss of his father in a
gruesome car accident, and his mother has begun working two jobs to keep the roof over
their heads. Cindy is at risk for becoming a high school dropout, even though she is
Caucasian and comes from a wealthy family, because she is cutting classes with more
frequency, has been disciplined for poor behavior and is failing her core classes.
Students send up red flags to let the adults around them know they are struggling.
Unfortunately, typical public schools do not have a refined mechanism in place to
identify students who may be on a trajectory towards becoming a high school dropout.
Several factors place students at high-risk for dropping out. Among these are
poor attendance, poor grades, low reading achievement, disciplinary issues, low levels of
resilience and a lack of school connectedness (Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Princiotta &
Reyna, 2009; Rumberger, 2009; Balfanz, Herzog & Mac Iver, 2007; NDPC/N, 2007;
Hupfeld, 2007). A meta-analysis from the National High School Center in 2007
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 13
discusses the early identification of students at risk of dropping out. It is more likely that,
as risk factors compound over time, students’ ability to complete high school diminishes.
Later in the study, it is noted that programs need to be created in such a way as to
simultaneously address each of the risk factors that are within the locus of control of the
school.
Students with multiple risk factors for dropping out need much more than
academic coaching and study skills. They need support on many levels in their lives.
The National High School Center Report (2007) states:
...multiple strategies should also be used to help assure program impact. Reviews
of evidence-based substance use and violence prevention, dropout prevention, and
youth development programs found that effective programs used more than one
strategy, often using some combination of personal assets and skill building,
academic support, family outreach, and environmental/organizational change (p.
48)
Students who are the highest risk may need services such as tutoring, counseling,
drug/gang/violence interventions, social/resiliency skills training, family planning,
medical, and dental and vision services (Dryfoos, 1994).
In addition to the studies of risk factors for dropping out, there has been a body of
research that looks at positive deviants, or students who succeed academically despite
their risk factors. These students have what are called protective factors or resiliency.
These resilient students are more likely to have clear goals, be engaged in school/school
activities and be bonded to an adult on campus (Hupfeld, 2007; Cattrell, 1998; Cove,
Eiseman & Popkin, 2005). Further, Dynarski et al. make six recommendations for
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 14
dropout prevention in their 2008 report for the Institute of Education Sciences. These are
the use of data systems to identify students, assigned adult advocates, academic support
and enrichment, programs to improve behavior and social skills, personalized learning
and rigorous instruction.
Statement of the Problem
Schools are being asked to address more than the three R’s today. According to
Christensen (2008), the job of schools has changed over time. The responsibility of
schools has gone from preserving democracy, inculcating for democratic values,
providing something for every student, and keeping America competitive. The added
work of schools today includes eliminating poverty. As schools are increasingly held
accountable for academic achievement and high school completion, it has become
apparent to educators around the world that good teaching is not enough for the neediest
communities (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Those students arriving to school
hungry, sick and shouldering the burdens of familial stress are less able to retain
information (Evans and Schamberg, 2009). The efforts to support students with
comprehensive needs must be coordinated, monitored, and seamless. Unfortunately,
agencies with differing missions and visions struggle to coordinate their efforts in such a
way that positively affects students. Further, case management at the student and family
level is crucial to the ongoing growth and academic benefit for the neediest of students.
Based on the reality that students have multiple risk factors for dropping out and
their varied needs, it is necessary to take a closer look into the research around building
student resiliency and school connectedness. Resilience, a key factor for student success
despite risk factors, can be taught in order to improve the academic outcomes of high-risk
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 15
students (Hupfeld, 2007). In addition, resilience has been shown to improve student
performance in academics, behavior, attendance, and also increases school connectedness
(Monahan, Oesterle & Hawkins, 2010). Grades, behavior and attendance are each major
indicators of staying on-track to graduation (Balfanz, 2011). With all that schools are
being asked to do, teaching resilience, increasing connectedness, and building on
students’ protective factors are not at the top of the list for school leaders.
Further, transitions in the K-12 pipeline seem to also place an added risk for
dropping out. In addition to resilience and school connectedness, it is important to learn
what supports have been put into place to transition students from middle school to high
school that result in positive outcomes for those students. The early identification of
students at-risk has been an important tool used to provide supports early enough so
students do not face credit deficiencies in their freshman year (Jerald, 2006). This
identification typically occurs within the first five weeks of the ninth grade. However, as
is the case for this school site, identification takes place as early as the second semester
of the eighth grade.
There appear to exist two distinctive worlds in the realm of education. The first is
the world of psychology with its focus on child development. As described above, one
area of focus is to improve resilience and school connectedness in an effort to improve
the emotional outcomes for the child. The other, distinctly different world is the world of
school leadership. The conversation in school leadership is currently eclipsed by the
national focus on high-stakes testing, closing achievement gaps, and increasing
graduation rates. While the world of psychology is full of recommendations for the work
that school leaders can do to support the social-emotional wellbeing of the child, the
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 16
world of education is focused on improving student achievement on high stakes exams.
The conversation at the secondary level is typically around things such as data-driven
decision-making, common formative assessments, and teacher collaboration. There
needs to be a greater focus on understanding what practices, when implemented by the
school leader, improve the emotional and academic outcomes of his or her students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine if a high school with a focus on
freshman has a positive impact on resilience and school connectedness for its multiple-
need students that can keep students on track for graduation. The phrase “a focus on
freshman” encompasses all that the school can do to support those students with multiple
risk factors for dropping out as they make the transition into high school. These include
early identification of risk, linking with school-based and community-based services as
necessary to meet the needs of those students, and matching those students with
counseling interns to support their achievement. The focus was to better understand what
schools could do to support freshman in a way that is different from what is common
practice. It is also important to examine the effects on students’ school connectedness
and resilience. This study may provide insight for educational leaders as they work to
meet the needs of their high-risk students.
This study was guided by one major question. Does a high school with a
freshman focus for multiple-risk students increase resiliency and school connectedness
for its students? The phrase “freshman focus” means the intentional activities of a school
to address the risk factors for each entering multiple-risk freshman. These activities
include assigning an adult advocate, referring for extra tutoring, outside mental health
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 17
services, medical and other familial supports. There is also a subset of questions
regarding this overarching question. This was an effort to more concretely examine the
perceptions of those students with multiple risks their parents, and faculty. The first sub-
question aimed to determine if those students who have been receiving extra support
through the freshman focus experience increased resilience and school connectedness as
a result of their participation as evidenced by their own comments, survey responses,
school data, attendance, grades, and behavior. The second examined parents’ perceptions
regarding their student’s increases in resilience and connectedness. The last evaluated
faculty perceptions regarding their students’ increases in resilience and connectedness as
well as the practices that were implemented to bring this change about.
Limitations
This study examined a school that is making a concerted effort to improve the
academic and emotional outcomes of its students; this was not a test of the Freshman
Focus itself. It is only one example and it is a sample of convenience. It was chosen
because the school leadership and faculty were trying to do things above and beyond
what the outside pressures urge them to accomplish (e.g. remediation, test preparation,
and teacher training). The school implemented practices that are not widely used and are
fully described later in this study. The size of this study prevents it from being
generalizable across all populations and schools.
Significance of the Study
The state and national focus on dropouts and effective programs for dropout
prevention continues to be prominent (The Silent Epidemic, ret. 2009; Catterall, 1998;
Cove, Eiseman & Popkin, 2005; Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Princiotta & Reyna, 2009;
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 18
Rumberger, 2009; Balfanz, Herzog & Mac Iver, 2007; NDPC/N, 2007; Hupfeld, 2007).
This study sought to determine the impact student participation in the program has on his
or her school connectedness and resilience, drawing from actual school data as well as
parent, faculty, staff and the students’ own perceptions. There was a need to understand
the dynamic intersection between the students at risk for dropping out and the services
designed to support them. Although this study is not generalizable due to the heavy
qualitative design, the implications for practice are clear. School leaders that make it a
priority to identify their multiple-need students early, address their varied needs with the
support of community-based organizations, and target improving school connectedness
and resilience create a positive academic impact on the their students most at risk for
dropout.
The research also intended to add to the literature on practices implemented by
school leadership that may have an impact on student achievement, social-emotional
skills and students’ individual perceptions as they work within the program. The purpose
was to understand what happens when what works in school leadership is blended with
what works in educational psychology. The hope was to shift the focus of the
conversation away from mere identification of students at risk to implementation of
effective practice to improve resilience and connectedness in an effort to turn the tide of
high school dropouts.
Definition of Terms
Connectedness, Belonging, Bonding: These terms all refer to students’ sense of being
in close, respectful relationships with peers and adults at school. These terms are used
interchangeably here, since they all refer to students’ sense of being in close, respectful
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 19
relationships with peers and adults in school or of being contributing and influential
members of the school (Schaps, 2005; CDC, 2009).
Coordinated Comprehensive Collaborative Services (CCCS): The coordination of
school-based and school-linked services in an effort to provide necessary services for
high-risk students. This may require the collaboration of several outside social, medical
and mental health agencies along with academic coaching services for struggling students
(Knapp, 1995; Dryfoos, 1994).
Leading and Lagging/Trailing Indicators: This term is borrowed from the world of
economics and was later used in educational data analysis (Edvance Research, 2010).
Leading indicators describe those early signals of student progression towards a goal. In
this study, it refers to positive or negative changes in attendance and behavior.
Lagging/Trailing indicators describe interim and end outcomes. In this study, they refer
to the changes in grades. To illustrate, a student who enters as a freshman with a history
of failure, poor attendance, and discipline issues, begins to experience changes over time.
The first or leading indication of progress is an improvement in behavior. The next
leading indicator is an improvement in attendance. Later, a lagging indicator is an
improvement in grades and classroom performance.
Multiple Risk Factors/Comprehensive Risk: (See High Risk/High Need)
High-Risk/High-Need/Multiple-Need: In this study, this term is used to describe
students who have many of the identified risk factors for dropping out: attendance,
behavior and past academic performance as well as other risks such as drug and alcohol
abuse, depression and anxiety, as well as medical, vision and dental issues (Dryfoos,
1998).
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 20
Resilience/Protective Factors: Resilience refers to those students who are able to
positively adapt despite adversity. Two conditions must exist that are critical to this
definition: being exposed to severe risk, threat or adversity, and achieving positive
adaptation despite repeated exposures to risk, threat or adversity (Luthar, Ciccetti &
Becker, 2007). Increasing students’ protective factors lead to increasing students’
resilience (Hupfeld, 2007).
Organization of this Study
Chapter 2 provides an exploration of current research topics relevant to this study:
school leadership practices to support students at increased risk for dropping out,
resiliency and school connectedness. It also contains the conceptual framework that will
serve as a lens with which to examine the data. In this chapter, the primary outcome is
that educational leadership tends to be largely independent from the research on
educational psychology, which makes this study unique. Further, it serves to set the
stage for an examination of a practical implementation of research based strategies.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology for the study regarding the contrast between the
perceptions of students in an intervention program and those of their parents’ and faculty.
It also includes a robust description of the school site and study participants and
delineates how the study sought to answer the research question and the tools that were
used to collect the necessary data. Finally, Chapter 3 presents a discussion of the data
collection and analysis methods. In Chapter 4, there is a discussion of the findings from
the interviews, survey and descriptive data. The findings are reported by themes instead
of research question for reasons described in the chapter. Chapter 5 includes a deeper
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 21
discussion of the findings in Chapter 4 as well as implications for school leaders for
improving the trajectories of their highest risk students.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The literature focus for reducing the number of high school dropouts has been
guided by two differing, but not mutually exclusive, principles. The first is the national
focus for educational leaders in reducing the dropout rate and improving academic
outcomes for their students. The research around dropout prevention that predominantly
fills professional periodicals and journals for educational leadership such as Educational
Leadership (Balfanz, 2011; Donegan, 2010; Dryfoos, 2008) and American Educational
Research Journal (Catterall,1998), Educational Researcher (Knapp, 1995),and
American Journal of Education (Larson & Rumberger, 1998) contain topics such as data-
driven decision-making, early warning systems, and leadership practices. Missing from
the conversation is a wealth of practical examples of actual implementation of research-
based practices to improve dropout rates using a social-emotional focus at the secondary
level. The second is the focus in the realm of educational psychology. There is a wealth
of research found in journals and agency reports such as The Journal of Youth
Adolescence (Henry, Knight & Thornberry, 2012), and The Bulletin of New York
Academy of Medicine (Cowen, Wyman & Work, 1996) into the areas of school
connectedness and fostering resilience. The following literature review is an examination
into the research that informed the practices at one high school committed to improving
the outcomes of its most at risk students.
For the purposes of this study, the only information that has been included from
the vast literature for school leadership reflects the development and use of early warning
systems and the development of links with community based organizations to support
students. The rest of the chapter is organized by three constructs found in educational
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 23
psychology as they relate to this study. The first is an examination of the research on
school connectedness and the value of school connectedness in student learning and
emotional outcomes. The second is an examination of the research on resilience and
protective factors that have shown to be effective in promoting resilience and are within
the locus of control of the schools. The third is an ecological framework first developed
by Bronfenbrenner in 1979 and further modified throughout his career. A critical factor
found in this framework is the need for consistency over a period of time for effective
interventions in order to positively affect a student’s educational trajectory.
School Leadership
School leadership has the responsibility for improving the academic outcomes of
the students they serve towards on time graduation (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
This has been difficult to do for those at comprehensive risk for dropping out of school
(Cassen, Feinstein &Graham, 2008; Cowen, Wyman & Work, 1996; Dryfoos, 1994;
Dryfoos, 2008). School leaders have been looking for solutions to remedy the situation
for these types of students. In some parts of the world, school leaders are looking to
address their high risk students’ needs (Donegan, 2008; Dryfoos, 1994; Dryfoos, 2008;
Durlak et al., 2011). According to Jerald (2006), “Recent research suggests that, even for
students who have difficult home lives, dropping out has much to do with how schools
operate and the educational experiences students have within them” (p. 3). There are
school leadership practices that have proven to be more effective in improving the
academic outcomes of struggling students. The literature discussing these practices is
quite broad. One promising area in particular that researchers have begun to target is the
early identification of students at the highest risk for dropping out through the use of an
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 24
Early Warning System (EWS). The hope is to identify students early enough so that
appropriate interventions will change their academic outcomes and support them in such
a way that they will achieve on-time graduation. The central focus is on pinpointing the
indicators school leaders look for in order to identify those at risk of being unsuccessful
in high school. In addition, the interventions needed to ameliorate the comprehensive
needs with which high risk students arrive at school are varied and require more than
what can be typically found on a high school campus (Dryfoos, 1994).
In order to meet their needs, school leaders must also develop strong relationships
with community-based organizations (CBOs) such as community mental health services,
drug counseling organizations, and physical health programs. In California, the Healthy
Start program provides a way for communities to form coalitions of school-linked
services that address the varied needs of the student population. The following is a look
into the research that informs school leaders so that they may employ these practices to
identify and support their students.
Early Warning System
There has been a focus on identifying students at an increased risk for dropping
out of high school. The first step researchers took was to identify the risk factors for
dropping out. The second step was to learn how early in the academic pipeline students
could be identified. The following is an evaluation of the research that attempted to
address either or both points.
The meta-analysis by Jerald (2006) examined three studies: The Fall River
Study, The Chicago Study, and The Philadelphia Studies. In his introduction, Jerald
asserts three points. First, the dropout problem does not have to be a foregone conclusion
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 25
in American schools. “Demographics matter, but what happens in schools has a great
impact on whether students stay in school and graduate” (Jerald, 2006, p. 3). Second,
educational leaders can greatly improve on their ability to predict those most at risk for
high school dropout. Third, educators know a great deal regarding the school’s role in
high dropout rates (Jerald, 2006).
He further discusses the types of students and the reasons why they dropout.
Although there is a tremendous body of research, according to Jerald (2006) that points
to students’ social background as an indicator of future dropout, it is contradictory at
best. For example, some researchers assert that certain social backgrounds hinder
academic progress, while others assert the same aspects of students’ social backgrounds
are beneficial. Jerald goes on to assert the negative impact of the line of inquiry into
students’ social backgrounds as reason for their academic failure. He states, “…as a
result, many educators still believe that dropping out is caused exclusively by students’
personal and family characteristics---things that don’t have anything to do with education
and that educators can’t control” (Jerlad, 2006, p.4).
Jerald reports there are factors related to the educational experience that indeed do
have an impact on students’ increased risk for dropping out. One is their academic
performance such as poor grades, tests, being behind in course credits, and being retained
to name a few. Another factor related to students’ increased risk for dropout is their level
of educational engagement. He cites absenteeism, discipline and behavior problems, a
low participation in extracurricular activities, and poor relationships with their teachers
and peers (Jerald, 2006, p. 5). Further, school characteristics also have an impact on
students’ success in school. Jerald states,
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 26
School effects can be quite strong. For example, researchers Valerie Lee and
Robert Croninger found that high schools with highly supportive teachers cut the
probability of dropping out in half. Lee and David Burkam found that schools
that offered fewer math courses below the level of Algebra I reduced the odds of
dropping out by 28 percent, and those that offered Calculus reduced the odds by
55 percent (Jerald, 2006, p. 6)
Therefore, given this and other studies (Balfanz, 2007; Balfanz, Herzog & Iver, 2007;
Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention, 2009; Donegan,
2008; Durlak et al., 2011; Dynarski et al., 2008; Hammond et al., 2007) it is within the
locus of control of schools to develop systems that improve the academic outcomes of
students as well as ameliorate their varied needs.
Jerald (2006) reports in the Fall River study conducted by , Roderick (1994),
looked at the longitudinal data of students who graduated and compared it to the same
type of data for students who did not graduate. Although patterns emerged, the data was
skewed when looking at it as a whole. When looking more deeply, the researcher
discovered that there were two types of dropouts. There was one who was on the path to
dropping out early (between 6
th
and 8
th
grades), and one who was on the path to dropping
out later (between 9
th
and 12
th
grades). Another major finding in the Fall River Study
was that students struggle at each of the two school transitions. The first was in 6
th
grade
and the second in 9
th
grade. Students who were already behind academically fell further
behind at these points of transition. Left unsupported, the students were never able to
make up the losses in later, non-transition years. These findings are important because it
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 27
gives school leaders something to work from and an area to focus attention in an effort to
support struggling students.
The Consortium on Chicago Schools explored another series of studies focusing
on early identification of students at risk for dropping out. It, too, used longitudinal data
and found indicators that serve as predictors for identifying those who are at risk for
dropping out. These indicators were attendance, grade point average, credits earned, and
course failures. These indicators were proven to be 85% effective in identifying those at
risk for dropping out. The researchers also discovered that 8
th
grade test scores were not
a valid indicator of future success in high school. “Moreover, in a separate study,
Roderick and Eric Camburn found that Chicago high schools also vary widely on another
important measure — rates of recovery from 9th grade failure — even after controlling
for a wide array of student risk factors” (p. 11). Philadelphia has a practice of retaining
9
th
grade students. So, it is not to say that Philadelphia dropouts quit school in their first
year. In fact, students leave after being retained in 9
th
grade and leave the high school
after approximately three years. One of the most significant findings was that attendance
in the first 30 days of 9
th
grade was an even greater indicator of dropout risk than any 8
th

grade factor.
Balfanz and Herzog later worked to answer two questions that emerged from the
previous work. “How early in middle school could the district identify students at high
risk for falling off the track to graduation?” and “What middle school risk factors best
predict dropping out of high school?” (p. 12). They had two findings, and the researchers
were able to predict almost 50% of all dropouts as early as the sixth grade. Another
finding supported the discovery in the Fall River study described earlier: “The transition
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 28
to middle school is as critical as the transition to high school” (p. 13). Ultimately, the
findings from the studies fell into two categories. Student academic performance and
student attendance/engagement are two signals that students give that they may not be
successful in high school.
Identifying students early enough is only part of the story. It is one thing to know
who the struggling students will be. It is critical that, once we know who they are,
interventions are implemented and monitored (Balfanz, 2011). There are several ideas
regarding what types of early warning systems would be most effective. However, it is
imperative to know if these can be utilized in a real world setting. The National Dropout
Prevention Center/Network (NDPC/N) developed and openly shares one such warning
system. There are also high schools and middle schools across the United States that use
some form of early warning system to identify at risk students.
One such program is in the Dallas Independent School District. They call their
system DEWS (Dropout Early Warning System). Their system alerts school leaders as to
the progress of their students and their risk for dropping out every six weeks. They use
the following criteria: failure of two or more core classes, absences, credits, age, and
disciplinary actions. An interesting note comes in the use of the data regarding the
failing of courses. They break down the failure rates by teacher as well. Those teachers
with a greater than 20 percent failure rate must create an intervention plan they will
implement to support their students. In only one year, there was a 10.6% increase in 9
th

grade students who were on track for graduation at the comprehensive high schools.
They showed significant gains in both reading and mathematics on the state tests.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 29
The DEWS is a tool that was developed with support from the NDPC/N and
implemented in the comprehensive schools in the Dallas school district. The leadership
implemented practices as a result that worked to address teacher practice and intervention
for those students who were struggling. However, the system is set up to identify
students after they begin 9
th
grade classes. As Balfanz and Herzog discovered, they can
be identified much earlier in the educational pipeline and, therefore, begin the work to
ameliorate the needs of these students before the critical transition period.
Once students are identified, their varied needs must be met in order to improve
their academic and emotional outcomes. There are examples around the world of schools
partnering with community-based organizations, businesses and universities. The impact
the relationships with CBOs can have in the schools and, ultimately, in each student’s life
can be dramatic. Alvy and Robbins (1998) state:
Networking with public and private community-based organizations (CBOs) is
another critical role for school counselors and administrators. Counselors and
administrators would have the names of these community contacts on index cards
or in a computer database. These organizations can provide resources and
assistance to help at-risk youngsters in and out of school. (p. 147)
Students with multiple risk factors for dropping out, along with their families,
need support to meet the goals from multiple stakeholders. The locus of control for
schools can only go so far. Schools on their own can make improvements to the
facilities, instructional strategies and technology, hire highly qualified teachers and
support staff. However, they cannot meet the other varied needs of students: medical,
dental, vision, drug, housing, job training, and/or parenting (Dryfoos, 1994; 1997; Smith,
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 30
2000; 2004). In some cases, a child with multiple risk factors needs comprehensive
coordinated supports. There are several formats that comprehensive services can take.
One example is the California Healthy Start program that began in 1991. It is a
state-funded model to develop the linkages between social services and educational
institutions. The goal of Healthy Start is to provide whatever services the Local
Education Agencies (LEA) determine as areas of need. There have been over 1.2 million
children served over the course of the Healthy Start Initiative (ret. CDE, 2011). While
Healthy Start supports many children and their families, the articulation of services from
one Local Education Agency (LEA) to the next is quite different. Some LEA’s have the
services available on the school campus and available to the community as a hub. Other
LEA’s have their program centralized at a district office and students may not receive
services to the extent necessary. Each LEA partnership is only as effective as its case
management and coordination of service providers.
Schools have it within their locus of control to identify high-risk students early in
the academic pipeline. These early indicators of a future dropout, poor attendance, poor
grades, poor behavior, and low test scores, begin to emerge as early as the 6
th
grade. This
is a much more refined way to identify students at risk versus the older model which only
identified students as at risk based on their demographic characteristics. Once students
are identified, schools also have it within their control and through the supports of
school-linked services with community based organizations to improve the social-
emotional and academic outcomes for their comprehensive need students. Examples of
these types of supports include mental health, medical/vision/dental, housing, parenting
courses, tutoring and mentorship. Once the students are identified and their immediate
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 31
needs are addressed, the work begins to reconnect them with their schools, and build their
level of resiliency to persist to on-time high school graduation.
School Connectedness
Most of the research on school connectedness dates back to the 1980’s and
1990’s. Due to being a newer concept in the field of psychology, the language used to
name and describe it is not yet formalized. School connectedness is also known as
school attachment and school bonding, school climate, teacher support and school
engagement (Blum & Libbey, 2004). School connectedness is defined as the belief held
by students that adults in the school care about their learning as well as about them as
individuals (CDC, 2009). School connectedness has been linked to improvements in
many facets of human development, and in school achievement. These include decreases
in suicidal ideation, improved student achievement, increased school involvement,
increased self-efficacy, building positive relationships with caring adults, and a protective
factor that builds resilience.
There have been studies that discuss the lack of school connectedness as being
linked to an increased risk of suicide. One such study by Young et al. (2011) was
longitudinal in nature and took measurements in the form of questionnaires at two points:
one at age 11 and one at age 15. At age 19, the students were interviewed by a nurse.
One finding indicted that poor school connectedness was related to increased odds for
suicide and self-harm. In other words, school disengagement was connected to a 15-18%
increase in the odds of suicide.
In 2004, the CDC conducted the Student Health and Safety Survey (SHSS). It
was a survey of students in 7
th
, 9
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
grades in 16 different schools.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 32
Researchers collected data from 4,131 participants. The objective was to measure the
different types of connectedness: family, peers, and adults at school. The main
implication that rose from the study was, in regards to suicide prevention, that school
based strategies (whether focused on connectedness to peers, teachers, or the school as a
whole) may be missing a critical component in the prevention of suicide. Educational
leaders must not ignore the importance of student relationships with their parents and
family. In another study related to student behavior, Loukas et al. (2009) followed 500
10- to 14-year old participants from three middle schools in a suburban school district.
They were given two questionnaires one year apart. The researchers found school
connectedness contributed to a change in future conduct problems. The researchers
stated:
According to Social Control Theory, early adolescents who are connected to the
school are more likely than their peers to follow the school’s rules and regulations
and for this reason may show fewer conduct problems…further…conduct
problems may be a function of the degree to which the middle school is meeting
the needs of its students.
The limitation of the study was that the information was self-reported by the adolescents.
The researchers recommended that subsequent studies should include information from
participants such as teachers, parents, and peers.
Students become progressively disengaged from the schools that serve them as
they mature and move into middle and high school (Monahan et al., 2010). As students
disengage from school, their behavior, attendance and grades decline. “Regardless of the
definition, research links higher levels of engagement in school with improved
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 33
performance. Researchers have found student engagement a robust predictor of student
achievement and behavior in school, regardless of socioeconomic status” (Klem &
Connell, 2004). Efforts to reconnect students with school and keep them connected are
critical to their education as well as their physical and emotional wellbeing. According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2009):
School connectedness was found to be the strongest protective factor for both
boys and girls to decrease substance use, school absenteeism, early sexual
initiation, violence, and risk of unintentional injury (e.g., drinking and driving,
not wearing seat belts). In this same study, school connectedness was second in
importance, after family connectedness, as a protective factor against emotional
distress, disordered eating, and suicidal ideation and attempts.
Research has also demonstrated a strong relationship between school
connectedness and educational outcomes,

including school attendance; staying in
school longer; and higher grades and classroom test scores. In turn, students who
do well academically are less likely to engage in risky behaviors. Compared with
students with low grades, students with higher grades are significantly less likely
to carry a weapon, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, and have sexual intercourse.
(p.5)
Bond et al. (2007) assert the following as a result of their study:
School connectedness, as assessed in this study and by others [5], [37], [38]
involves a commitment to school and a belief that school is important, but also
includes student-teacher relationships, relationships with peers, opportunities to
be involved, and feelings of belonging. Young people connected to school
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 34
demonstrate a disposition towards learning, a capacity to work with others and
therefore a capacity to function in a social institution [20], p. 8. Indeed,
recognizing that a major part of school is social and emotional in nature is
important. Enabling, encouraging, and resourcing schools to focus on
relationships—between students, between teachers and students, and between
students and learning, is likely to be key to effective interventions. (p. 357. e16)
Monahan et al. (2010), assert, “Improving school connectedness is, therefore, an
important issue for schools and a target for preventive efforts” (p.6). The mandate, then,
becomes investigating what makes a student feel more connected with school.
The assertion of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is that school
connectedness is a critical factor in school completion. In a study conducted through the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (1997) of 36,000 adolescents, the
factors determined to increase a student’s connection to school are adult support,
belonging to a positive peer group, commitment to education and school environment.
The support of an adult in the form of time, attention and emotional wellbeing is one
factor that is closely related to school connectedness (CDC, 2009; Blum & Libbey, 2004;
Monahan et al., 2010; Wingspread Declaration on School Connections (WDSC), 2003;
Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006). This adult support needs to take the form of high
achievement expectations with the necessary support to succeed as well as caring for the
students as human beings. Also, the CDC report notes that schools that have higher rates
of extracurricular participation have increased levels of school connectedness. In
addition, a physically and emotionally safe campus is critical to keeping students
engaged. Discipline on the campus needs to be consistent and fairly enforced. Currently,
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 35
there are practices at schools that sever the tenuous ties of connectedness between
students and schools. The CDC report (2009) states, “Research indicates that in schools
with a harsh and punitive discipline climate, student connectedness is lower” (p. 7).
Further:
Good classroom management-—including having set routines and guidelines,
adequate planning, and fair consequences for misbehaviors-—is critical to
establishing a positive school environment and increasing school connectedness.
When classrooms are well managed, relationships among students and between
teachers and students tend to be more positive, and students are more engaged in
learning and in completing homework assignments. Teachers who promote
mutual respect in the classroom foster a sense of safety and connectedness by
reducing the threat of being embarrassed or teased. (CDC, 2009, p. 7)
Belonging to a positive peer group is also very important (Blum & Libbey, 2004; CDC,
2009; Monahan et al., 2010; WDSC, 2003). If students spend time with other students
who complete homework, participate in school activities and have a positive outlook
regarding school, then they are more likely to have a better connection to school.
However, if students spend time with other students who are also disengaged, skip
classes and neglect schoolwork, they too are more likely to be disconnected from the
school and likely to be participating in similar behaviors. “Moreover, the characteristics
of one’s close friends can influence school connectedness because, over time, individuals
tend to become more like their friends. This means that youth who have close friends
who are connected to school are likely to become more connected to school as well”
(Monahan et al., 2010).
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 36
School connectedness declines over time and at each transition towards high-risk
students’ eventual dropping out of school. Poor school connectedness manifests from:
students’ poor relationships with their peers and key adults on campus, low or no
participation in extracurricular activities, and poor problem-solving strategies which
leads to discipline issues. Schools have within their locus of control to create systems
that foster positive relationships with caring adults and peers, increases in extracurricular
participation, explicitly taught problem-solving strategies and discipline practices that are
fair and not punitive in nature. A closely related aspect of school connectedness is that it
serves as a protective factor that builds student resilience.
Resilience
For just over four decades, the field of psychology has been looking to first
identify risk factors for maladjustment. From there, the conversation shifted to
identifying resilience or protective factors despite risk (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker,
2007). Resilience is also known as persistence, adaptability and fortitude (Luthar,
Cicchetti & Becker, 2007). All of these descriptors seek to describe the ability of human
beings to persist despite setbacks or challenges.
While some students carry the burden of multiple risk factors for dropping out,
they too have varied levels of internal and external protective factors. These protective
factors ameliorate the risk of dropping out, creating resilience (Cove, Eiseman & Popkin,
2005; CDC, 2009). As described previously, students begin to show signs of
disengagement nearly two full years before their actual dropping out (Monohan et al.,
2010). This is due to a lack of meaningful connection to a caring adult on campus and a
lack of academic and emotional resilience (Larson, 1989; Dryfoos, 2008; Balfanz, 2011).
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 37
According to several researchers (Hupfeld, 2007; CHKS, 2011; Cowen et. Al, 1996),
there exist several protective factors that support and build on an individual’s resilience.
Some of these skills include problem-solving, self-efficacy and goal orientation. The
researchers assert that a student is capable of learning these skills because these can be
taught and practiced in the schools, thus leading to greater resilience (Hupfeld, 2007).
Past research stems from an early interest in children of schizophrenic mothers.
These children, researchers discovered, were seemingly well adjusted despite their level
of exposure to risk. Due to resilience’s being a relatively new field of study in
psychology and human development, there has been much debate regarding how to
define it. At this point, researchers have made a distinction between resilience and
resiliency. Resiliency is seen as a static internal human condition. However:
Resilience refers to a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the
context of significant adversity. Implicit within this notion are two critical
conditions: (1) exposure to significant threat or severe adversity; and (2) the
achievement of positive adaptation despite major assaults on the developmental
process (Garmezy, 1990; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990;
Rutter, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992). (Luthar, Ciccetti & Becker, 2007, p. 1)
Others see resilience as only be present when the resilience experienced is measured on a
scale. Those who merely progress normally after adversity do not qualify as being
resilient. Those who not only overcome, but also thrive and are extremely successful are
considered resilient. Still others see a resilient person as one who may have protective
factors support their resilience in one domain, but who fails in others. From the WestEd
(2004) report:
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 38

According to Masten, ‘What began as a quest to understand the extraordinary has
revealed the power of the ordinary. Resilience does not come from rare and special
qualities, but from the everyday magic of ordinary, normative human resources in
the minds, brains, and bodies of children, in their families and relationships, and in
their communities’ (Masten, 2001, p. 9). The innate self-righting tendencies and
environmental protective factors account for the resilience of young people facing
adversity and challenge are precisely the same supports and opportunities that
nurture us all.
As clear as it has become that all young people have the capacity for positive
development, resilience research should never be used to justify social and political
inaction on the grounds that, somehow, ‘Most kids make it.’ In the face of growing
global poverty, abuse, violence, and other threats to children’s development, the
somehow can no longer depend on the luck of the draw. Increasingly, healthy
youth development must depend on deliberate policies, practices, and interventions
designed to provide young people with developmental supports and opportunities.
As we are learning, young people are resilient, but they are not invincible. (p. 10)
In a review of the literature on resiliency and dropout prevention, Hupfeld (2007)
describes the way a positive adult relationship can affect the life of a child:
The presence of key adult-student relationships is important in the literature on
resiliency. It is very hard for students to gain and sustain resiliency skills under
difficult circumstances without supportive adults to provide guidance, support, and
recognition. Conversely, the presence of at least one supportive and caring adult
can make a world of difference for a child. The relationships available in schools,
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 39
between teachers and students, provide opportunities for students to plan for and
accumulate academic successes. Schools foster safe and supportive environments
in which these learning opportunities occur. (p.3)
Hupfeld (2007) reported on the study by the 2001 National Educational Longitudinal
Study with a group of 11,000 high school-age students. They discovered that the support
they received from teachers cut dropout rates in half. She also reported that the impact
was greater for “socially disadvantaged backgrounds” and those who had prior troubles
in school. In addition, teachers were reported to model resilient behaviors for students.
The Hupfeld (2007) report added that there were three independent studies conducted on
a program that includes components that support students in developing their resiliency
skills. Of the 2,500 students studied:
...attendance improved by 137 percent; grades improved by 52 percent; number of
classes passed improved by 33 percent, and overall retention improved by 64
percent. Researchers found that the more students were exposed to the curriculum,
the more their outcomes improved.
For the purpose of this study, resilience is interpreted as a condition being met when
there is any positive shift in the trajectory of a student’s grades, attendance or behavior.
Transitions such as the progression from middle school to high school are
difficult for even the most successful of students. Transitions are much more
complicated for the student with multiple risk factors for dropping out. According to
Jerald (2006),
In effect, the two transitions were like hurdles that some students tripped over,
causing them to fall behind their peers in the trek to graduation. Even though their
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 40
grades did not decline more than graduates’ during the non-transition years, most
dropouts never made up the ground they lost during 6th and 9th grades. (p. 10)
Schools need to work to smooth that transition to whatever extent possible. Building on
students’ resiliency helps to ameliorate the struggle to adapt to the new environment.
Hanson & Kim (2007) assert in the WestEd evaluation of the Healthy Kids Survey,
The Healthy Kids Survey (HKS) is one of the few large-scale surveys to assess
both risk and resilience. The survey’s resilience and youth development module
(RYDM) is based on the premise that youth who experience high levels of
environmental assets in three areas---high expectations from adults, caring
relationships with adults, and opportunities for meaningful participation---will
develop the resilience traits, the connection to school, and the motivation to learn
that lead to positive academic, social and health outcomes (Constantine, Bernard,
& Diaz, 1999). (p. 1)
Hanson & Kim (2007) provide a conceptual framework for understanding the role
environmental assets (assets that are within the locus of control of schools, parents, and
community) that increase students’ levels of resilience to persist towards on-time high
school completion. Schools, Home, and Community can support building student
resilience through: caring adult relationships, high expectations, and meaningful
participation. Peers can support the building of resilience through caring relationships
and high expectations. This, in turn, meets the needs of youth for: safety, love,
belonging, respect, mastery, challenge, and meaning. Both taken together builds students
internal resilience assets in the areas of: cooperation and communication, empathy,
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 41
problem-solving, self-efficacy, self-awareness, and goals and aspirations. The resulting
additive effect is: improved health, social, and academic outcomes.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model for the resilience and youth development module (Hanson &
Kim, 2007, p. 5)
Two key factors that have emerged are the importance of: positive adult
relationships, the impact of positive peers on students’ level of resilience, the need for
meaningful participation, and high expectations. This also is linked to school
connectedness in that both are interdependent on each other. School connectedness
improves when resilience improves and vice versa.
The Importance of Consistency over Time
Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005) was an internationally influential
developmental psychologist. An adaptation of his framework was used to guide this
study. Bronfenbrenner’s work focused heavily in psychology. He is credited with being
DEVELOPING A RISK AND RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT TOOL 5
asking students their perception of adult high
expectations, their perceptions of caring rela-
tionships with adults, and their opportunities
for meaningful participation in school, home,
and community environments. !e module also
assesses caring relationships and high expecta-
tions in the peer domain. !ese external sup-
ports promote positive outcomes, discouraging
risky behavior and stimulating academic success
(Benard, 2004; Constantine et al., 1999; Hawkins,
Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Masten & Coatsworth,
1998; Resnick et al., 2000; Rutter, 1987; Werner &
Smith, 1982, 1992).
Internal resilience assets—the personal strengths
of a resilient child—include social competence,
problem solving, autonomy, and sense of pur-
pose, which can each be broken down further
(Benard, 1991, 2004). Social competence, for ex-
ample, entails social communication skills, em-
pathy and caring, and the ability to elicit positive
responses from others (responsiveness) (Benard,
2004; Masten, 2001). Problem solving involves
planning, "exibility, and resourcefulness;
autonomy entails self-e#cacy, self-awareness,
and mindfulness; and sense of purpose in-
cludes goal direction, achievement motivation,
optimism, and hope (Benard, 2004). Internal
resilience assets develop both naturally and in
response to environmental resilience assets. !e
resilience and youth development module was
designed to measure six internal assets: empathy,
problem solving, self-e#cacy, self-awareness,
cooperation and communication, and goals and
aspirations.
A pool of 128 potential items was piloted in one
middle and one high school in fall 1998. Re-
searchers, classroom teachers, and other school
practitioners helped select and modify items
from the pool and revise the format and instruc-
tions. !e $rst $eld test of the resilience and
youth development module, with 92 resilience
items, was administered to 1,000 high school
students in three school districts in winter 1999.
Cognitive processing interviews with students
were also conducted to $nd out students’ inter-
pretation of the items. Based on analysis of the
Improved
health,
social, and
academic
outcomes
t $ P P Q F S B U J P OB O ED P N N VO J D B U J P O t & N Q B U I Z t 1 S P C M F NT P M W J O H t 4 F M G F ö D B D Z t 4 F M G B X B S F O F T T t ( P B M TB O EB T Q J S B U J P O T Internal resilience assets
Environmental resilience assets Youth needs
t 4 B G F U Z t - P WF t # F M P O H J O H t 3 F T Q F D U t . B T UF S Z t $ I B M M F O H F t 1 P X F S t . F B O J O H School
t $ B S J O HB E V M US F M B U J P O T I J Q T t ) J H IF Y Q F D U B U J P O T t . F B O J O H G V MQ B S U J D J Q B U J P O Home
t $ B S J O HB E V M US F M B U J P O T I J Q T t ) J H IF Y Q F D U B U J P O T t . F B O J O H G V MQ B S U J D J Q B U J P O Community
t $ B S J O HB E V M US F M B U J P O T I J Q T t ) J H IF Y Q F D U B U J P O T t . F B O J O H G V MQ B S U J D J Q B U J P O Peers
t $ B S J O HS F M B U J P O T I J Q T t ) J H IF Y Q F D U B U J P O T FIGURE 1
Conceptual model for the resilience and youth development module
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 42
the mastermind behind the groundbreaking paradigm shift in the fields of child
psychology, sociology, economics and politics. He asserted that each field focused
solely on their own discipline without understanding where the discipline was
interdependent on the others. He dubbed this new field human ecology or the study of
what makes a human a human from birth to adulthood. Essentially, humans are
multidimensional and studying them from a singular lens discounts all of the varied
factors from which they emerge as unique beings.
While Bronfenbrenner made changes to his theory since first presented in 1979, at
its essence, it is the same. Much like the layers of an onion, at the core of each human
being is an individual. That individual is directly affected by his or her immediate family
and circumstances or sociohistorical contexts, and in turn affects his or her environment.
From there, the school is the next layer that is interconnected with the individual and
family. After that, the community and international contexts come into play.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model is much like the series of concentric circles in Figure 1.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 43

Figure 2. Bronfenbrenner’s Model (http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/OSAS-
ATODTutorial.htm)
Much like the resilience model above, the communication and interplay between each of
the layers is essential to a person’s success in life, as Figure 2 illustrates.
In 1998, Bronfenbrenner described human ecology as containing four elements:
process, person, context and time. Process, is what happens through the interactions
between individuals. The next element, person, is an amalgamation of three sub-
characteristics: demand, resource, and force. Context is the environment in which a
person spends the bulk of his or her time. The three elements, which take place
consistently over a period of time, affect what Bronfenbrenner terms “mesotime.” Each
of the four elements is described in greater detail below.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) asserts, regarding process, that, in order to be effective,
the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. He
terms enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment “proximal processes”
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 44
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996). It is these interactions that help the individual
make sense of his or her world and understand his or her place in it. In other words, the
interactions an individual has in his or her immediate environment over a period of time
affect what the individual perceives his or her role to be in the world. An example is that
positive or negative interactions teachers, parents, and peers have with the individual
illustrates his or her place in the world. A teacher who calls a student worthless, lazy or
incompetent will give a student the message that this is his or her place in the world.
This becomes compounded when the message a student receives at home and with his or
her peers is also negative. Once again, this must be over an extended period of time in
order to have the impact on a child’s development.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) discusses the three characteristics of the person: demand,
resource and force. This is what the individual person brings into the interaction with his
or her family, peers and teachers or to any social interaction. The first element of a
person, demand, determines how a person represents him/herself: gender, age, sex, skin
color and physical appearance. This is how the person with whom he or she is
interacting sees the individual. This is also true for the person in that it is how he/she
sees those with whom he/she is interacting. The first impression made about an
individual will color the interaction. Resource characteristics may or may not be
apparent in the demand characteristics. They include “mental and emotional resources
such as past experiences, skills, and intelligence and also to social and material resources
(access to good food, housing, caring parents, educational opportunities appropriate to
the needs of the particular society, and so on)” (Tudge et al., 2009, p. 200). Another way
to view resource characteristics is much like what Maslow describes as a hierarchy of
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 45
needs. Without the most basic of needs being met, the other is purely conjecture in the
life of that individual. Force characteristics are those characteristics that a person brings
into the interactions in the world. These characteristics can include temperament,
persistence, and motivation. Force characteristics impact how someone interprets the
world as being one inherently full of positive or negative experiences (Tudge et al.,
2009).
Context is the environment where a person spends a good deal of his/her time.
School and home are two examples of the microsystems, or environments where students
spend a good deal of their time (Tudge et al., 2009). Also important to note is that
individuals exist in more than one microsystem and the systems tend to be interrelated.
Schools that operate in isolation from the home and community are stunting the social-
emotional growth of their students, thus hampering access to academic achievement.
Individuals are also affected by the exosystems, or systems that they do not personally
spend time in, but which affect them nonetheless. An example of this is that of a parent
suffering work stress who brings that stress home. Another example is having a teacher
who does not have his/her own needs met to effectively work with multiple-need
students. He/she may lash out or ignore an individual student. Both examples affect the
students in their world. Both examples affect their perceptions of their place in the world
(Tudge et al., 2009). A key point in this is that, for any particular value system to have
any influence on a developing person, it has to be experienced within one or more of the
microsystems in which that person is situated (i.e. teachers, peers, parents and family).
Finally, time, is the fourth concept that Bronfenbrenner (1979) discusses. There
exist two kinds of time. Microtime is what specifically is happening during the course of
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 46
the interaction. Mesotime relates to the consistency of the interaction. The consistency
of what happens over a period of time has an impact on developmental trajectories. If
there are positive or life affirming interactions that persist over a period of time, the
trajectory of human development progresses toward healthy outcomes. If there are
negative or traumatic situations that occur consistently over a period of time, the
trajectory, in turn, regresses toward unhealthy outcomes.
An equation used to conceptualize this idea for the purpose of understanding the
importance of time and positive adult interactions on the positive trajectory of student
development is drawn from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) work. The main factors are school
leadership, their practices, and the impact those practices have on student achievement
and social-emotional wellbeing. Key is the sustained consistent intervention over a
period of time. The equation is presented below.
Figure 3. Adapted Bronfenbrenner Equation as created by Stoddard, 2012
The importance of understanding each of the contexts in which students exist, is
critical to addressing their needs in order to ensure lasting positive change in their lives.
Similar to school connectedness and resilience, it is important for students to have
positive lasting relationships with key adults in their lives. Also, time and consistency is
critical to the positive shift in their trajectory of development. In the context of the
school, the locus of control lies in the decisions of the school leadership to reach out to
the home and community to create a triangle of support for the benefit of the high-risk
students they serve.

STUDENT+ADULT INTERACTIONS(TIME)= TRAJECTORY OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 47
Summary
The literature represents two major categories that examine areas that are rarely,
if ever, connected: school leadership decision-making and educational psychology in
that school leadership is inundated with mandates that require the improvement of high-
stakes test scores, improving teacher quality, and making decisions based on data. The
section on school leadership focused on two practices that serve to reduce dropout rates.
This includes early warning systems practices to identify those at-risk, and the utilization
of community-based organizations to support those students at risk for dropout. The key
factor in an effective early warning system is using better indicators of risk than labeling
students at risk for their belonging to a particular subgroup. The indicators of risk are
poor: grades, attendance, and behavior. They each indicate a lack of school engagement.
The second key factor in this area is in schools having the ability to positively impact
students identified as high risk through their practices to build school connectedness and
resilience.
The second section focused on educational psychology practices that have been
shown to improve the social-emotional wellbeing of students at-risk. Which, in turn,
improves their academic outcomes and puts them back on track for on-time graduation.
These practices include a focus on: building positive relationships with caring adults and
peers, increasing students’ meaningful participation at home, school and in the
community, maintaining high expectations, and teaching problem-solving strategies
(Allensworth & Easton, 2007; Balfanz, 2011; Bond et al., 2007; Catterall, 1998; Cove,
Eiseman & Popkin, 2005; Durlak et al., 2011; Hupfeld, 2007). These practices build
school connectedness and increases students’ resilience providing they are implemented
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 48
consistently over a period of time (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006; Tudge et al., 2009).
The research into school connectedness and resilience is extensive as is the
research into early warning systems and school-linked social services. However, there
exists a gap in the research. While there have been longitudinal studies conducted to
identify factors for dropout, and there have been longitudinal studies to identify factors
that lead to resilience and connectedness, how do students at comprehensive risk for
dropout experience their participation in a program designed to support them? How do
their parents perceive the growth and change, if any, in their students around
connectedness and resilience? How does a staff perceive the growth and change in their
high-risk students over time? Further, what practices do school leadership employ to
address school connectedness and resilience for their students? How do they utilize
community-based organizations? What does their early warning system look like?

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 49
Chapter Three: Methodology
Although there has been much research in the emotional development from the
field of educational psychology, and equally as much research on academic development
in the field of educational leadership, there has been little to no research in the dynamic
intersection of these two fields at the school level. In particular, there are very few, if
any, practical examples of how school leadership has implemented a blend of these
psychological and academic practices for the social-emotional and academic benefit of
those students at the highest risk for dropout. This is a study of one school site that
actively pursues a balance of the two fields for the benefit of the whole student.
The purpose of this study was to determine if a school with a focus on freshman
has a positive impact on resilience and school connectedness for those students at highest
risk for dropping out. Student grades, behavior, and attendance were reviewed. This
longitudinal study was conducted to determine whether there were improved grades,
behavior and attendance as a measure of increased school connectedness and resilience
(Balfanz, 2011; Hupfeld, 2007; Rumberger, 2009). Along with the cohort’s longitudinal
data, a small sample of students participated in focus groups to better understand their
perceptions as to how the program has affected their grades, behavior, and attendance.
Further, the focus group interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of their
resiliency and school connectedness. The California Healthy Kids Survey module on
resilience was administered to triangulate against their focus group responses.
This study did not seek to break the comprehensive program into its elemental
parts to determine the effectiveness of each of the varied interventions. It also did not
seek to evaluate the program. Rather, it looked at the Freshman Focus program from a
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 50
qualitative, global perspective and sought to understand the dynamic intersection
between the program, teachers, parents and the freshmen it seeks to serve.
This study was guided by one major question. Does a high school with a
freshman focus for multiple-risk students increase resiliency and school connectedness
for its students? The phrase “freshman focus” means the intentional activities of a school
to address the risk factors for each entering multiple-risk freshman. These activities
include early identification, assigning an adult advocate, referring for extra tutoring,
outside mental health services, medical and other familial supports. To guide this inquiry
there was an effort to more concretely examine the perceptions of each of the groups. The
first sub-question aimed to determine if those students who have been receiving extra
support through the freshman focus experience increased resilience and school
connectedness as a result of their participation as evidenced by their own comments,
survey responses, school data, attendance, grades, and behavior. The second examined
parents’ perceptions regarding their student’s increases in resilience and connectedness.
The last evaluated faculty perceptions regarding their students’ increases in resilience and
connectedness as well as the practices that were implemented to bring this change about.
Given the research question, the use of a qualitative study design is the best way
to richly describe the phenomenon of the experience of students, staff, and parents that
participate in the Freshman Focus. The objective is to use a phenomenological
qualitative approach in order to uncover the shared experience of the participants through
the use of interviews and focus groups, two or more years of school data, and student
participant responses on a survey of resilience (Patten, 2002).
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 51
The following sections describe the research setting and study participants, then
explain the instrumentation that was used to answer the research question and sub-
questions along with data collection procedures. Data analysis is also explained. Finally,
the ethical considerations are examined in detail.
Research Settings
The following section outlines the school’s physical and cultural setting, the
community, the student demographic population, and the staff composition. It also
outlines the historical setting as it relates to this study and the selection of the research
participants.
Physical Setting. According to the school’s Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA, 2011), Hoover High School (HHS) was built in 1929 as an
extension to the growing Glendale suburb. It has been remodeled over the years. In the
1990’s, 33 classrooms were added. In the 2007-2008 term, it was renovated using bond
monies paid for by the community through a parcel tax with the specific purpose of
bringing the buildings up to code and renovating the student services building and the
quad. In 2011, the city residents approved another bond to upgrade the schools, with one
of the areas of focus being the technological infrastructure at the site as well as across the
district. At the time of this study, HHS was planning a synthetic playing field along with
improvements to the visual and performing arts facilities and auditorium.
HHS is part of a neighborhood cluster that includes five elementary schools and
two middle schools. One middle school and one elementary school are directly across
the street from HHS. This close proximity allows for a direct collaboration between
those schools and HHS. An example of this is the middle school’s opening its doors to
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 52
the high school administration and counseling office and counseling interns for the yearly
cumulative record study of the highest-risk students. At the time of this study, the middle
school accepted a counseling intern at the start of the year to work with high-risk 9
th

grade students. She also worked with the current 9
th
grade students and was preparing
the following year’s highest risk incoming freshmen for the transition.
Cultural Setting. According to the school’s WASC (2012), the vision statement,
“Hoover High School is a collaborative community that prepares students to be critical
thinkers who are successful in college and in life,” (p. 4) drives the decisions on the
campus. The following are the Expected School-wide Learning Results (ESLRs):
• Self-Directed Lifelong Learners-who master content standards to enter college
and careers
• Effective Communicators-who read, write, speak and listen
• Responsible Citizens-who participate in their communities
The staff at Hoover partners with the administration to conduct data analysis, determine
the critical areas of need, and plan and implement professional development. The
academic foci at the school are developing critical thinking skills, a methodical checking
for understanding, and the use of academic language across the disciplines. Also, the
teachers and administration use Love and Logic for classroom management.
The faculty and staff attribute a sense of family at the site to several factors. One
is the number of years (17) the average teacher has been at the school. Also, there are
several faculty members who attended Hoover as students and, at the time of this study,
served as colleagues with their former teachers. Staff updates and notifications were
dispersed through the “Ohana” updates. Ohana is the Hoover High School motto.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 53
According to the WASC (2012) document, “‘Ohana means family and family means no
one gets left behind.’ We take this very seriously in our decisions, actions, class
offerings and interactions” (p.3).
Another aspect of the school culture is the design of the guidance classes for
incoming freshmen, which were created around the ESLRs, vision, and Ohana. The
students learn what it means to be a Hoover Tornado along with strategies that build
resilience, problem-solving skills and other essential skills for success. Community
service hours are built into the course as a requirement. Each semester, every student in
the course must complete 10 community service hours. Students complete this through
volunteering in places such as the local elementary school, local hospitals, and Hoover’s
yearly Relay for Life event.
Teacher and student innovation is encouraged and given the resources and
coaching for effective implementation. An example of this occurred when a junior
student approached the school administration for permission to have a fashion show
based on his designs. He was given the support of the campus with resources and held
the event in front of over 100 people. Present at the event was the school’s Tornado TV,
which broadcast the event. Another example occurred when a group of boys, including
some from the 2014 cohort of Freshman Focus, created a dance troop. They had no
money or uniforms. The school’s AVID club “adopted” them and raised funds for them
to be able to hire a choreographer and compete. The pep squad also “adopted” them and
provided support and supervision.
Teachers have, based on their knowledge of a struggling child or family, also
made appeals to their Hoover Ohana to support the children. In one case, two students
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 54
who lived in a shelter wanted to go to the homecoming dance. Within hours of the email
going out to staff, there were offers of dresses, make-up, payment for tickets, and
transportation. In another case, a pregnant student was given a baby shower by the staff
and students. Her daughter is also a “New Member of the Tornado Family.” Mr. W, one
of the assistant principals, when asked about the school culture, stated:
I have noticed a tremendous increase in school pride as a population in general. I
haven’t seen so many students wear Hoover gear ever, over the last 6-7 years I’ve
been here…and it’s amazing to walk down…you know…the hallways or the quad
and see so many kids…you know…showing their athletic team colors or
something that has to do with Hoover…even if it’s not Hoover, it’s purple. There
was one girl that her hair was like turquoise, blue since the beginning of the
semester, she finally, since I have been teasing her about dyeing it purple, and
she’s walking around now with purple hair.
I’d say that this year’s BGD (one of the longest standing rivalries in the state of
California began in 1929) was probably one of the best ones that I’ve witnessed.
In terms of how great our students were. How proud of our school they were.
Going to the game, um, it was one of the best, even though we lost, it was one of
the best games ever. It’s the only game that I’ve been to, BGD, that our entire fan
side stayed for another extra half hour forty minutes after the game was over, just
celebrating, the band playing, and it was just, it was just, you know, a proud
moment. It was very comforting to see. It just shows that we’re headed towards
the right direction.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 55
This illustrates Hoover’s culture as one of connection, involvement, and pride. Several
staff members reported this as a change in the culture over time as the focus shifted to
bring it in line with the commitments of the new school principal. Students feel
empowered to create new and improve on old traditions. There is a strong sense of
belonging for staff, students, parents, and the community at large.
Demographic Setting. At the time of this study, HHS’s population was just over
1,900 students. This is a decline from nearly 2,500 students in the previous five years.
The number of students receiving free and reduced lunch has increased nearly 20% in
that time. Currently, nearly 60% of the students on campus are on free and reduced
lunch. According to the district’s 2011-2012 Racial/Ethnic Survey, 24.76% of the
student population is Hispanic, and 57.32% identify as Caucasian. It is important to note
that nearly all of those identifying as Caucasian are of Armenian or Middle-Eastern
descent. Asian students make up 15.51% of the population.
The high school’s 2012 WASC report states, “According to 2010 data, there are
76,398 households in Glendale, of which 91% have moved into Glendale after 1999.”
Further only “45% of the population is employed.” The report goes on to state:
Approximately 56% of the student population of HHS is white, not of Hispanic
descent. Of this 56%, 43.4% of the students are of Armenian descent. To add to
the diversity, the Armenian students are from a variety of countries. The other
44% of our student population represent a variety of Latin American countries,
Korea, and the Philippines. A significant number of the students are new to the
United States. (p.2)
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 56
Based on the R-30 report, enrollment figures show 80.3% of the students speak a
language other than English as their primary language, of whom 23.8% are English
Language Learners (ELL) and 50.2% are Fluent English Proficient (FEP), and 19.7% are
English Only (EO). Just over thirteen percent (13.2%) of students are identified for
Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) and all participate in the GATE program.
Twenty-two percent of the total school population enrolled in AP and advanced classes
and many take more than one AP or advanced class. According to the SPSA, HHS also
services a sizeable Special Education program with a range of educational options; most
of the Special Education students are fully included in the regular education program.
Seven percent of students at HHS are identified as receiving Special Education services.
The single-year dropout rate at HHS is 2%, which is lower than the county and state
averages. The four-year graduation rate at HHS is 91%, which is higher than the county
and state averages. HHS has a large number of students, approximately 12.5% of the
student population, who move into the country from a non-English speaking country. If
they arrive in the 9
th
grade, they can still graduate with their peers. However, if they
arrive, as many do, later in the high school program, they may need a fifth year to
graduate, therefore lowering the four-year graduation rate at any given time.
At the time of this study, the campus employed 86 faculty members, one
principal, four assistant principals and four counselors. Each year, an assistant principal
and a counselor graduate their senior class and prepare for the incoming 9
th
grade
population for the following year. There are one full-time and one part time
psychologist, as well as 49 support staff. Ninety-four of staff meets the federal
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 57
requirements for No Child Left Behind. Sixty-four staff members hold Masters Degrees,
and currently there are 2 staff members who hold National Board Certifications.
Freshman focus historical setting. HHS’s 9
th
grade intervention model began
with the 2007-2008 school year. This was an attempt to address the needs of nearly 125
students who were determined to be at high risk for dropping out based on their 8
th
grade
attendance, grades and behavior. The schedules of those students were evaluated. It was
discovered that only 30 students were placed for being non-promotes in the 8
th
grade into
an existing “Bridge” program where they paired with ASB students to serve as their
mentors in a class five days per week. When asked how students were identified and
placed into the “Bridge,” no one from the high school or the middle school was able to
articulate how. Only that they were students that the schools felt might be at risk. Under
this model, all of the other students who would have been considered at-risk based on
their grades, attendance and behavior histories were left to their own devices.
Those 95 students were given intervention under the new model, which was an
adaptation of the Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success (ALAS) model.
An ALAS consultant was hired, and 5 counseling interns began working with their
caseload of students in early October 2007. The interns served as case-carriers for their
assigned group of students. As the students had several varied needs that placed them at
comprehensive risk, the program offered coordinated comprehensive collaborative
services (CCCS) for the students. This was the coordination of school-based and school-
linked services tailored to each individual student. Services provided to the students
ranged from medical and mental health agencies to academic coaching. All students also
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 58
received weekly or daily check-ins with his or her case carrier, parent meetings, teacher
meetings and administrators.
By the end of the first semester, those in the ALAS-based model intervention
passed 75% of their classes. Those in the “bridge” program passed less than 50%. At the
end of the year, despite the success of the students who were served, the principal at the
time decided not to renew the consultant for the 2008-2009 school year due to an
unforeseen decrease in the categorical budget that was funding the contract.
In 2008-2009, the incoming freshmen had no intervention classes and no
counseling interns. For all intents and purposes, the intervention was gone. Fortunately,
in 2009-2010, without the support of a consultant, the school decided to attempt to
provide intervention for the high-risk students who were identified in October of their
freshman year. There were approximately 25 students that were the lowest performing in
the class of 2013. Those students are now 11
th
grade students and in the 2013 Cohort of
at-risk students in this study.
The interventions the 2013 Cohort received in their 9
th
grade year included the
creation of a one-semester general guidance class. The class, which was designed by the
principal and the guidance teacher, focuses on several skills typically found in a guidance
class including college and career education and study habits. This guidance class,
unlike others, also includes a socio-emotional component that addresses building
students’ resilience and school connection. Each student also has to give a minimum of
10 hours of community service as a part of the class. They were also given peer tutors
that were seniors in the AVID program.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 59
By the end of the 2009-2010 school year, a cumulative record study was
conducted using the form in Appendix A along with a data study of the 2010-2011
incoming freshmen’s grades, attendance, and behavior. This process is described in
greater detail below. This data was used to strategically program the highest risk
incoming freshmen in classes that would address their interests and needs. In addition,
there was a return of the counseling intern program through a relationship with the
California State University, Northridge educational psychology department.
Once again, similar to the 2007-2008 school year, the students were given a
counseling intern to monitor their grades, attendance and behavior. In addition, the
interns advocated for the students when they needed any other school-based and/or
school-linked services. The four school counselors served as supervisors and trained the
interns in the essentials of the schools counseling program. In the 2011-2012 school
year, the new freshmen were given an identical program to entering class of 2010-2011.
Criteria for Participant Selection
To strengthen the reliability of the results, the researcher included each group
within Bronfenbrenner’s Model of Ecological Development. It is also the conceptual
model for the Healthy Kids Resilience and Youth Development module (Hanson & Kim,
2007). These are participants that reflect interconnected spheres of influence. They are
groups that impact students’ developmental trajectory: individual and peers, family,
school (administrator, counselors, faculty), and community (counseling intern).
Hoover High School, at the time of this study, used an early warning system to
identify the students in the second semester of 8
th
grade as being at comprehensive risk
for dropping out of high school. The assistant principal, counselor and interns went to
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 60
the middle school and evaluated the cumulative records of approximately 100 students
who, based on the data, may have issues with the transition to high school. The early
warning system used student data (grades, attendance, behavior as well as an intensive
cumulative record study) to identify those most at-risk. The school used a
Comprehensive Longitudinal Record Study form (see Appendix A) to guide through the
process of the intensive cumulative record study. The lowest performing 30 or so
students were placed in a more intensive intervention guidance class that lasts two
semesters and received other academic and emotional interventions from the start of the
school year. It is these lowest performing students who were participants in this study.
The rest of the at-risk students were placed in the original one-semester guidance class
for the first semester of their ninth grade year and monitored by the counseling intern,
assistant principal and counselor much like in the original 2007-2008 program model.
The students who were specifically at the most comprehensive risk for dropping
out over the last three school years were placed in three cohorts by grade level. In this
study, they are labeled Cohort 2013 (n=25), Cohort 2014 (n=30), and Cohort 2015
(n=26). A sampling of a smaller number of students in each of the cohorts, and their
parents, were invited to participate in the study. Of those, only one of 15 students agreed
to participate from Cohort 2013 (C2013). Six of eight students in Cohort 2014 (C2014)
agreed to participate. Seven of eight students in Cohort 2015 (C2015) agreed to
participate.
In addition to the student and parent participants, the teacher from the guidance
class was sought out to volunteer in an interview. Ms. H was selected based on her
experience and work within the high school’s intensive two-semester guidance program.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 61
Also invited were the principal, assistant principal, two counselors for C2014 and C2015,
a counseling intern who worked with C2014, C2015 and was working with the following
year’s population. Although it was originally intended to have all interviewed together in
a focus group, their schedules created a problem with that plan. Instead, they were
interviewed in person and by phone.
Instrumentation
The California Healthy Kids Survey Module B: Supplemental Resilience and
Youth Development (Appendix E) was used to examine the levels of resilience of the
student participants. This survey has been evaluated by the Regional Educational
Laboratory at WestEd. Over 600,000 students have this module administered in
California every year. “It provides comprehensive and balanced coverage of eight
environmental resilience assets and four internal resilience assets; its subscales exhibit
good internal consistency and are associated with student risk factors in expected ways”
(Hanson & Kim, 2007, iii)
Hanson & Kim (2007) further assert,
The Healthy Kids Survey (HKS) is one of the few large-scale surveys to assess
both risk and resilience. The survey’s resilience and youth development module
(RYDM) is based on the premise that youth who experience high levels of
environmental assets in three areas---high expectations from adults, caring
relationships with adults, and opportunities for meaningful participation---will
develop the resilience traits, the connection to school, and the motivation to learn
that lead to positive academic, social and health outcomes (Constantine, Bernard,
& Diaz, 1999).
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 62
Open-ended questions used in the Student Focus Group Interview Protocol
(Appendix B) were designed to understand the student participant experience in school
around two main areas: school connectedness and resilience. Appendix B includes a
chart of the questions and the aim of each question. Much like the RYDM asks questions
regarding meaningful participation, school engagement, relationships with key adults on
campus, and motivation to learn, this line of questioning sought to do the same.
The line of inquiry in the Parent Interview Protocol (Appendix C) is designed to
understand the parent participant experience regarding their student’s experience in
school around school connectedness and resilience. Appendix C includes a chart of the
open-ended questions and the aim of each question. Once again, much like the types of
questions asked in the RYDM survey.
The questions in the Teacher/Administrator Protocol (Appendix D) served two
purposes. The first was to paint the picture for the cultural and historical setting of the
campus in addition to understanding the Freshman Focus as implemented. The second
was designed to discover the experience of the school staff in reference to students’
school connectedness and resilience over time as a result of the students’ participation in
the Freshman Focus.
Data Collection Procedure
Once IRB was completed November 16, 2011, audio-recorded focus groups were
conducted to interview students. The focus group questions can be found in Appendix D
Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with faculty and parents. The purpose for the
interviews was to understand what each group of stakeholders perceives of the resilience
and connectedness of the students in each cohort. The interviews with faculty
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 63
participants were also used to better understand the historical context and climate that
created the Freshman Focus as it is implemented at the site. All of the recordings were
transcribed. Student, staff and parent focus groups and interviews were conducted in
January and February of 2012. The study took place over the first semester of the 2011-
2012 school year. Student data was pulled from the data system for each cohort at the
end of the first semester in January of 2012.
The school information system was used for the demographic data as well as the
necessary grade, behavior and attendance data for those students who participate in the
comprehensive guidance program. The grades were reported following the reporting
periods of the school, every five weeks. Therefore, there were grades evaluated for each
period for each class for each student in each cohort for two and a half years. The
exception to this is with C2015. Only the 8
th
grade data and current 9
th
grade data was
pulled for C2015 for each grading period for one and a half years. This data was
calculated using basic averages to find the failure rate for each cohort for each grading
period for each year. It was then charted to allow for a comparison from year to year and
grading period to grading period. In addition to grades, yearly attendance data was
pulled for each cohort. The attendance data was calculated to determine average positive
attendance in order to compare it to the overall attendance of the school, which averages
96% to 97% yearly. Finally, the behavior data pulled for the students includes data from
all years including middle school. That data was coded to determine types of discipline
issues (i.e. fights, defiance issues, smoking, drug/drug paraphernalia) and counted as raw
numbers for each year for each cohort to determine if there was a decline of types of
incidents over time. This descriptive data was used to support an understanding of
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 64
school connectedness and resilience. It was used to paint a qualitative picture of what
may be happening for students over an extended period of time.
In addition to focus groups, students in all three cohorts were given a survey of
resilience. The tool used was the California Healthy Kids Survey Module B:
Supplemental Resilience and Youth Development (Appendix E). This was used to
examine the levels of resilience of the student participants.
Data Analysis Procedure
The interviews with the grade level administrator, counselors and counseling
intern were semi structured, audiotaped and transcribed. This was then coded to identify
key elements linking the interviews. Creswell (2009) describes this inductive analysis
model for qualitative research. The secondary intent of the analysis was to determine
whether there was any change over time in attendance, behavior or grades as the
freshman experienced his or her first semester in high school or whether there was any
change over time in their experience at Hoover High School as a reflection of increased
resilience and connectedness. The focus of the analysis was to measure growth from the
start to the end of the first semester of ninth grade over the prior year’s performance. In
older cohorts, C2013 and C2014, the focus was to identify whether there was any
increased school connectedness and resilience over time after the initial semester of high
school. The interviews with students, parents and faculty were studied to identify
patterns of growth over the semester(s). The secondary analysis was to identify their
own perceptions and data over the course of the semester in attendance, behavior, grades,
resilience and school connectedness.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 65
The data analysis process used Creswell’s Six Steps (2009). The first step
required a global examination of all of the data that was collected. All grades,
attendance, and behavior incidents for each cohort was examined for each year they
attended Hoover and the year prior to starting at the high school. Further, all of the
transcripts from the interviews and focus groups were also reviewed. This was done to
get a general tone or sense of what was present. When that process was complete,
consistent with Creswell’s second step, all of the data was coded in an effort to identify
possible themes, and consistency across participants, participant groups, and data. Next,
the coded data was then used to thickly describe the cultural and historical setting of the
school. It was also used to better describe the participants and their experiences within
the lens of the Freshman Focus. The final step in the Creswell model was conducted to
present the four themes as well as the findings that emerged as a result of this study.
Ethical Considerations
While the school itself is named with permission from the principal, the students
and counselors, faculty and other administration were each given pseudonyms to protect
their identities. Student participants, their parents and all participating faculty were
given full disclosure as to the purpose of the study and the safeguards to protect their
personal identifying information. Their permission was also sought to interview, record
and access their student records strictly for the purposes of the study. All audio,
transcripts, data and survey data will be kept in a locked cabinet for three years after the
completion of the study. After three years, the data will be destroyed.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 66
Chapter Four: Results
The administrative focus on connectedness and resilience at this high school has
been an attempt to create lasting growth and change in the lives of those most at risk for
dropping out. The blending of the worlds of school leadership and educational
psychology has uncovered interesting findings, the most surprising of which is in the
consistency of themes which emerged across all three groups. For this reason, the results
of this study will be presented by the predominant themes that emerged for these groups.
The study is guided by one major question: does a high school with a freshman
focus for multiple-risk students increase resiliency and school connectedness for its
students? The term “freshman focus” means the intentional research-based activities of a
school to address the risk factors for each entering multiple-risk freshman. These
activities include: early identification in the semester before freshman year, assigning an
adult advocate, referring for extra tutoring, outside mental health services, medical and
other familial supports.
Chapter 4 is organized such that, after a description of the participants in the
study, there is a discussion of the four themes that emerged. One student’s story, which
is illustrative of the four themes, is also presented. The student’s story is included to
demonstrate how, in line with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological framework, the changes
occurred over time with consistent support during her time in the school. Within each
theme, results are presented for each of the three cohorts of students, faculty, and parents,
followed by a brief summary of new understandings as they relate to the research.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 67
Participants
There were three different groups of participants involved in this study. There
were 14 students from three different graduate year cohorts: 2013, 2014, 2015. There
were two parents, one from 2014 and one from 2015. Finally, there were two assistant
principals (2014, 2015) and two counselors (2014, 2015). There was also the principal,
counseling intern who worked with both 2014 and 2015, and the guidance teacher who
worked with both cohorts as well.
Students. There were student participants from three different cohort years:
2013, 2014, and 2015. These students began as 9
th
grade students at Hoover High School
with a need for support to help them make a successful progression to on-time high
school graduation. The students’ level of risk was determined by staff at the high school
through a process of looking at their 8
th
grade records in the semester before they
transitioned. Students with 20 or more days of truancy, 3 or more F’s and/or any
suspension/discipline issues were determined to be at greater risk, which is consistent
with the markers for students struggling with resilience and connectedness. In each class
year, there were approximately 500 total entering freshmen. Of those, approximately 90
were experiencing failure, attendance issues, and/or behavior issues. Of those 90
students, 25-30 students were considered at comprehensive risk for dropping out and
needed multi-pronged intensive support. One of the interventions was placement in the
intensive two-semester guidance class. In all three cohorts of the highest-risk students,
the demographics matched the general demographic of the school site: free and reduced
lunch, special education, ELL and ethnic makeup. In the discussion of the findings, each
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 68
cohort has been kept separate due to the vast differences that emerged during the course
of the study between the 11
th
grade and the other two grades in particular.
For the 11
th
grade students (Cohort 2013) it was difficult to analyze their data due
to the large number of students within the cohort leaving the school at different times
throughout the three years. The cohort started with nearly 25 students and ended with
just 15 students. This made the results of the resilience survey somewhat difficult to
generalize to the cohort. Students had moved out of the district, moved to the
continuation school, or to the Options for Youth charter school. This high transiency
made it difficult to find participants for this study. Though all 15 students were asked to
participate in the focus group interview and survey, only one was willing to participate in
the process.
The high risk Cohort of 2013 has had the least consistency in support among the
three cohorts. Between 9
th
and 10
th
grade, they had three different assistant principals,
two different principals, three different counselors and had to grapple with the suicide of
one of their classmates in October of their freshman year. This group had the highest
percentage of absences, F’s and major behavior incidents of all three cohorts, including
one expulsion. Also, when the students were freshmen, the counseling intern program
was not in place, as it was for the other two cohorts. Therefore, they did not have
someone consistently meeting with them over the year to discuss their attendance, grades,
and behavior. There was also not someone monitoring them and connecting them with
the necessary comprehensive services (mental health services, drug counseling, medical
and dental care) as determined by their needs. There were, however, several
interventions attempted that included Saturday School Study, which meant marathon
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 69
days that gave them the opportunity to catch up on assignments that teachers agreed to
accept for partial to full credit. There was also an attempt to provide them with peer
mentors, afterschool tutoring, and guidance seminars.
The high risk Cohort 2014 fared better. The 29 students only lost one member to
a move to another district at the end of first semester in the 2011-2012 school year. They
had the same: principal, assistant principal and school counselor since they began. They
had a specially designed two-semester guidance class with a teacher that held dual
certifications in counseling and special education instruction. They also had counseling
interns to monitor their grades, attendance and behavior. The focus was to provide a
comprehensive set of services as determined by each student’s individual needs. Of the
remaining 29 students in the cohort, 6 parents consented for their students to participate
in the focus group interviews and resilience survey as well as the parent interviews. This
cohort began as a single class of approximately 30 students. During the first semester of
9
th
grade, it was determined that these were too many students to place in the room and
still be effective with the program goals. At the start of the second semester, the group
was split into two very small classes, and students who had shown significant
improvement were exited from the class as a reward.
The high risk Cohort of 2015 was also still intact at the time of this study. They
also had the same: principal, assistant principal and school counselor since they began.
Like Cohort 2014, they have also had a specially designed two-semester guidance class
with a teacher that held dual certifications in counseling and special education. They also
had counseling interns to monitor their grades, attendance and behavior. The focus is to
provide a comprehensive set of services as determined by each student’s individual
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 70
needs. Of those students in the cohort, 7 parents consented for their students to
participate in the focus group interviews and resilience survey as well as the parent
interviews. This class began as two smaller-sized classes, so there was no need to split
the class at the start of second semester, though those students who had made
improvements over the first semester were exited from the program at the start of the
second semester. They continued to be monitored by the counseling intern in order to
keep them on track for graduation.
Parents. There were only two parents of the students who agreed to be
personally interviewed as a part of the study. One was Debbie’s mother from the Cohort
of 2014. The other was the mother of a student in the 2015 cohort. Debbie’s mother
worked as a housekeeper, and had two children other than Debbie at the conclusion of
this study. They were low income and Hispanic. The researcher’s bilingual/bicultural
status in Spanish allowed for her to be interviewed entirely in Spanish. The other mother
worked in an office job. There was one younger sibling in the home. She spoke English
well and chose to have the interview in English only. The parents were to be
interviewed as a focus group, but work schedules for the parents made that a near
impossible task. As a result, individual interviews were conducted and transcribed.
Unfortunately, the parents who spoke Armenian exclusively were unable to be
interviewed.
Faculty. Faculty at Hoover High School who work within the Freshman Focus
program were invited to participate in the study. All six of those invited were able to
participate. Once again, scheduling for this group proved to be a difficult task.
Therefore, faculty was interviewed privately to accommodate their busy schedules. The
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 71
faculty participants were from varied responsibilities at the site within the freshman
focus.
The principal of the high school, Dr. F, had, at the time of this study, 18 years’
experience in the field of education, with 12 years in school administration including
serving as associate principal at the school site for two years and as principal for two
years. The assistant principal for the 2015 Cohort, Mr. W, had 17 years of experience in
the field of education, including 2 years as a dean and 7 years as an assistant principal at
the school site. Ms. V, assistant principal for the 2014 Cohort had 22 years in the field of
education, including 4 as the teacher specialist for categorical services at the school site,
and 2 as an assistant principal at the site. The counselor for the 2015 Cohort, Ms. E, has
nearly three decades in the field of education, including 23 years as a school counselor at
the site. The counselor for the 2014 Cohort, Ms. O, had three years’ experience as a
school counselor and 9 years in the field of education. The counseling intern, Ms. N, had
two years’ experience in the program and was working on her PPS credential and MFT
liscence. The guidance teacher, Ms. M, held a special education credential as well as a
PPS (counseling) credential. She had 15 years of experience in the field of education.
Results
The overarching research question was, “Does a high school with a freshman
focus for multiple-risk students increase resiliency and school connectedness for
students?” Critical to exploring this research question further were: (a) Students’
perceptions, their resilience survey responses, and their actual data; (b) Faculty
perceptions regarding students; and (c) Parent perceptions regarding their children.
Regarding school connectedness, Monahan et al. (2010) and others describe the
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 72
phenomenon of student disengagement increasing as the students matriculate from
elementary into middle school and high school to their eventual dropping out. The
student participants in each of the three cohorts exhibited the symptoms of school
disengagement: low grades, low attendance, and poor behavior (Klem & Connell, 2004)
before entering Hoover High School.
Consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s framework, over time at Hoover, students
exhibited signs of increased school connectedness: improved attendance, improved
behavior, and involvement in school activities. They were also bonded to at least one, if
not more adults on campus (CDC, 2009; Monahan et. al., 2010). Regarding resilience,
Hupfeld (2007) reports the presence of positive adult relationships is a major factor in
resilience. Hupfeld also reported on a meta-analysis of three independent studies of a
program that included a component that develops students’ resilience. Those students in
the research that Hupfeld (2007) described showed tremendous increases in attendance,
grades, and behavior. Hupfeld (2007) asserts the importance of key adult-student
relationships. When the support of caring adults is missing students cannot gain or
sustain resiliency. The caring relationship is critical in that caring adults provide role
models of resilience for struggling students. Using Bronfenbrenner’s adapted ecological
framework as a lens, students in the freshman focus program should have shown an
improvement in their life trajectories if their social-emotional needs were addressed in a
smaller classroom environment that worked to develop positive relationships with peers
and adults consistently over a period of time.
From the analysis of the results, there were four themes that emerged as
consistent among the three groups of participants interviewed as well as from the
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 73
resilience survey and data. First, building a positive relationship with caring adults was
the most powerfully reported and consistent across all three participant groups. Improved
problem solving was the next theme that emerged from the analysis. Another theme was
increased school involvement. The last was the presence of self-efficacy and goal
orientation.
Before presenting each theme and its supporting data, Debbie’s story is shared.
Her story is illustrative of what can happen in the life of a multiple-risk student when
there is attention given to addressing varied needs consistently over a period of time.
Debbie experienced increases in school connectedness and resilience from the time she
started as a struggling freshman. A year and a half later, her previous trajectory had
shifted. She was more connected and apparently on the road to on-time graduation.
Debbie is a Hispanic student who came to Hoover as part of the 2014 cohort. She
lives with her mother and two siblings. Her mother supports the family through the work
she does housekeeping. When Debbie was in elementary school, her grades and behavior
began to decline as her home life became chaotic. Her mother eventually left her father
and there was a restraining order placed against him. At that point, Debbie’s grades and
behavior improved. When the restraining order was lifted a couple of years later, she
began to regress, becoming blatantly defiant, angry and uncontrollable, according to her
mother. Her grades at school plummeted. She began getting suspended with increasing
frequency.
Upon her arrival at Hoover, she was given a counseling intern, was introduced to
the advisor of the La Voz Latina club on campus, and invited to join a sport. She was
also placed in the two-semester intensive guidance class with Ms. M. Debbie did well
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 74
for the first month and a half of school and then began to regress. She began cutting
classes, wandering campus, and getting into arguments with her teachers. There were
several intervention meetings held at school with Debbie, her mother, all of her teachers,
her assistant principal, counselor and counseling intern. Each time, she cried and
promised to change. She would do well for a week or so, and then she would decline
again.
However, finally, something began to change. By the second semester, Debbie
would come to the assistant principal’s office or the counselor’s office when she was
upset, instead of wandering on campus. She would still show up late to her classes and
would still be truant, though more sporadically. Her mother was referred to a special
parenting program for struggling teens offered through the school district’s Healthy Start
program. Her mother attributes much of the changes at home to what she learned in that
parenting program. Debbie was also provided with a more intensive mental health
provider to work out her deeper issues.
By the start of her sophomore year, Debbie began showing up to all of her classes
and advocated for herself in trying out for basketball. She made the team. She was more
often seen smiling than yelling or crying as in the previous year. Since her rocky start,
she began attending all of her classes, and, at the time of this study, was passing most of
them. She was on track to graduate on time. She still struggled with one or two subjects,
but was receiving tutoring for them. She also became vice president of La Voz Latina
club, and is one of the loudest cheerleaders for any sporting event she attends. At the
start of second semester of the 2011-2012 year, she made the school’s track and field
team.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 75
She began to bond with the girls on her team while she worked to maintain her
friendships with her old friends. She was caught up in the occasional high school drama,
but, overall, she completely turned around. At the time of this study, she was clear in
that she would not only graduate from high school, but had plans to become a
pediatrician.
Theme one: Positive Relationships with Caring Adults. Positive relationships
with caring adults emerged as the predominant theme and all 14 students across all
cohorts, all 6 faculty members and 2 parents reported that the students had at least one
person on campus to which they felt connected. Key individuals emerged as significant
to the students. They are presented in order of campus groups: counselors, guidance
teacher and other faculty. An insightful perception of these groups is embedded in the
discourse which follows.
Counselors. Counselors provide both guidance and social-emotional supports for
the students. Their responsibilities include scheduling, teaching courses that are specific
to each class year, and handling the referrals for SST’s and attending IEP’s. Also
included in their responsibilities are intervening with students when they are having
difficulty with things such as suicidal ideation, abuse of drugs, and issues at home.
Students were asked about their relationship with their school counselors. That positive
relationship with caring adults was with parents, students and other staff.
Here are observations from students. Anna (C2013) responded, “Oh it’s good. I
email her whenever I have any questions. And then—yeah and then I make an
appointment, I talk to her about the classes I need, what I need to do and everything, so.”
For C2014, 6 of the 6 participants stated that they felt comfortable with their school
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 76
counselor. Elmer added that he did not feel judged by her. He stated, “She’s a good
helper and like whenever you need to tell her something, like you just tell her and she
won’t judge you.” All nodded in agreement when John (C2014) stated, “She’s very
helpful.” Greg (C2014) also commented. “I can go talk to her if there’s a problem or
anything.”
Here is what counselors had to say. Ms. O (counselor C2014) noted that this
particular group of students was more likely to come and ask her questions and check in
with her on a more frequent basis. C2015 as a group did not have as much to say about
their grade-level counselor, which was indicative of the students learning that she can be
trusted and there for them. Ms. E, 9
th
grade counselor, made a statement regarding not
only being connected to the students but to their parents:
I think the flipside to that is the parents feel connected to us as well, because
they’ve had so much contact with us, and then when we call or whatever, and
when they walk in, they know to ask for me. It’s not just a big school with a
hundred personnel. It’s one assistant principal and one counselor, so it brings, so
it’s a closer-knit community almost.
Ms. O had this to say about the parent dynamic at Hoover:
I think that everyone that is involved in intervention, like (Ms. V, the 10
th
grade
AP), me, like (Dr. F) others in administration and stuff. I think they feel the
support. Like the parents, like at other sites, I would meet with the parents once
or twice, and if they didn’t like the results they would never come back. And I
just feel like the parents of this group, they keep coming back. Like when there is
a concern, they keep coming back. Like even when we don’t give them what they
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 77
want, like a teacher change for example, they come back and they feel like they
can come back. Like they feel they can talk to us, and that we will do the best
that we can to help them.
She attributed that to the students’ telling their parents to come meet with her or the
assistant principal. Also, she felt teachers were more accommodating for students who
were receiving this specialized intervention stating, “Teachers were using more Love and
Logic with them.” The statements made by the counseling intern also supported this
belief. Counseling intern, Ms. N, had this to add:
We have had a very positive response, in terms of the relationship between the
interns and the freshmen especially in the guidance classes. There seems to be a
genuine bond and almost a, not a dependence, but they look forward to having
someone else there. Even if it’s just once a week to help encourage and refocus
them and realize that it’s not just their teachers that are watching them, and
helping them, and want them to do well.
An administrator, Mr. W, 9
th
grade assistant principal, added that the students in
the 9
th
grade (C2015) group knew what was expected of them, so they were more
connected to the school. Each understand their roles, at this point in the relationship,
about teaching the students about the expectations and being consistent in the
communication with their families as well. This is where they “lay the groundwork” for
the years to come.
Guidance teacher. At the time of this study, the two-semester guidance teacher,
Ms. M provided daily guidance lessons focusing on resilience, problem-solving, learning
strategies, and study skills. Her responsibilities included working to check in on
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 78
students’ performance in other classes, coordinating the counseling interns, maintaining
parent communication, and advocating for students when necessary.
The students had this to say regarding the relationship with their guidance
teacher, 13 out of 13 indicated they felt connected to her. John (2014) remarked, “She
was very warm, like she make you feel kind of like at home, and she like---she didn’t
tolerate everything obviously, but she was very nice, like she helped me with a lot of my
problems.” Debbie (2014) added, “She is very caring. She shows that she actually
cares.” The other students in the cohort nodded in affirmation. Celene (C2015) stated
that their relationship with Ms. M is, “Close, she is the best one. She’s a good teacher.”
Sal (C2015) added, “She’s patient.”
Other Faculty. Beyond the counselor and guidance teacher, several students had
a positive connection to other members of the faculty. Anna (C2013) named her current
US History teacher. When asked specifically about her history teacher she stated, “She’s
just--she’s—once you go into her class it’s like a good mood and it’s a good place to
learn and the way she explains everything and she makes it interesting. You know, like
there are some teachers they just—with the monotones they just talk. She’s not like
that.” C2014 and C2015 worked with counseling interns during their freshman year. All
students from those two cohorts (13 of 13) said working with the interns made a
difference for them. When asked to elaborate, John (C2014) said, “Yeah. A lot of ways
like anger problems that I had, I guess, like we had some little group, and we would talk
about like our issues and just solve them there, talk to them about it, and not to solve
them outside of school or anywhere else.” For C2014, when asked if they had a
connection with any particular teachers they became very animated. The focus group of
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 79
6 students then proceeded to name over 10 faculty members including their assistant
principal, their counselor, their coaches, their English teacher, their History teacher and
their choir teacher. One student, when referring to his English teacher stated, “Even if
like I can be really annoying to her, but she’s like a very helpful teacher. She always like
explains like things more than one time so that kids will like understand.”
Debbie’s mother commented that she felt it was as if her daughter had several
family members looking out for her daughter at Hoover. She attributed all of the growth
in her daughter over the course of a year and a half has come from the relationships she
has built with the staff at Hoover. The other parent of C2015 noted that her daughter had
improved since the start of the school year.
The 2014 counselor, Ms. O’s assertion supports the parent’s statement:
…I do see like the culture changing. And I think that it is because of the
connectedness with all of us, and like the effort that we are making to get to know
them, and truly support them however we can. And I feel that they do feel that
we’re not giving up on them…that we really do try, and we do care. So I do see
like a change in the climate of the school. All 14 student participants felt a
connection to an adult on campus. However, C2013 did not have the same stable
consistent relationship with adults on campus during the formative transition
period. There was a great divide between the cohort and the other two cohorts
(C2014 & C2015). That divide was evident in the drastic losses to C2013 going
from 25 students to 15 from the start of the program to the current year. In
addition to the instability of the cohort, it was evident in: their lack of
involvement in school activities, poor attendance (14% absence rate in
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 80
comparison to 7% for C2014 in the freshman year), and sheer volume of behavior
incidents (415 incidents versus 135 for C2014).
Discussion theme one. When there existed an attempt by the grade-level
administrator and counselor to connect with the students and their parents early and
consistently over time, there was evidence of at least one positive relationship with a
caring adult. When that was coupled with high expectations, and a warm touch, there
was a stronger bond with the adults on campus. This suggests that a sincere interest by
school personnel facilitated the building of positive relationships with caring adults. The
student focus group respondents indicated this in their responses regarding their
willingness to work harder, their numerous references to their counseling intern,
guidance teacher, counselor, and administrator, as well as their comments about feeling
respected by key staff and teachers. In addidtion to the students’ responses, student data
illustrate this as well, in their improved attendance, connection, engagement in school,
and behavior.
When this was absent, as in the freshman year of C2013, it appeared that those
most at-risk for dropping out suffered greatly. The students did not have consistency in
their administration, nor did they have consistency in their counselor in their first year at
the high school. There was no counseling intern to monitor their progress and support
their transition. Although there was a guidance class, it was for one semester and there
were some in the group who did not take the guidance class until the second semester of
their freshman year. This lack of consistent positive interaction with an adult early and
over a long period of time, according to Bronfenbrenner’s framework, could not shift
their prior established trajectories towards dropping out. This demonstrates early and
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 81
consistent connection by key adults, high expectations, and a caring tone facilitate a
positive relationship with caring adults which, in turn, builds school connectedness. This
is a major finding as a result of this study.
Theme two: Improved problem-solving skills. School connectedness has been
found to contribute to a change in student conduct problems (Loukas et al., 2009). In this
study, students showed an improvement in their ability to solve problems which, in turn,
reduced the number of discipline issues. This was evidenced in three ways. First,
Cohorts 2014 and 2015 showed a dramatic improvement over time in the number of
suspensions for California Education Code 48900 a1 and a2 violations (threats to harm,
fighting and assaults). Next, the C2014 had a decrease in the number of k related
(defiance/disruption) discipline referrals. Last, most students according to the resilience
survey indicated that they could resolve their own issues or with the help of a peer with
whom they were bonded. Excluded from the results was the response of Anna, the lone
member of C2013. This was because having only one survey to represent the cohort was
not enough to include the cohort of 2013.
Behavior problems are an indicator of the inability to problem-solve effectively.
Sometimes students had a legitimate concern that they did not have the skills to resolve.
Instead, they would become angered or enraged and resorted to cursing and/or fighting
with students and staff. Then, if the pattern of behavior continued, the students would
grow more disengaged as they felt that school was not a place that was welcoming to
them. Over time, as the students learned problem-solving skills and appropriate self-
advocacy, they were in fewer and fewer, if any, behavior incidents on campus. In an
effort to understand their growth in the area of problem-solving, this section is examined
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 82
in two parts: early behavior issues before arriving at Hoover, and behavior after
beginning work in the Freshman Focus at Hoover.
Early behavior issues. When asked about their behavior before coming to
Hoover, almost all in both cohorts reported they were “troublemakers.” When asked to
describe that previous behavior, (7 of 13) indicated not only fights, but in one case, Darla
(2014) reported, “Well, the first suspension I got was for gluing our teacher’s door with
crazy glue. And the second one was like for fights, and then the third one was for
ditching.” All of this, transpired in elementary school, she reported. She later indicated
that she continued to get suspended in middle school. “Yeah, suspensions for like small
things.” She went on to report that she spit in a teacher’s face when she was in middle
school. In another case, a student, Peter, had gone through the pre-Expulsion process for
fighting and major defiance in middle school. He was involuntarily transferred instead to
the other district middle school. Since beginning at Hoover, he’s had only one altercation
in a year and a half, and it happened in the first semester of freshman year.
Behavior after beginning at Hoover. When asked about their behavior after
arriving at Hoover, Greg (2014) reported that he noticed a, “big difference.” Tom
(C2015) stated, “Less trouble. I am getting into less trouble.” Nearly all (5 of 7) students
in the 2015 cohort nodded their heads in agreement. When asked why, Tom responded,
“Better teachers and I am like in with the students than I was last year,” indicating an
increased connectedness and bonding to the students in his cohort as a team. Joe (C2014)
noted the reason for the change was, “We’re more mature and like we understand more
than we did before.” When asked what else they noticed about themselves, “We can
realize when the teacher is trying to be as nice as they can. We shouldn’t take advantage
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 83
of them, and we’re not like doing very dumb stuff. You know?” John (C2014) further
commented:
I don’t feel the need to disrespect anyone because I’m not really disrespected.
The only time that like I get mad, and but ever feel like the need, doesn’t mean I
do, but if I ever feel like the need to, is when adults show that they just—like for
no reason, they just want power, to show that they have power over us because
they’re older. That’s only when.
However, C2015 was still receiving several referrals for “k” violations (disruptive
or defiant behavior). C2014 was still receiving some k referrals, but not to the same
degree as in middle school and in the freshman year, indicating an improvement in the
disruptive behavior for their cohort.
The cohorts’ responses to the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) allude to
this fact. For Cohort 2015, in the resilience survey category on friends, all students (14
of 14) reported that they had friends who cared about them and helped them with
problems (See Table 1 Below). Their friendships with peers provided this cohort of
students with support, which is also illustrative of their connectedness with peers (B19).
In looking at responses their peers were generally positive role models for behavior, with
responses indicating that their peers provide support when having a hard time (B21).
However, there was a very small number that did get into a lot of trouble at school (B22).

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 84
Table 1
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Friendship Domain C2015

The responses of C2014 indicate a less rosy picture (Table 2). Cohort 2014, just
like C2015, had friends who cared about them and would help when having a hard time
(B19 &21). As well as someone they could talk with regarding their problems (B20).
This group, however, had friends who are still getting into trouble, though not to a great
extent (B22). The friends of Cohort 2014 tended to do what is right and do well in
school. This cohort generally had a positive peer group.
Table 2
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Friendship Domain- C2014

11th$Grade$Response
Number 9S1 9S2 9S3 9S4 9S5 9S6 9S7 ITEM4TOTALS Number 10S1 10S2 10S3 10S4 10S5 10S6 ITEM4TOTALS Number 11S1
1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 24 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 1 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 22 2 4
3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 26 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 3 4
4 3 4 3 1 2 4 4 21 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 20 4 4
5 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 12 5 2 3 2 2 3 4 16 5 4
6 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 16 6 3 4 4 3 3 3 20 6 4
7 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 25 7 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 7 4
8 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 22 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 19 8 4
9 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 9 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 9 3
10 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 23 10 3 4 2 2 4 4 19 10 4
11 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 24 11 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 11 4
12 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 20 12 4 2 4 3 4 2 19 12 4
13 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 23 13 3 3 4 3 3 3 19 13 4
14 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 18 14 4 4 3 2 4 4 21 14 4
15 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 22 15 2 3 4 3 4 4 20 15 4
16 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 23 16 3 4 4 2 3 4 20 16 4
17 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 23 17 3 4 4 2 3 3 19 17 4
18 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 21 18 2 4 4 3 3 1 17 18 4
19 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 26 19 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 19 4
20 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 25 20 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 20 4
21 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 21 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 21 4
22 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 13 22 2 2 2 3 2 2 13 22 1
23 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 20 23 3 3 4 3 3 2 18 23 4
24 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 23 24 2 4 3 3 4 2 18 24 4
25 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 25 25 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 25 4
26 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 26 26 2 4 3 2 3 4 18 26 4
27 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 27 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 27 4
28 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 20 28 2 4 4 1 3 4 18 28 4
29 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 29 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 29 4
30 3 3 4 2 2 4 4 22 30 3 4 4 1 3 4 19 30 4
31 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 26 31 2 2 4 2 4 1 15 31 4
32 3 4 4 2 1 2 4 20 32 3 3 4 1 3 4 18 32 3
33 3 4 4 2 1 3 3 20 33 2 4 4 1 3 3 17 33 3
Totals 108 118 102 94 97 113 106 Totals 90 118 123 79 118 112 Totals 126
Possible 132 Possible Possible
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B1. 0% 14% 29% 57% B1. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B2. 0% 0% 0% 100% B2. 0% 17% 0% 83%
B3. 0% 0% 29% 71% B3. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B4. 14% 14% 29% 43% B4. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B5. 57% 29% 0% 14% B5. 0% 50% 33% 17%
B6. 14% 43% 43% 0% B6. 0% 0% 67% 33%
B7. 0% 0% 43% 57% B7. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B8. 0% 14% 57% 29% B8. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B9. 0% 14% 86% 0% B9. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B10. 0% 29% 14% 57% B10. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B11. 0% 14% 29% 57% B11. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B12. 0% 43% 29% 29% B12. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B13. 0% 14% 43% 43% B13. 0% 0% 83% 17%
B14. 0% 57% 29% 14% B14. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B15. 0% 29% 29% 43% B15. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B16. 0% 14% 43% 43% B16. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B17. 0% 14% 43% 43% B17. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B18. 0% 29% 43% 29% B18. 17% 17% 33% 33%
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B19. 0% 0% 29% 71% B19. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B20. 0% 0% 43% 57% B20. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B21. 0% 0% 14% 86% B21. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B22. 43% 43% 0% 14% B22. 0% 83% 17% 0%
B23. 0% 43% 29% 29% B23. 0% 17% 67% 17%
B24. 0% 14% 43% 43% B24. 0% 33% 33% 33%
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
9th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)4 10th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)
Resilience4Survey4Summary4of4Answers49th4Grade
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
Personal
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
do$well$in$school.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
Resilience4Survey4Summary4of4Answers410th4Grade
Personal
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
do$well$in$school.
11th$Grade$Response
Number 9S1 9S2 9S3 9S4 9S5 9S6 9S7 ITEM4TOTALS Number 10S1 10S2 10S3 10S4 10S5 10S6 ITEM4TOTALS Number 11S1
1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 24 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 1 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 22 2 4
3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 26 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 3 4
4 3 4 3 1 2 4 4 21 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 20 4 4
5 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 12 5 2 3 2 2 3 4 16 5 4
6 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 16 6 3 4 4 3 3 3 20 6 4
7 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 25 7 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 7 4
8 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 22 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 19 8 4
9 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 9 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 9 3
10 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 23 10 3 4 2 2 4 4 19 10 4
11 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 24 11 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 11 4
12 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 20 12 4 2 4 3 4 2 19 12 4
13 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 23 13 3 3 4 3 3 3 19 13 4
14 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 18 14 4 4 3 2 4 4 21 14 4
15 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 22 15 2 3 4 3 4 4 20 15 4
16 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 23 16 3 4 4 2 3 4 20 16 4
17 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 23 17 3 4 4 2 3 3 19 17 4
18 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 21 18 2 4 4 3 3 1 17 18 4
19 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 26 19 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 19 4
20 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 25 20 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 20 4
21 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 21 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 21 4
22 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 13 22 2 2 2 3 2 2 13 22 1
23 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 20 23 3 3 4 3 3 2 18 23 4
24 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 23 24 2 4 3 3 4 2 18 24 4
25 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 25 25 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 25 4
26 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 26 26 2 4 3 2 3 4 18 26 4
27 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 27 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 27 4
28 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 20 28 2 4 4 1 3 4 18 28 4
29 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 29 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 29 4
30 3 3 4 2 2 4 4 22 30 3 4 4 1 3 4 19 30 4
31 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 26 31 2 2 4 2 4 1 15 31 4
32 3 4 4 2 1 2 4 20 32 3 3 4 1 3 4 18 32 3
33 3 4 4 2 1 3 3 20 33 2 4 4 1 3 3 17 33 3
Totals 108 118 102 94 97 113 106 Totals 90 118 123 79 118 112 Totals 126
Possible 132 Possible Possible
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B1. 0% 14% 29% 57% B1. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B2. 0% 0% 0% 100% B2. 0% 17% 0% 83%
B3. 0% 0% 29% 71% B3. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B4. 14% 14% 29% 43% B4. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B5. 57% 29% 0% 14% B5. 0% 50% 33% 17%
B6. 14% 43% 43% 0% B6. 0% 0% 67% 33%
B7. 0% 0% 43% 57% B7. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B8. 0% 14% 57% 29% B8. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B9. 0% 14% 86% 0% B9. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B10. 0% 29% 14% 57% B10. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B11. 0% 14% 29% 57% B11. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B12. 0% 43% 29% 29% B12. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B13. 0% 14% 43% 43% B13. 0% 0% 83% 17%
B14. 0% 57% 29% 14% B14. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B15. 0% 29% 29% 43% B15. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B16. 0% 14% 43% 43% B16. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B17. 0% 14% 43% 43% B17. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B18. 0% 29% 43% 29% B18. 17% 17% 33% 33%
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B19. 0% 0% 29% 71% B19. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B20. 0% 0% 43% 57% B20. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B21. 0% 0% 14% 86% B21. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B22. 43% 43% 0% 14% B22. 0% 83% 17% 0%
B23. 0% 43% 29% 29% B23. 0% 17% 67% 17%
B24. 0% 14% 43% 43% B24. 0% 33% 33% 33%
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
9th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)4 10th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)
Resilience4Survey4Summary4of4Answers49th4Grade
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
Personal
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
do$well$in$school.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
Resilience4Survey4Summary4of4Answers410th4Grade
Personal
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
do$well$in$school.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 85
Remarks concerning the Cohorts proved most insightful. Mr. W and Ms. E from
the cohort of 2015 both felt that the students who were being referred were a small
fraction of the cohort. They added that they were “not surprised” with who was coming
in to the office on a frequent basis. Also, for each student, there already were several
interventions, including counseling in place for those frequently referred students.
The parent(s) from C2014 and C2015 noted that there was a dramatic
improvement in their children’s behavior since beginning at Hoover. Debbie’s mother
(C2014) indicated that she noticed her child was an entirely different person both at
school and at home. Celene’s mother (C2015) stated:
She used to be very argumental (sic), she has very little patience to the limit that
she didn’t want to hear you. She knew probably she was wrong, but she didn’t
care. Now, I think she, so far, knock on wood, none of the teachers has called me
a bad attitude because she used to use a lot of profanity. She still has a little bit of
trouble at home, but I’m more thankful that she can control herself at school.
The resilience survey responses also indicate that the students themselves were
better able to manage their own conflicts (Table 3: B4, B5, B8, B14). Most noteworthy
were knowledge for assistance with a problem (B4). More surprisingly, however, is,
despite their level of risk and lack of previous school success, every single student in
C2015 very much planned to graduate from high school, as indicated by B2. Every
student in C2015 also planned to have some form of post-secondary school education.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 86
Table 3
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Personal Domain - C2015

There are many similarities with C2015’s responses and the responses of C2014
(Table 4). Cohort 2014, like Cohort 2015, also planned to graduate from high school (B2)
and attend some form of post-secondary school (B3). However, this cohort had a couple
of members who were not as sure as the students from C2015. This may be due to their
experiences over time and having a better understanding as to the level of rigorous work
that is necessary in order to have success. Cohort 2014 also felt, like Cohort 2015, that
11th$Grade$Response
Number 9S1 9S2 9S3 9S4 9S5 9S6 9S7 ITEM4TOTALS Number 10S1 10S2 10S3 10S4 10S5 10S6 ITEM4TOTALS Number 11S1
1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 24 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 1 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 22 2 4
3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 26 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 3 4
4 3 4 3 1 2 4 4 21 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 20 4 4
5 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 12 5 2 3 2 2 3 4 16 5 4
6 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 16 6 3 4 4 3 3 3 20 6 4
7 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 25 7 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 7 4
8 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 22 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 19 8 4
9 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 9 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 9 3
10 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 23 10 3 4 2 2 4 4 19 10 4
11 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 24 11 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 11 4
12 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 20 12 4 2 4 3 4 2 19 12 4
13 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 23 13 3 3 4 3 3 3 19 13 4
14 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 18 14 4 4 3 2 4 4 21 14 4
15 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 22 15 2 3 4 3 4 4 20 15 4
16 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 23 16 3 4 4 2 3 4 20 16 4
17 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 23 17 3 4 4 2 3 3 19 17 4
18 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 21 18 2 4 4 3 3 1 17 18 4
19 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 26 19 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 19 4
20 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 25 20 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 20 4
21 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 21 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 21 4
22 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 13 22 2 2 2 3 2 2 13 22 1
23 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 20 23 3 3 4 3 3 2 18 23 4
24 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 23 24 2 4 3 3 4 2 18 24 4
25 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 25 25 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 25 4
26 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 26 26 2 4 3 2 3 4 18 26 4
27 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 27 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 27 4
28 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 20 28 2 4 4 1 3 4 18 28 4
29 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 29 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 29 4
30 3 3 4 2 2 4 4 22 30 3 4 4 1 3 4 19 30 4
31 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 26 31 2 2 4 2 4 1 15 31 4
32 3 4 4 2 1 2 4 20 32 3 3 4 1 3 4 18 32 3
33 3 4 4 2 1 3 3 20 33 2 4 4 1 3 3 17 33 3
Totals 108 118 102 94 97 113 106 Totals 90 118 123 79 118 112 Totals 126
Possible 132 Possible Possible
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B1. 0% 14% 29% 57% B1. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B2. 0% 0% 0% 100% B2. 0% 17% 0% 83%
B3. 0% 0% 29% 71% B3. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B4. 14% 14% 29% 43% B4. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B5. 57% 29% 0% 14% B5. 0% 50% 33% 17%
B6. 14% 43% 43% 0% B6. 0% 0% 67% 33%
B7. 0% 0% 43% 57% B7. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B8. 0% 14% 57% 29% B8. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B9. 0% 14% 86% 0% B9. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B10. 0% 29% 14% 57% B10. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B11. 0% 14% 29% 57% B11. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B12. 0% 43% 29% 29% B12. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B13. 0% 14% 43% 43% B13. 0% 0% 83% 17%
B14. 0% 57% 29% 14% B14. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B15. 0% 29% 29% 43% B15. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B16. 0% 14% 43% 43% B16. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B17. 0% 14% 43% 43% B17. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B18. 0% 29% 43% 29% B18. 17% 17% 33% 33%
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B19. 0% 0% 29% 71% B19. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B20. 0% 0% 43% 57% B20. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B21. 0% 0% 14% 86% B21. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B22. 43% 43% 0% 14% B22. 0% 83% 17% 0%
B23. 0% 43% 29% 29% B23. 0% 17% 67% 17%
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
9th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)4 10th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
Personal
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
Personal
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 87
they could resolve their own problems, as indicated by their responses to questions B4,
B5, B8, and B14.
There were interesting differences between the responses for C2014 and those for
C2015 in this area. C2014 responded they felt they could handle their own problems and
knew where to go to get help in resolving their problems C2015 was split. Their
responses hovered between being able to handle their problems and not knowing what to
do at all. C2015 also was split in knowing where to go to get help in resolving their
problems. The interpersonal skills of the two groups also were different depending on
the cohort. C2014 all indicated that they liked working with students their own age.
C2015 indicated that although they don’t mind it, it was not as strong as with C2014. As
illustrated in the responses in Table 1 for questions B4 through B8, students in C2015
were not as clear about their ability. However, when looking at the responses for the
same questions in Table 2, C2014 appears to be more equipped to handle problems as
they arise.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 88
Table 4
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Personal Domain - C2014

The students in both Cohorts 2014 and 2015 had similar responses to the portion
of the survey that sought to understand their relationships in the home (Tables 5 and 6).
The adults in the home for C2015 are all interested in the student’s schoolwork (B26).
Interesting to note were responses to B28, as the students were split in their responses.
This indicates that some do not have an adult at home to speak with about their problems.
11th$Grade$Response
Number 9S1 9S2 9S3 9S4 9S5 9S6 9S7 ITEM4TOTALS Number 10S1 10S2 10S3 10S4 10S5 10S6 ITEM4TOTALS Number 11S1
1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 24 1 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 1 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 22 2 4
3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 26 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 3 4
4 3 4 3 1 2 4 4 21 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 20 4 4
5 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 12 5 2 3 2 2 3 4 16 5 4
6 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 16 6 3 4 4 3 3 3 20 6 4
7 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 25 7 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 7 4
8 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 22 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 19 8 4
9 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 20 9 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 9 3
10 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 23 10 3 4 2 2 4 4 19 10 4
11 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 24 11 3 3 4 3 4 4 21 11 4
12 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 20 12 4 2 4 3 4 2 19 12 4
13 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 23 13 3 3 4 3 3 3 19 13 4
14 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 18 14 4 4 3 2 4 4 21 14 4
15 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 22 15 2 3 4 3 4 4 20 15 4
16 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 23 16 3 4 4 2 3 4 20 16 4
17 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 23 17 3 4 4 2 3 3 19 17 4
18 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 21 18 2 4 4 3 3 1 17 18 4
19 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 26 19 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 19 4
20 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 25 20 2 4 4 3 4 4 21 20 4
21 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 21 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 21 4
22 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 13 22 2 2 2 3 2 2 13 22 1
23 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 20 23 3 3 4 3 3 2 18 23 4
24 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 23 24 2 4 3 3 4 2 18 24 4
25 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 25 25 3 4 4 3 4 4 22 25 4
26 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 26 26 2 4 3 2 3 4 18 26 4
27 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 27 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 27 4
28 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 20 28 2 4 4 1 3 4 18 28 4
29 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27 29 3 4 4 2 4 4 21 29 4
30 3 3 4 2 2 4 4 22 30 3 4 4 1 3 4 19 30 4
31 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 26 31 2 2 4 2 4 1 15 31 4
32 3 4 4 2 1 2 4 20 32 3 3 4 1 3 4 18 32 3
33 3 4 4 2 1 3 3 20 33 2 4 4 1 3 3 17 33 3
Totals 108 118 102 94 97 113 106 Totals 90 118 123 79 118 112 Totals 126
Possible 132 Possible Possible
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B1. 0% 14% 29% 57% B1. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B2. 0% 0% 0% 100% B2. 0% 17% 0% 83%
B3. 0% 0% 29% 71% B3. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B4. 14% 14% 29% 43% B4. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B5. 57% 29% 0% 14% B5. 0% 50% 33% 17%
B6. 14% 43% 43% 0% B6. 0% 0% 67% 33%
B7. 0% 0% 43% 57% B7. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B8. 0% 14% 57% 29% B8. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B9. 0% 14% 86% 0% B9. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B10. 0% 29% 14% 57% B10. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B11. 0% 14% 29% 57% B11. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B12. 0% 43% 29% 29% B12. 0% 33% 17% 67%
B13. 0% 14% 43% 43% B13. 0% 0% 83% 17%
B14. 0% 57% 29% 14% B14. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B15. 0% 29% 29% 43% B15. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B16. 0% 14% 43% 43% B16. 0% 17% 33% 50%
B17. 0% 14% 43% 43% B17. 0% 17% 50% 33%
B18. 0% 29% 43% 29% B18. 17% 17% 33% 33%
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B19. 0% 0% 29% 71% B19. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B20. 0% 0% 43% 57% B20. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B21. 0% 0% 14% 86% B21. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B22. 43% 43% 0% 14% B22. 0% 83% 17% 0%
B23. 0% 43% 29% 29% B23. 0% 17% 67% 17%
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
9th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)4 10th4Grade4Response4Grid4(A=1,4B=2,4C=3,4D=4)
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
Personal
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
There$are$many$things$that$I$do$well.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
I$can$do$most$things$if$I$try.
I$can$work$with$someone$who$has$
different$opinions$than$mine.
I$know$where$to$go$for$help$with$a$
problem.
I$try$to$work$out$problems$by$talking$or$
writing$about$them.
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
I$can$work$out$my$problems.
Personal
I$have$goals$and$plans$for$the$future.
I$plan$to$graduate$from$high$school.
I$plan$to$go$to$college$or$some$other$
school$after$high$school.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
I$feel$bad$when$someone$gets$their$
feelings$hurt.
I$try$to$understand$what$other$people$
go$through.
When$I$need$help,$I$find$someone$to$
talk$with.
I$enjoy$working$together$with$other$
students$my$age.
I$stand$up$for$myself$without$putting$
others$down.
I$try$to$understand$how$other$people$
feel$and$think.
There$is$a$purpose$to$my$life.
I$understand$my$moods$and$feelings.
I$understand$why$I$do$what$I$do.
Friends:4I4have4a4friend4my4own4age...
who$really$cares$about$me.
who$helps$me$when$I'm$having$a$hard$
time.
get$into$a$lot$of$trouble.
try$to$do$what$is$right.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 89
Also, the cohort was equally split in reference to B32 and B33. In the home, some
students did not feel they made a difference, nor did they feel that they had a part in
making decisions with the family. The responses of Cohort 2014 in this domain
indicated an issue, albeit to a small degree, with the adults in the home (Table 6). The
responses for C2014 indicated that, although similar to C2015, there was a lesser degree
of interaction with the adults at home. There were more categories that indicated that
some students did not have someone to listen to something they had to say (B30). There
were more students that had fun things to do or fun outings with parents or other adults in
the home (B31).
Table 5
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Home Domain - C2015

B24. 0% 14% 43% 43% B24. 0% 33% 33% 33%
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B25. 0% 14% 14% 71% B25. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B26. 0% 14% 0% 86% B26. 0% 33% 33% 33%
B27. 0% 0% 14% 86% B27. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B28. 14% 29% 14% 43% B28. 17% 17% 17% 50%
B29. 0% 0% 14% 86% B29. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B30. 0% 29% 29% 43% B30. 17% 0% 33% 50%
B31. 0% 14% 0% 86% B31. 17% 50% 0% 33%
B32. 14% 29% 14% 43% B32. 17% 0% 50% 33%
B33. 14% 14% 43% 29% B33. 17% 17% 33% 33%
who$expects$me$to$follow$the$rules.
who$is$interested$in$my$school$work.
who$believes$that$I$will$be$a$success.
do$well$in$school. do$well$in$school.
who$expects$me$to$follow$the$rules.
At$home$I$do$things$that$make$a$
difference.
At$home$I$help$make$decisions$with$my$
family.
HOME:4In4my4home,4there4is4a4parent4or4some4
other4adult...
HOME:4In4my4home,4there4is4a4parent4or4some4
other4adult...
who$is$interested$in$my$school$work.
who$believes$that$I$will$be$a$success.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$always$wants$me$to$do$my$best.
who$listens$to$me$when$I$have$
something$to$say.
At$home$I$do$fun$things$or$go$fun$
places$with$my$parents$or$other$adults.
At$home$I$do$fun$things$or$go$fun$
places$with$my$parents$or$other$adults.
At$home$I$do$things$that$make$a$
difference.
At$home$I$help$make$decisions$with$my$
family.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$always$wants$me$to$do$my$best.
who$listens$to$me$when$I$have$
something$to$say.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 90
Table 6
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Home Domain- C2014 Discussion Theme 2

Discussion theme two. The two cohorts (C2014 and C2015) clearly indicated an
improvement in their behavior the more time they spent at Hoover. The increase in
school connectedness, the bonding with appropriate peers, and small group supports
and/or individual therapy, worked to improve their problem-solving skills. This was
evidenced by the reduction of suspensions and discipline referrals for defiance and
disruption. This was further supported by their interview responses and their survey
responses regarding knowing where to go for help, working with people who have
differing views, and self-advocacy without insulting others as referenced in the survey
questions. All of this, when examined through Bronfenbrenner’s lens, illustrates the
effect of proximal processes over a period of time. As students remained in the Freshman
Focus, and worked through the problem-solving curriculum, their incidents of negative
behaviors. It also reflects what the research from the CDC regarding consistent and
B24. 0% 14% 43% 43% B24. 0% 33% 33% 33%
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4Much4
True
Not4At4
All4True
A4Little4
True
Pretty4
Much4
True
Very4
Much4
True
B25. 0% 14% 14% 71% B25. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B26. 0% 14% 0% 86% B26. 0% 33% 33% 33%
B27. 0% 0% 14% 86% B27. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B28. 14% 29% 14% 43% B28. 17% 17% 17% 50%
B29. 0% 0% 14% 86% B29. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B30. 0% 29% 29% 43% B30. 17% 0% 33% 50%
B31. 0% 14% 0% 86% B31. 17% 50% 0% 33%
B32. 14% 29% 14% 43% B32. 17% 0% 50% 33%
B33. 14% 14% 43% 29% B33. 17% 17% 33% 33%
who$expects$me$to$follow$the$rules.
who$is$interested$in$my$school$work.
who$believes$that$I$will$be$a$success.
do$well$in$school. do$well$in$school.
who$expects$me$to$follow$the$rules.
At$home$I$do$things$that$make$a$
difference.
At$home$I$help$make$decisions$with$my$
family.
HOME:4In4my4home,4there4is4a4parent4or4some4
other4adult...
HOME:4In4my4home,4there4is4a4parent4or4some4
other4adult...
who$is$interested$in$my$school$work.
who$believes$that$I$will$be$a$success.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$always$wants$me$to$do$my$best.
who$listens$to$me$when$I$have$
something$to$say.
At$home$I$do$fun$things$or$go$fun$
places$with$my$parents$or$other$adults.
At$home$I$do$fun$things$or$go$fun$
places$with$my$parents$or$other$adults.
At$home$I$do$things$that$make$a$
difference.
At$home$I$help$make$decisions$with$my$
family.
who$talks$with$me$about$my$problems.
who$always$wants$me$to$do$my$best.
who$listens$to$me$when$I$have$
something$to$say.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 91
fairly enforced discipline, and its impact on student connectedness and behavior. Also
interesting to note is how their results are contrary to the other research on student
disengagement. Although all three cohorts were exhibiting signs of school
disengagement before beginning at Hoover, over time cohorts 2014 and 2015 reported,
and the data supports, that they became more engaged. The results for 2013, before the
program existed, were consistent with the existing research. They were less and less
engaged, had more suspensions, and had a high truancy rate. It would be interesting to
see what the responses and behavior will be when each cohort graduates from high
school. This suggests that meeting the students’ emotional needs served to improve their
problem-solving skills. It also suggests students can be explicitly taught these skills.
Further, the longer they were connected to an adult on campus, the less they misbehaved.
Theme three: Increased school involvement. Monahan et al. (2010), as well as
the CDC (2009), linked student engagement with physical and emotional wellbeing and
school success. CDC (2009) goes further to state where schools have high rates of
extracurricular participation, have raised school connectedness. There are two integral
parts to school involvement that emerged as a result of this study: student participation in
school activities and student attendance in school both are indicators of school
engagement (CDC, 2009; Monahan et al., 2010; Blum & Libbey, 2004; WDSC, 2003).
Students in both cohorts (C2014 and C2015) showed increases in their participation in
school activities and improved attendance.
Participation in school activities. At the school, there were nearly 40 student-run
clubs at the time of this study. Also, there are sports, art, broadcasting, school spirit
events, and multiple opportunities to volunteer in the community. Dr. F gave every
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 92
entering 9
th
grade student the message upon entering school that everyone must join an
activity, club, or group on campus. Students had multiple opportunities to join, and it
was part of the discussion in the guidance classes. The students in the freshman focus
cohorts received preferential scheduling to support their interests in things such as music,
football, art, and cheer. Part of the cumulative record study the year before a cohort
entered Hoover included looking at past interests and school-involvement from
kindergarten on. This intensive focus on participation appears to have had an impact.
Nearly all students across two cohorts, C2014 and C2015, indicated that they were
involved in school activities. This, however, was different for the C2013 cohort, for
which only one in the cohort student participated, inconsistently, in school activities.
Ms. N the counseling intern (C2014 and C2015), stated:
We get into that group (small groups in guidance class) and there’s constantly
kids going, ‘How do I join this? How do I join that?’ and there are kids in the first
semester (of 9
th
grade) that are interested in maybe like going to parties, drinking
after school, friends are much more of a focus…in the 9
th
grade they notice that
school can be fun if you take a vested interest in it, you actually do better. I see
kids trying out for cheer.
She shared the story of Debbie, who was described earlier, “There are a lot of kids who
start realizing, ‘Oh, school is actually the place I want to be.’” Ms. O referred to Darla
(C2014) who had been running away from home repeatedly. She would run away from
home on a Friday and by Monday, she would be on campus in her classes. She did this
several times, and each time she would be returned to her mother. She was bonded to the
school and to her choir teacher, counselor, administrator and principal. At the time of
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 93
this study, she was much improved both at home and in school with the therapy that the
school was able to arrange for the family.
Attendance. Students’ attendance at school was an indicator of their school
involvement. The attendance rates for the three cohorts were interesting. C2013 had a
14% unexcused absence rate in their freshman year. This is twice that of the 2014
cohort, which had a 7% unexcused absence rate in their freshman year, and 10% higher
than the unexcused absence rate for the freshmen (C2015). By their sophomore year,
C2013 made a small improvement to their unexcused absence rate, bringing it to 11%.
By their junior year, C2013 (with the exodus of the lowest performing students) had an
unexcused absence rate of 7%. In C2014’s sophomore year, the rate was 6%, which is a
very small improvement over their previous year. Consistent with the research, the
students in C2013 did not have a consistent positive connection with an adult on campus.
Ms. O made the following statement regarding C2014:
One way that we can see they are resilient is in that they come to school. You
know, all of them, I see them around. Even if they have attendance problems
and they’re ditching or something like that, they all come to school…You know
they are all going through things, but they keep coming to school.
When discussing attendance with students, they stated there was an improvement in their
attendance. When asked why, John (C2014) stated, “I want to improve in all my classes,
so I got to go to improve. I go on time, pick up everything the teacher says, so I can
improve in my classes because I want to graduate.” To that, almost all of the participants
in C2014 (5 of 6) nodded in agreement. When asked what created a change in the
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 94
ditching and tardies, (4 of 7) commented on the security guards shooing them to class,
the special attendance notices that go home, and the personal calls to the home to let the
parents know the same day of the truancy or tardy.
Discussion theme three. Monahan et al. (2010) found that students become
increasingly more disengaged from school over time beginning in elementary through to
high school. Klem & Connell (2004) add, “Researchers have found student engagement
a robust predictor of student achievement and behavior in school, regardless of
socioeconomic status.” Overall, the students have shown an improvement in their school
involvement. They are showing that they are more connected to school than in years
past. Once again, however, the chaos in C2013 was apparent in their unexcused absence
rates and in their lack of connectedness to school as evidenced by the number of students
disenrolled. It was also evident in the lack of participation in school activities as a
cohort. Being connected to school in a way that is non-academic appears to be crucial to
the success of students in class. Students in the 2014 and 2015 cohorts showed increases
in school extracurricular participation and improved school attendance as a result of
being in the Freshman Focus. This was not the case with the 2013 cohort, as the changes
in expectation for club/sport participation and attendance program were put into place
after the 9
th
grade year for the 2013 cohort. School climate for participation and an
intentional focus on attendance for all students improved student involvement in school
activities and bonded them to the campus beyond the classroom walls. The Hoover
principal’s expectation for every freshman to participate in school activities had a
positive impact on cohort students’ connectedness and resilience. This once again
indicates a departure from several studies on school connectedness.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 95
Theme four: Self-Efficacy/Goal Orientation. The fourth and final theme was
evident in all three of the cohorts. It was also present in faculty and parent perceptions.
Self-Efficacy and Goal Orientation show up in several ways. Two of which include
student plans past high school graduation, the belief in one’s abilities. Students who feel
a greater sense of self-efficacy perform better in school, and are oriented towards a goal
or goals. In addition, students’ school performance is a byproduct of their sense of self-
efficacy.
Plans beyond High School. Resilience survey responses for questions B1, B2,
B7, B9, and B16 (Tables 7 and 8) illustrate that, overwhelmingly, students plan to
graduate from high school. Twelve of the fourteen respondents intended to graduate
from high school (B2). The other two students indicated a reservation in their ability to
complete high school. Every student had plans for their lives after high school (B1-B3).
The students responded differently between the two cohorts when asked question B9.
The C2014 leaned more strongly towards feeling competent in many different things.
The C2015 was not as certain.
Table 7
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Abridged Personal Domain- C2014

Not$At$
All$True
A$Little$
True
Pretty$
Much$
True
Very$
Much$
True
B1. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B2. 0% 17% 0% 83%
B7. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B9. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B16. 0% 17% 33% 50%
Not$At$
All$True
A$Little$
True
Pretty$
Much$
True
Very$
Much$
True
B1. 0% 14% 29% 57%
B2. 0% 0% 0% 100%
B7. 0% 0% 43% 57%
B9. 0% 14% 86% 0%
B16. 0% 14% 43% 43%
Personal
I/have/goals/and/plans/for/the/future.
I/plan/to/graduate/from/high/school.
There/is/a/purpose/to/my/life.
I/can/do/most/things/if/I/try.
There/are/many/things/that/I/do/well.
I/can/do/most/things/if/I/try.
There/are/many/things/that/I/do/well.
Personal
I/have/goals/and/plans/for/the/future.
I/plan/to/graduate/from/high/school.
There/is/a/purpose/to/my/life.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 96
Table 8
California Healthy Kids Response Matrix: Abridged Personal Domain- C2015

Ms. O made the following statement in regards to students self-efficacy and goal
orientation, “I know that I have seen improvement because some of those students from
that class (C2014 two-semester guidance), I don’t, I haven’t called the parents, and they
haven’t been on the list because of low credits.”
In the interviews, nearly all students (10 of 13) felt they could pass their classes
and graduate from high school. One who was unsure, Celene (C2015), stated it depended
on whether or not she continued to do her homework. Once again, it was difficult to
measure C2013 in this domain because so many had already left the school due to lack of
credits and other issues.
Belief in one’s ability. Grades are an indication of Self-Efficacy. As described
earlier, the 11
th
grade Cohort of 2013 was difficult to generalize due to the attrition of
those students within the program. By 11
th
grade, 10 members of the original 25 students
had left the school site for several reasons including a move to continuation school,
moving out of district and, in one case, expulsion. The majority of the cohort failed their
Not$At$
All$True
A$Little$
True
Pretty$
Much$
True
Very$
Much$
True
B1. 0% 17% 17% 67%
B2. 0% 17% 0% 83%
B7. 0% 0% 33% 67%
B9. 0% 0% 50% 50%
B16. 0% 17% 33% 50%
Not$At$
All$True
A$Little$
True
Pretty$
Much$
True
Very$
Much$
True
B1. 0% 14% 29% 57%
B2. 0% 0% 0% 100%
B7. 0% 0% 43% 57%
B9. 0% 14% 86% 0%
B16. 0% 14% 43% 43%
Personal
I/have/goals/and/plans/for/the/future.
I/plan/to/graduate/from/high/school.
There/is/a/purpose/to/my/life.
I/can/do/most/things/if/I/try.
There/are/many/things/that/I/do/well.
I/can/do/most/things/if/I/try.
There/are/many/things/that/I/do/well.
Personal
I/have/goals/and/plans/for/the/future.
I/plan/to/graduate/from/high/school.
There/is/a/purpose/to/my/life.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 97
classes (60%) in their freshman year. It should be noted that, their freshman year, they
lost their assistant principal and counselors due to shifts in the district. The students also
had to deal with the suicide of a fellow classmate in October of the freshman year. By
sophomore year, their failure rate skyrocketed. They failed nearly all of their classes.
Their failure rate at the end of first semester was 92%. They failed an average of 79% of
their classes for the year. By the start of the 11
th
grade year, several of the lowest
achieving students within the cohort had transferred out of the school. The failure rate
has shown an improvement with 31% of the courses earning a grade of F, though the fact
that the students with the most risk had already left is a factor that should be taken into
account for the improvement.
Discussion theme four. The finding here is drawn from the economic concept of
leading and lagging indicators. Though students showed increased connectedness and
resilience in the previous themes, their grades did not show the marked improvement in
this theme. The leading indicators of success are connectedness and resilience. They
were also oriented towards school completion and college and careers. However, the
lagging indicators of success were their grades.
The 10
th
grade class of 2014 (C2014), seem to have done somewhat better than
C2013. Their grades have not shown much change over time. Their overall failure rate
for the freshman year was 50%. However, unlike C2013, this cohort did not show a
spike in failure rate for the sophomore year, with students in this cohort failing 49% at
the end of the first semester. This is a 43%difference from C2013. In fact, their failure
rate held within a percentage or two from 8
th
, 9
th
and 10
th
grade at each grading period.
This is surprising given the performance of the earlier cohort of students. The newest
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 98
group, C2015, was performing, at the time of this study, at much the same trend. It seems
to be that the students do well in the first five week progress report and then steadily
decline over time. Their failure rate, at completion of this study, was 37%. So,
considering the improved participation in extracurricular activities and improved
attendance rates for 2014 and 2015, this suggests the school participation focus and
requirement in 9
th
grade as well as the increased communication with students and
families regarding regular attendance, has had a positive impact on the students from the
2014 and 2015 cohorts.
Summary of Results
There are four significant findings which emerged from this study. First,
leadership’s intentional focus on helping students build positive relationships with caring
adults improves school connectedness for this population of multiple-risk students.
When the focus is also on high expectations and a warm touch, students’ connection to
the school increased. Second, the longer students remained in the freshman focus,
working in small support groups and bonding with positive peers, the stronger their
connection to school and the fewer incidents of suspensions and discipline referrals.
Third, a focus on participation in extracurricular activities and an intentional focus on
attendance, improved student bonding to school, and their attendance improved. Fourth,
and last, student goal orientation and self-efficacy improved when there was an
improvement in school connectedness as evidenced in the results. However, their grades
did not show the dramatic improvements as their connectedness and resilience did. Their
grades also did not continue to backslide in the case of 2014 and 2015.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 99
Chapter Five: Conclusions
Students drop out of high school through a gradual process of disengagement over
time. At each point of transition (elementary-to-middle, middle-to-high), students
stumble. Students with a comprehensive risk for dropping out are especially vulnerable,
and they fall further behind their peers, causing them to further disconnect from school.
Every effort needs to be made to identify those at risk early enough to make a positive
difference and reconnect them to the school, home, and community.
The purpose of this study was to determine if a high school with a focus on
supporting its high-risk freshmen had an impact on the school connectedness and
resilience of its students as evidenced by their perceptions, survey responses, and by
parent and staff interviews. The following is the research question: “Does a high school
with a freshman focus for multiple-risk students increase resiliency and school
connectedness for its students?” It was designed to explore what happens at the school
from the perspective of its multiple-need students, faculty, parents, and the dynamic
intersection of varied supports designed to increase their resilience and connectedness.
There were limitations that emerged over the course of the study. One is that the
researcher was unable to interview the students from C2013 who left the school to
understand their perceptions. Another limitation to the study is that the cohorts had
between one and three years left before graduation. This makes it difficult to say with
certainty that they would graduate on time.
Summary of Findings
Focus on school connectedness and fostering resilience in multiple need youth
matters. When both were present for this population of students, their behavior
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 100
improved, their attendance improved, their participation in school activities increased,
and their trajectory towards dropping out of high school went through a course correction
in a positive direction. There are four important findings that came as a result of this
study. The first and most significant finding is the importance of immediately working to
develop positive adult relationships with those students most at risk for dropping out.
The second is the need for schools to have a targeted school involvement practice to
encourage their highest-risk students to connect with the school. The third finding is the
importance of a conscious effort and practice of teaching a high-need population how to
problem-solve and the use of community-based organizations to meet their social-
emotional needs. The ability to problem-solve allows for greater sense of personal
control over situations that arise and calms the negative behaviors.
Positive adult relationships. The first finding revealed the importance of
immediately working to develop positive adult relationships with those students most at
risk for dropping out. An intentional focus on creating positive adult relationships with
the highest risk students showed a dramatic increase in student, staff, and parent
perceptions of school connectedness and bonding. Relationships are critical to the
success of the student with multiple needs when entering high school. This finding is
consistent with Hupfeld (2007), Balfanz (2011) and Monahan et al. (2010) each
separately found a critical component of building resilience and school connectedness is
for a student to have a positive relationship with a caring adult. Students need the
support of an adult in the form of time, attention, and emotional wellbeing in order to be
connected to school.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 101
Conflict resolution. The second finding reflects the need for schools to have a
targeted school involvement practice to encourage their highest-risk students to connect
with the school. High-risk students need to be taught how to appropriately advocate for
themselves and resolve conflicts as they arise. When students have difficulty solving
problems in socially appropriate ways, it leads to referrals and suspensions. When a
student receives referrals and suspensions from school, it is effectively pushing the
student out from the classroom and school. This exclusion, in turn, further disengages
them from the site and staff. That is not to say that a referral or suspension is not given
when appropriate. Students need to see that consequences arise out of poor behavior. It
is just to say that it needs to be carefully and fairly doled out with the focus being on
teaching the students to make better choices in the future, not to punish them. Similarly,
Hupfeld (2007) reported on the positive protective factor of problem solving on
increasing a student’s self-efficacy and resilience.
School involvement and attendance. The third finding demonstrated the
importance of a conscious effort and practice of teaching a high-need population how to
problem-solve and meet their social-emotional needs. Students need to be involved in
school activities because it creates bonding for students to their peers and to the school
site. Part of what feeds into this is the school culture. The study site’s climate is one of
support and family. This was distinctly different than with the prior school leadership.
Further, their attendance rates improve when they are involved in school. The National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (1997), determined the following factors
increase a student’s connection to school: adult support, belonging to a positive peer
group, commitment to education and school environment. Similarly, Balfanz, 2011
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 102
found students find themselves in positive peer groups when they begin to participate in
school activities, groups and clubs. Further, The Consortium on Chicago Schools (2007)
found that students who had poor attendance in the first 30 days of their freshman year,
were at an even greater risk for dropping out.
Grades. The fourth finding reflected a minor improvement in their pass rates.
This appeared to be the beginning of a shift in the trajectory towards school success.
Students that participated in the Freshman Focus did not have dramatic improvements in
their grades immediately into their participation in the Freshman Focus. When school
connectedness is lacking, grades suffer dramatically. Noteworthy is that where
connectedness existed, students did not exhibit increases in their failure rates. Similar
results were found by Donegan (2008) and Kennelly & Monrad (2007) which indicated
students that struggle in school, fall further behind at the transition to 9
th
grade.
Implications for School Leaders
There are three implications for school and district leaders. The first is in the
importance that needs to be placed on developing and nurturing positive adult
relationships with students. Faculty needs to be given supports in the form of staff
development, time to work with students, and development of systems that meet this end.
The second is the time and attention that needs to be given to extracurricular school
activities, especially with multiple-need students. It should be the expectation that all
students participate in school activities. Another aspect of the second implication is in
the focus on attendance. The final implication for school and district leaders is in the
need to ensure stability and consistency of the adults who work with the students with
highest risk.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 103
The first implication is that positive adult relationships are critical if the school
intends to improve the school connectedness of the students who are arriving already
disengaged, failing, and disruptive. Positive adult relationships are also of the utmost
importance in helping those students gain resilience that will not only take them to
graduation, but also support them later in life. Leaders need to keep this in mind when
making hiring decisions as well as decisions that will move a key person on campus
away from the site.
The second implication is for school leaders to give much time and attention to
creating varied opportunities for students to participate in school activities. It is also
important to create a school culture that sets the expectation every year for each incoming
group of students to become involved in something. A simple club rush at the start of the
school year is not enough. Populations which are marginalized on campus, including the
high-risk students, students receiving special education services, and new arrivals to the
country sitting in English-learner classes, need several opportunities to become involved
on campus.
The third implication is that high-risk students desperately need consistency over
time with positive adults on campus. Of utmost importance is for leaders to be cognizant
of the choices they make in hiring and placing faculty at school sites/or in certain
positions. Just as indicated in Bronfenbrenner’s framework, a person who spends an
extended period of time with a student or group of students will affect them. Whether
they are positively or negatively affected depends on the interactions over time. In
addition, destabilizing a program with staff movements mid-year is detrimental to the
performance of the students closest to the movement.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 104
Recommendations for Research
This study explored a school site that blends what works in school leadership with
some things that have worked in the field of educational psychology namely increasing
school connectedness and resilience as a framework for improving the academic
outcomes of multiple need students that served as the centerpiece of the study. The
findings that emerged illustrated that this approach helped students at one school site to
feel more connected to school, improve their attendance, decrease negative behavior
incidents, and work towards staying on track for on time graduation.
As a result of this study, several areas for possible future research emerged. It is
important to examine what happens when the students are identified earlier in the
educational pipeline. For example, identifying them before or at the transition from
elementary school into middle school and applying the focus on connectedness and
resilience practices in an effort to improve their outcomes early on before they build their
patterns of disengagement. Future research also needs to look into how high schools
with a freshman focus perform with graduating their students as this study did not focus
on the graduation rates of the Freshman Focus participants. The students in this study are
in the earlier half of their high school careers. It would be important to learn how these
students manage the transition to college and career. Do students carry forward the
strategies and success in the senior year of high school and the first year of college?
Another possibile line of inquiry lies in the expansion of the program across a school
district where the system of middle school to high school articulation is systematic.
There would also need to be a focused analysis into the costs in the form of time, money,
resources and people should be done to inform the practice of educational leaders at
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 105
schools and districts. Ultimately, the focus of study should remain in the area of
practices that can be replicated at other school sites with the aim of improving student
outcomes.
Students with multiple needs are fragile when they come through our school
doors. We need to make every possible effort to personalize the experience as much as
possible for them. Their needs are vast, and learning in the classroom needs to be only
one of the foci to ensure their success. All schools need to target the socio-emotional
needs of the students with whom they are entrusted. To do otherwise will result in the
continued failure of a vast number of our country’s children.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 106
References
Allensworth, E. M. and Easton, J. Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and
graduating in Chicago public high schools: A close look at course grades, failures,
and attendance in the freshman year. Consortium on Chicago school research at
the University of Chicago.
American School Health Association (2004). Wingspread Declaration on School
Connections. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 233-234.
Balfanz, R. (2011). Back on track to graduate. Educational Leadership, 68(7), 54-58.
Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and
keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early
identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223–
235.
Barber, B. K., & Schluterman, J. M. (2008). Connectedness in the lives of children and
adolescents: A call for greater conceptual clarity. Journal of Adolescent Heatlh,
43, 209-216.
Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). Executive Summary. Journal of School Health,
74(7), 231-232.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007).
Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late
teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 40, 357.e9-357.e18.
Bronfenbrenner’s Model. (1979). [Figure illustration Based on The Ecology of Human
Development]. ATOD Prevention Planning Tutorial. Virginia Department of
Health and Developmental Services. Retrieved from
http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/OSAS-ATODTutorial.htm.
Bronfenbrenner, U. and Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human
development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development.
Handbook of child psychology (793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
California Department of Education (2007). Healthy Start Fact Sheet. Retrieved
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/hs/facts.asp.
Campbell-Allen, R., Pena, M., Sullendar R., Shah, A, and Zazove, R. (2009). Full-
Service Schools: Policy Review and Recommendations. Wiki Project, GSE A100
- Introduction to Educational Policy, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Cassen, R., Feinstein, L., & Graham, P. (2008). Educational outcomes: Adversity and
resilience. Social Policy & Society, 8(1), 73-85.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 107
Catterall, J. S. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American
Journal of Education, 106(2), 302-333.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School Connectedness: Strategies
for Increasing Protective Factors Among Youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Making the shift: Schools
meet society's needs. In Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will
change the way the world learns. (pp. 43-70). New York, New York/USA:
McGraw-Hill.

Cove, E., Eiseman, M., & Popkin, S. (2005). Resilient children: Literature review and
evidence from the HOPE VI panel study. The Urban Institute Metropolitan
Housing and Communities.
Cowen, E., Wyman, P., & Work, W. (1996). Resilience in highly stressed urban children:
Concepts and Findings. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 73(2),
267-282.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Qualitative Procedures. In Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). (pp. 173-202). Thousand
Oaks, CA/USA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Donegan, B. (2008). The linchpin year. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 54-57.
Dryfoos, J.G. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for
children, youth and families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dryfoos, J.G. (2008). Centers of hope: Full-service community schools can improve the
lives of children in poverty. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 38-43.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B.
(2011, January). The impact of enhancing students' social emotional learning: A
meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. CASEL
Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout
Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
Edvance Research, Inc. (2010). Lagging and Leading Indicator Master Summary
Document. Statewide Tools for Teaching Excellence.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 108
Evans, G.W. & Schamberg, M. A. (2009). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult
working memory. Departments of Design and Environmental Analysis and
Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Fergus, S. & Zimmerman, M. (2005). Adolescent Resilience: A framework for
understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Department of health
Behavior and Health education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan.
Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout Risk Factors and
Exemplary Programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center,
Communities In Schools, Inc.
Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School disengagement as a
predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence
and early adulthood. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 41, 156-166.
Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). What Americans want from public schools. In
The American dream and the public schools. (pp. 9-27). New York, New
York/USA: Oxford University Press.
Hupfeld, K. (2007). A review of the literature: Resiliency skills and dropout prevention.
ScholarCentric. Denver, CO.
Jerald, C. D. (2006). Identifying potential dropouts: Key lessons for building an early
warning data system. A dual agenda of high standards and high graduation rates.
Achieve, Inc. American Diploma Project Network.
Kennelly, L., & Monrad, M. (2007). Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early
warning signs with appropriate interventions. Bettering High Schools.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to
student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Knapp, M. S. (1995). How shall we study comprehensive, collaborative services for
children and families?. Educational Researcher, 24(4), 5-16. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176292
Knight, C. (2007) A resilience framework: perspectives for educators. Health Education.
107(6), 543-555.
Larson, K. A. (1989). Task-related and interpersonal problem-solving training for
increasing school success in high-risk young adolescents. Remedial and Special
Education, 10(5), 32–42.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 109
Larson, K. A., & Rumberger, R. W. (1995). ALAS: Achievement for Latinos through
Academic Success. In H. Thornton (Ed.), Staying in school. A technical report of
three dropout prevention projects for junior high school students with learning
and emotional disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute
on Community Integration.
Levin, H. M. (2005). The social costs of inadequate education. Columbia University
Teachers College. Retrieved April 2010,
http://69.36.170.133/resource_center/research/2005symposium.pdf
Loukas, A., Ripperger-Suhler, K. G., & Horton, K. D. (2009). Examining temporal
associations between school connectedness and early adolescent adjustment.
Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 804-812.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2007). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.
Meara, Ellen, and Richards, Seth. (2008). The Gap Gets Bigger: Changes in Mortality
and Life Expectancy by Education, 1981-2000. Health Affairs, 27(2), 350-360.
Princiotta, D. & Reyna, R. (2009). Achieving graduation for all: A governor’s guide to
dropout prevention and recovery. National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices.
Report (2009). Left behind in America: The nation’s dropout crisis. A report by the
center for labor market studies at Northeastern University in Boston and the
Alternative schools network in Chicago
Richardson, G. (2002). The Metatheory of Resilience and Resiliency 2002. University of
Utah.
Roffey, S. (2012). Developing positive relationships in schools. In Positive relationships:
Evidence based practice across the world. (pp. 145-162). London, UK: Springer
Science.
Rowe, F., Stewart, D., & Patterson, C. (2007). Promoting school connectedness through
whole school approaches. Health Education, 107(6), 524-542.
Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of
high school dropout. American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35.
Rumberger, R. and Arellano, B. (2007). Student and School Predictors of High School
Graduation in California. California Dropout Research Project.
Rumberger, R. W. (2009). What the federal government can do to improve high school
performance. Center on Education Policy, Washington, D.C., Project on
Rethinking the Federal Role in Education.
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 110
Sanders, M.G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and
community partnership programs. Johns Hopkins University. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(1).
Schaps, E. (2005). The role of supportive school environments in promoting academic
success. Getting Results: Developing Safe and Healthy Kids Update 5: Student
Health, Supportive Schools and Academic Success. Ch. 3. Safe and Healthy Kids
Program Office. California Department of Education.
Social Sector Office (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s
schools. McKinsey & Company.
Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., McLaughlin, J., & Palma, S. (2009). The consequences of
dropping out of high school. Center for Labor Market Studies.
WestEd (2004). Resilience: A universal capacity. WestEd. Retrieved August 2011, from
http://wested.org

Bronfenbrenner’s Model. (1979). [Figure illustration Based on The Ecology of Human
Development]. ATOD Prevention Planning Tutorial. Virginia Department of
Health and Developmental Services. Retrieved from
http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/OSAS-ATODTutorial.htm.

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 111
Appendix A
Comprehensive Longitudinal Record Study

Look For:
Directions: Go through the CUM and read item by item. Look for the items on the
left and make notes in the corresponding boxes. (NOTE PATTERNS, HISTORY,
TEACHER COMMENTS)
ELL Y/N
Date
ID'd
Total
Years
Yr.
Reclassified
3 Years CELDT
Overall Scores
Gro
wth?
Y/N
GATE Y/N
Date
ID'd
Reason for
GATE
GATE NOTES

IILP Y/N
Date
ID'd
Reason for
IILP
Interventions Received and Comments

IEP Y/N
Date
ID'd
Reason for IEP Exited from IEP?
Relevant
Notes/Comments

Attendance
Pre-SARB SARB Tardies Attendance History Notes

Behavior
Suspensions Referrals Relevant Report Card Comments

Achievement
Overall
Grades
CST ELA CST Math
Consistent? Decline? When
did decline begin?

Teacher
Notes

Interests
Other Notes
(SST's,
Parent
Mtgs…etc.)

Developed by Tanya V. Stoddard, 2010

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 112
Appendix B
Interview Questions for Students
# Question Purpose
1. What type of student were you before starting at
Hoover High School?
Opening Historical Context
2a. How involved where you on campus in
elementary and middle school?
School Connectedness
2b. How has your level of school involvement
increased or decreased since the start of the
school year?
School Connectedness
3a. What was your attendance like in elementary
and middle school?
School Connectedness
3b. Since the beginning of the school year, what
changes have you noticed, if any, in your
attendance?
School Connectedness
4. How would you describe your relationship with
your school counselor? Counseling Intern?
School Connectedness
5a. How would you describe your relationship with
your teachers in elementary and middle school?
School Connectedness
5b. How would you describe your relationship with
your teachers this semester in comparison to
years past?
School Connectedness
6a. What kind of student have you been in
elementary and middle school?
School Connectedness
6b. What kind of student have you been this
semester?
School Connectedness/Resilience
7a. When you were in elementary and middle
school and you did not complete your
homework, what happened?
School Connectedness/Resilience
7b. When you did not complete your homework this
semester, what happened?
School Connectedness/Resilience
8a. In elementary and middle school, how did you
feel about the adults on campus?
School Connectedness/Resilience
SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 113
8b. How have the adults on campus made you feel
this semester?
School Connectedness/Resilience
9a. When you had conflict with an adult or another
student in elementary and middle school, what
happened?
School Connectedness/Resilience
9b. What have you done when you have had a
conflict with an adult or student on campus this
semester?
School Connectedness/Resilience
10a. If I were to ask adults and students who knew
you in elementary and middle school, what do
you think would be their opinion of you?
School Connectedness/Resilience
10b. What do adults and other students on this
campus think of you as a student? A person?
School Connectedness/Resilience
11. Are you involved in any clubs or sports on
campus?
School Connectedness
12. Do you believe you can pass your classes,
graduate and move on to college or career?
School Connectedness/Resilience
13. How did the guidance class help you with your
feelings about staying in school and improving?
School Connectedness/Resilience
14. What are your feelings toward teachers and
administration today?
School Connectedness
15. Where do you see yourself in 1 year? 5 years?
10 years?
School Connectedness/Resilience

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 114
Appendix C
Parent/Guardian of Students Questions

# Question Purpose
1. What has your experience been with your child
in school?
Opening Historical Question
2. What has been your own experience in school? Parent Background
3. How would you describe your child as a
student?
Looking for answers that may relate to
Connectedness and Resilience
4. How would you describe your child’s ability to
resolve conflict?
Resilience
5. When faced with adversity, how does your child
respond?
Resilience
6. What clubs, sports, groups did your child
participate in during elementary and middle
school?
School Connectedness
7. How would you describe your child’s friends? School Connectedness
8. Where do you see your child in 1 year? 5
years? 10 years?
Resilience/ School Connectedness

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 115
Appendix D
Faculty Focus Group Questions
# Question Purpose
1. This school has had freshman intervention programs over the
years, what were they?
Background
a What was beneficial? Background
b. Were they effective? Background
c. What about them was or was not effective? Background
2. HHS now has the Freshman Focus, what are you finding, if
anything in relation to students participating in the program?
Current Implementation
a. What works? Current Implementation
b. What doesn’t? Why not? Current Implementation
c. Do you believe the program is systemic? How so? Current Implementation
d. What is missing? Current Implementation
3. What evidence, if any, do you have of students increased
resilience? (Work completion, attendance, grades, behavior)
Resilience
4. What evidence, if any, do you have of students increased school
connectedness? (Work completion, attendance, grades,
behavior)
School Connectedness
5. Have you noticed a need to change or modify your own
program based on the incoming classes? (Year 1 and Year 2)
Personal perception of the Impact
of the program
6. Have you noticed any changes in the school climate/ school
pride as it relates to the students of the last three years?
School Climate/Connectedness

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 116
Appendix E
Student Survey of Resilience

SHIFTING THE TRAJECTORY 117

A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
A B C D
!"Module B !
My friends ...
Not At All
True
A Little
True
Pretty Much
True
Very Much
True
B22. get into a lot of trouble.
B23. try to do what is right.
B24. do well in school.
How true are these statements about your HOME or the ADULTS WITH
WHOM YOU LIVE?
In my home, there is a parent or some other adult ...
Not At All
True
A Little
True
Pretty Much
True
Very Much
True
B25. who expects me to follow the rules.
B26. who is interested in my school work.
B27. who believes that I will be a success.
B28. who talks with me about my problems.
B29. who always wants me to do my best.
B30. who listens to me when I have something to say.
At home ...
Not At All
True
A Little
True
Pretty Much
True
Very Much
True
B31. I do fun things or go fun places with my parents or
other adults.
B32. I do things that make a difference.
B33. I help make decisions with my family.
healthy kids
CA L I F O R N I A SUR VE Y
High School Questionnaire
Supplemental Resilience and Youth Development Module
~ 2 ~
California Healthy Kids Survey ©2010 CA Dept. of Ed.
Version H13 – Fall 2010-Spring 2011

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Student, parent and staff perceptions were analyzed along with student responses to a resilience survey and a collection of student records in an effort to describe the phenomenon of improved school connectedness and resilience over time for students at comprehensive risk for high school dropout. The result of the study found when school leadership focuses on fostering school connectedness and resilience in their high risk youth, students become more connected and resilient. This was evidenced by improvements in attendance, behavior, and extracurricular participation. This also stabilized, and in some cases improved, the course pass rates for this population of highrisk students with a history of course failure.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

PDF

The beauty of resilience: an examination of how continuation high school students overcome daily adversities

PDF

Measurement of school connectedness (MOSC): modified connectedness questionnaire for secondary schools.

PDF

The impact of Upward bound on first generation college students in the freshman year of college

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

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

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

PDF

Four year college access for undocumented Latino students

PDF

Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools

PDF

Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

The impact of Algebra for all

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

Educational factors in relationship to overall and lifelong wellbeing

PDF

Effective leadership practices of principals of low socioeconomic status high schools consisting of predominantly African-American and Latino students showing sustained academic improvement

PDF

Teachers in continuation high schools: attributes of new teachers and veteran teachers in urban continuation high schools

PDF

Cultivating effective and resilient urban principals: empowering school leaders to create enduring success in the inner city

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Stoddard, Tanya V. (author)

Core Title Ninth grade freshman focus: shifting the trajectory for multiple need students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/16/2013

Defense Date 12/06/2012

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

Tag comprehensive-risk,dropout,early warning systems,high-risk,multiple-need,OAI-PMH Harvest,protective factors,resilience,school connectedness

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member)

Creator Email theartofeducation@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-126182

Unique identifier UC11290521

Identifier usctheses-c3-126182 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-StoddardTa-1394.pdf

Dmrecord 126182

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Stoddard, Tanya V.

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