University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

(USC Thesis Other)

Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

INCREASING LATINO ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION: A SUBURBAN
DISTRICT’S DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

by

Erik Elward

_______________________________________________________________

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 2011

Copyright 2011 Erik Elward

ii
DEDICATION
Beginning and completing a doctoral program would not have been possible
without Anne, my amazing and supportive wife. While I spent innumerable hours
taking classes and writing this dissertation, she cared for and raised our two young
children, Luke and Kate. This dissertation is wholly dedicated to Anne. I love you.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, my dissertation chair, for working with me
through the dissertation process and serving as my unofficial mentor. Your daily
dedication to the service of others, equity, and what is right are qualities that I
respect and work to embody in the world of education and in my private life. Thank
you for the motivation.
I want to acknowledge my fellow students and professors at the USC Rossier
School of Education. You provided me with the persistence to continue through the
doctoral program especially during the dissertation process. You challenged me and
forced me to reflect on and improve my practice. Thank you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. …ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………… …iii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. …v
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….. …vii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………... …viii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study………………………………………... …1
Chapter Two: Literature Review……………………………………………. …13
Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………… …38
Chapter Four: Findings…………………………………………………………46
Chapter Five: Conclusions………………………………………………….. …82
References……………………………………………………………………… …90
Appendices
Appendix A: Cover Letter and Informed Consent Form for………... …98
Interview Participants
Appendix B: Email to Subjects Requesting Participation in………. …102
the Study
Appendix C: Interview Protocol…………………………………… …103

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Bachelor’s Degree Completion by Ethnicity……………………... …3
Table 2.1. Educational Attainment vs. Annual Median Income (2008)……. …17
Table 2.2. Market Failure: Latino Preschooling Inequalities + Latino…….. …21
Schooling Inequalities = Latino Education Inequalities
Table 2.3. 2007: California’s 80 Assembly Districts – Geographic………... …26
Differences in Educational Opportunity
Table 3.1. CVUSD - District Enrollment by Ethnicity (1999-2010)……….. …40
Table 3.2. Ethnicity: Enrollment and School Performance (2009-2010)………41
Table 3.3. 12th Grade Graduates Completing all courses Required for……..…42
UC and/or CSU Entrance (2008-2009)
Table 3.4. Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis………………... …44
Table 4.1. CVUSD: Four Comprehensive High Schools - % Ds and Fs…… …52
by ELs and EOs
Table 4.2. CVUSD: Four Comprehensive High Schools – Latino and…….. …53
EL Percentage of Student Population by School
Table 4.3. 2010 Latino and EL Student Population and Intervention………. …58
Program by School
Table 4.4. Subgroup API – 5 years: White and Latino Student Population……61
by CVUSD High School
Table 4.5. 5 Year CAHSEE Pass Rate Percentages by District…………….. …62
Table 4.6. 5 Year SAT Participation Rates by School……………………… …63
Table 4.7. 12th Grade Latino Enrollment by School……………………….. …63
Table 4.8. 2000-2009: 12th Grade Graduates Completing all ‘A-G’………..…64
Courses for UC and/or CSU Entrance by District (Graduates
completing A-G/Total Graduates by Ethnicity)

vi
Table 4.9. 2000-2009: 12th Grade Graduates Completing all A-G………… …65
Courses for UC and/or CSU Entrance by School (Graduates
completing A-G/Total Graduates by Ethnicity)
Table 4.10. 2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students………………….…66
Table 4.11. 2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………. …67
Table 4.12. 2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students………………….…68
Table 4.13. 2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………. …68
Table 4.14. 2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students………………….…70
Table 4.15. 2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………. …70
Table 4.16. 2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students………………….…72
Table 4.17. 2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………. …72
Table 4.18. 2010 MATH CST: Grade 9 Latino Students……………………..…74
Table 4.19. 2010 MATH CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………….. …74
Table 4.20. 2009 MATH CST: Grade 9 Latino Students……………………. …76
Table 4.21. 2009 MATH CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………….. …76
Table 4.22. 2008 MATH CST: Grade 9 Latino Students……………………. …78
Table 4.23. 2008 MATH CST: Grade 9 White Students…………………….. …78

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Income by Education Attainment……………………………….... …6
Figure 2.1. Educational Attainment and Median Household Income……….. …19
in U.S. (2004)
Figure 2.2. Increase in Life Expectancy, and Increase in Difference in…….. …20
Life Expectancy by Economic Status

viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine how Coastal View Unified School
District, a high-performing suburban district, planned and implemented a strategy for
closing the achievement gap between its White student population and its increasing
Latino student population. This dissertation focused on the gap in college eligibility
and how the district was increasing Latino access to higher education within their
four comprehensive high schools. Improving Latino college matriculation is
becoming increasingly important as the Latino population grows nationwide. This
dissertation was meant to identify district practices and programs leading to
improved Latino access to higher education. The research highlighted CVUSD does
not have a comprehensive district strategy. The data also showed CVUSD has not
increased Latino college matriculation rates and, in fact, the achievement gap
between Latino and White students has further increased.
This dissertation has four main recommendations for unified school district
leaders regarding Latino access to higher education: (a) mandate matriculation
between district middle schools and high schools in areas of curriculum; (b) make
district and school information easily accessible in Spanish for Latino families; (c)
mandate programs across all high schools focusing on increasing Latino student
achievement; (d) research practices of other unified school districts in improving
Latino achievement; (e) increase strategy sharing in the district between school
principals and faculty.

ix
This study has four additional recommendations for school-site leaders within
unified school districts: (a) increase Latino parent participation; (b) increase college
information to Latino parents; (c) define college-readiness and provide teacher
training; (d) define college-readiness and provide teacher training.
The above recommendations will serve to improve district practice in
increasing Latino access to higher education.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Closing the achievement gap is one of the most persistent challenges
in American society today.

- William Cox, executive managing director of
Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Services (2005)

Introduction
Latinos are the fastest growing population segment in California. Currently,
approximately 37% of the California population is Latino with the ratio increasing to
50% of the California population by 2042 (Rogers, 2009). In California schools,
Latinos make up 49% of the Grade K-12 student population. The percentage of
Latino students has risen from 37% in 1985.
On a national level, the Latino population is growing exponentially. In a
2008 U.S. Census Bureau study, Latinos make up 15% of the U.S. population. That
percentage will increase by 100% to 30% of the U.S. population in 2050. In relation,
the majority Non-Latino white population will decrease 30%; from 66% in 2008 to
46% in 2050. By contrast, there are approximately eight Latino births for every
Latino death in the U.S., 8:1 ratio. The Non-Latino white population birth to death
ratio is 1:1 (Cisneros, 2009).
Background of the Problem
While the Latino population on a national and state level is increasing
rapidly, the academic achievement of Latinos has not increased in step. On several
levels, there exists a Latino “Achievement Gap.” Achievement gap is defined as the

2
discrepancy in student achievement due to factors of ethnicity, language fluency, and
socioeconomic status. Inequalities hamper equal education for the underclass and
produce an achievement gap with children of the wealthy. The disparities in
education quality are revealed in criterion-referenced state standardized exams, high
school graduation rates, and admission ratios to universities in addition to other
academic performance markers.
Low percentages of Latino matriculation to four-year colleges and
universities has been the outcome of several conditions including: high rate of drop-
outs in high school; low Latino college eligibility; failure to identify financial aid for
college/university (Lee, 2005). The March 1993 Current Population Survey (CPS)
found that among three million Latinos aged 18 to 24, only 28% had received some
college education. The population percentage has not increased in 10 years. In
March 2003, the CPS found the Latino aged 18 to 24 population had increased to 4.9
million but still only 28% had taken some college courses (CPS, 2003).
From 1975 to 2005, the percentage of white students “completing college
increased from 24% to 34%.” Latino college completion rates only increased from
9% to 11% during the same time period (Gandara, 2009).

3
Table 1.1.
Bachelor’s Degree Completion by Ethnicity
Ethnicity 1975 1985 1995 2005 2008
White 24% 24% 29% 34% 37%
Black 11% 12% 15% 18% 21%
Latino 9% 11% 9% 11% 12%
* The figures represent the percentage of 25- to 29-year olds in the U.S. who completed a bachelor’s
degree or higher
** Source: Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Study Supplement, 1971-
2005, November 2005, and American Community Survey 2008, by U.S. Census Bureau, Washington
D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Educational disparities persist:
• The high school dropout rate for Latinos is double that for white students
(27% versus 13%).
• In California, Latino students scored on average 33 points lower than
white students on the NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics Exam in 2009. In
1990, Latino students scored 34 points lower than white students on the
same exam.
• Latino students scored on average 28 points lower than white students on
the 2009 NAEP Grade 8 Reading Exam in California. In 1990, Latino
students scored 30 points lower than white students on the same exam.
Due to the increasing Latino population and the low academic achievement
attached to this population subgroup, there exists a clear and present risk to
economic and civic growth in California and subsequently the U.S.. A report,
Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s schools, states that “existing

4
gaps in achievement impose the economic equivalent of a permanent national
recession – one substantially larger than the deep recession the country is currently
experiencing” (McKinsey & Company, 2009).
Increasing high school graduated Latinos would vastly improve economic
growth in California. According to a report by the California Dropout Research
Project, an average high school graduate earns $290,000 more over a lifetime than a
high school dropout and pays $100,000 more in federal, state, and local taxes
(Belfield & Levin, 2007). The cost savings by reducing the California dropout rate
of 30% would equate to $1.9 billion and civic gains of $13.9 billion. As it is, on a
state level, the annual dropouts of 120,000 account for a $46.4 billion economic loss
(Belfield & Levin, 2007). In order to improve economic fortunes of California and
Latinos, income inequality needs to be lessened.
On a national level, income inequality is at its highest levels in 80 years.
Assisting such a variation in wealth is the estimation that during the 1980’s, more
than 70% of all income growth in the United States went to the wealthiest 1%
(Krugman, 1992). The rich are getting richer and, in comparison, the poor are
getting poorer. In a study conducted by the Pew Research Center measuring the
wealth of Latino households from 1996 to 2002, Latino households account for less
than 1/10
th
the wealth of white households (Kochhar, 2004). Further statistics show
61% of Latino children live in low-income families (Golin, 2009). As sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu surmised, wealth determines greater social capital. With greater
social capital, available resources such as educational opportunities are increased and

5
are of higher quality. With decreasing social capital, resources become scarcer and
are of lower quality. Wealth allows a greater social organization such as “networks,
norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”
(Putnam, 1995).
The social capital of the wealthy therefore becomes exclusionary to outsiders,
non-wealthy, as only their social networks benefit and the cycle of wealth continues
and accumulates. As Dika and Singh state in their 2002 study, “this group
membership provides members with the backing of the collectively owned capital.”
According to Jared Bernstein, former deputy chief economist at the U.S.
Department of Labor, educational inequality is a reason why income is distributed
lopsidedly. Socioeconomic class inequalities are then “reproduced” in successive
generations due to the scarcity of social capital (Bilton, 1996).
A further example of future inequities lies in Latino access to prospective
jobs. “About 80% of the fastest growing jobs require postsecondary education, yet
only 10% of [Latino] Americans have a college degree. In other words, a college
education is more important than ever, and far too few [Latino] Americans have
one,” stated U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings on November 15, 2005, at
the 30
th
anniversary of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund.

6
Figure 1.1.
Income by Education Attainment

… From 1973 to 2005… real hourly wages of those in the 90
th

percentile – where most people have college or advanced degrees –
rose by 30% or more… among this top 10%, the growth was heavily
concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1%. This
includes the people who earn the very highest salaries in the U.S.
economy, like sports and entertainment stars, investment bankers and
venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the
50
th
percentile and below – where many people have at most a high
school diploma – real wages rose by only 5 to 10%.

- Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco, November 6, 2006.

Because the U.S. economy operates on free-market principles at a global
level, it is not possible to redistribute wealth and reduce income inequality by
controlling markets. It falls upon public education to dissolve educational inequality
and consequently income inequality.

7
Statement of the Problem
As the Latino student achievement gap persists in relation to wealthy white
and Asian students, so does the inability of Latinos to access higher education in
proportion to their population. College graduation is key to individual wealth and
social capital. There is a need to identify programs and school district practices
critical for Latino secondary students to access higher education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine Coastal View Unified School
District’s approach to closing their present Latino achievement gap. The goal is to
observe replicable programs and practices leading to improved Latino access to
higher education. Contributing factors increasing Latino student performance will
involve: district-level and school-site level leadership; teaching pedagogy; funding
streams; parent/community engagement.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding the study are:
1. What is the district’s strategic plan for increasing Latino student
achievement and Latino access to higher education?
2. How is the district’s plan for increasing Latino student achievement being
successfully implemented by school leadership and teachers at the site
level?
3. What success measures has the district defined for the Latino student
population?

8
Significance of the Study
The Latino student population is a rapidly increasing demographic within the
mostly white suburban schools of Coastal View Unified School District (CVUSD) -
as it is across California. Even though CVUSD is located in one of the wealthiest
U.S. cities, there exists a large disparity in educational outcomes between Latino and
non-minority students. Student achievement data within CVUSD proves, for
example, Latino high school students have shown little to no improvement. This
underperformance is manifested in lower college access, lower lifetime earning
potential and a greater inequality in health care, among others.
This case study has importance for similar suburban school districts in
California and the U.S. facing the same educational disparities between its Latino
and non-minority student populations as well as its increasing Latino population.
School district leaders such as superintendents and school board members may
identify replicable intervention practices to improve Latino student achievement. In
addition, the case study might provide actionable data to school site leaders such as
principals and assistant principals to produce systemic and instructional strategies
positively impacting Latino achievement. In short, this study may serve as a design
in terms of what to do to affect Latino achievement.
Teacher and school administrator education programs may also profit from
the study. Rather than simply focusing on theoretical methods to improve Latino
academic achievement, the study can balance and bridge theory with real school

9
practices. This sharing has the potential to better the educational outcomes of Latino
students and, as an ancillary, increase economic growth in California and the U.S.
Limitations of the Study
The following factors limit this study:
1. The case study was limited to one suburban unified school district out of
330 unified school districts in California- rural, urban and suburban.
2. Data collection occurred over a short time frame and was not collected
from a longitudinal study.
3. Inherent bias in not using a representative sampling of all suburban
school districts in California.
4. The number of conducted interviews was limited due to time factor.
Delimitations of the Study
The research was conducted within the following parameters:
1. The case study focuses on one suburban unified school district out of 330
unified school districts in California- rural, urban, and suburban.
2. Only secondary schools within CVUSD were employed for this study
further limiting the sample size of data.
3. The sample is limited to Latino secondary student achievement data.

10
Definitions
Access. A high school student gaining college admittance.
Achievement Gap. Disparity in student academic performance due to factors
of ethnicity, English language fluency, geographic location, and/or socioeconomic
status.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Measure used by the federal government
to determine the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on state
standardized tests. The federal government uses AYP to measure schools, districts,
and states progress on improving all student proficiency.
Advanced Placement (AP). College level courses students can take in high
school. AP courses can be within English Language Arts, mathematics, foreign
language, science and other content areas. If students receive a passing score on the
AP exam (3, 4 or 5 score), college course credit can be awarded.
California Standards Tests (CST). The standardized test is used by
California to assess students on the state’s academic content standards. Student in
Grades 2 – 11 take the exam to assess student content knowledge in English
Language Arts and mathematics. Certain grade levels also take the science and
social science tests. Student scores are placed within five levels of content
understanding: Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic and Far Below Basic.
According to the federal AYP goal, all students should score Advanced or Proficient
by 2014.
Chicano. An American of Mexican ancestry.

11
Criterion-referenced test. Measures student performance to content
standards. Performance is focused on mastery of skills and knowledge. Opposite of
a norm-referenced test which compares performance between students.
English Language Learner (EL). Students are designated as EL if their home
language is not English.
Latino. “A term used to describe people of Latin descent. This includes
Hispanic, Chicano, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican, other
Spanish-speaking countries in Central and South America, or others who identify
themselves as Hispanic, such as Brazilians” (Hernandez, 2005, pp. 10-11).
NAEP. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a national
exam given to students in grades 4, 8, and 12 within mathematics, science, reading,
writing and additional subjects. Smaller sample tests are given to ages 9, 13, and 17
as well. The goal is to measure educational performance on a national level within
student demographics (e.g. gender, ethnicity/race).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Federal legislation reauthorizing the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Mandates all schools move
student proficiency in course content standards to 100% in 2014.
Secondary. Students attending school in grades 6 – 12.
Social Capital. Social connections between persons or groups of people.
These relationships can serve to improve the economic and social status of
individuals or groups.

12
Suburban. A residential area outside of an urban city center. For this study,
suburban areas are characterized as having a low minority population with high
socioeconomic status.

13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Each child in the United States has the right to receive an equal education
(Brown v. the Board of Education, 1954). A persisting barrier to equal education is
the disparity between poor, minorities and wealthy, non-minorities. Economic and
social disparities in income, health care, and education serve to produce persisting
inequalities. A researched remedy for persistent disparities is graduating from
college (Lin & Harris, 2009). Research has consistently shown college completion
can serve as a proxy to eliminate stated economic and social disparities and produce
similar rates of opportunity as those from wealthier backgrounds (Williams &
Collins, 2001). As Horace Mann, an early education reformer, argued, “Education is
the great equalizer of the conditions of man, the balance wheel of the social
machinery” in his report to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1848 as
Massachusetts Secretary of Education. Earning a college degree can improve an
individual’s economic and quality of life prospects.
Within education there exists a persistent disparity or “gap” between college
graduation rates of Latino and non-Latino students. This achievement gap is a
growing social problem due to the United States population becoming increasingly
Latino.
This chapter centers on five main areas of study analyzing the academic
achievement gap between Latino students and non-Latino students. The first section
presents a historical overview on early government intervention to remediate

14
education inequalities. The second section focuses on preschooling inequalities of
Latino children before entering compensatory education. The third section looks at
direct schooling inequalities of Latino students versus non-Latino students. The
fourth section shows the unequal education outputs of Latino students. The last
section highlights interventions to improve Latino access to higher education within
the market of public education.
Historical Overview
If the children are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future
life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have
done, in their correction, by a good education.

- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1818

Since the inception of the United States, public education has been seen as
essential to the country’s economic prosperity, development, and, subsequent,
survival. Educating a citizenry has a positive economic benefit. At the time of the
Revolutionary War, there already existed a global market economy particularly
between the U.S. and Europe in goods and labor (U.S. Census Bureau, 1975). If the
U.S. wanted to compete in a global marketplace, a widely educated populace would
produce a competitive market advantage. This economic advantage would afford
stronger national security and therefore national survival.
Thomas Jefferson and other nation builders like him realized the market of
education was not equal- the rich had an unequal advantage. Education was open to
a wealthy minority of privately schooled children producing education inequalities

15
(Ladson-Billings, 2006). These educational inequalities or student achievement gaps
would negatively affect the country’s economy. Education would need to be
accessible for all citizens. The government intervened in the education market when
Thomas Jefferson proposed a system of free schools in Virginia that served children
of rich and poor alike in 1779 (Brodinsky, 1976). Jefferson believed a market should
be created providing free schooling for three years.
Building on Jefferson’s idea of an equal public education system, Horace
Mann created the first statewide public education system in Massachusetts during the
mid-1800s (Mondale, 2001). By intervening and establishing state-wide public
education systems, the United States acknowledged public education as a public
good. Mann correctly believed that a public education system would have an
economic and civic benefit for all citizens (Montgomery, 1993). For example, with
a compulsory public education system, the U.S. could standardize a curriculum in
developing a skilled and educated work force. As public education became
compulsory in all states, the U.S. had formed a market for public education. Both
Jefferson and Mann understood quality public education could alleviate
socioeconomic inequalities.
The passage of the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, known as the GI
Bill, is a second example of government intervention in the education market to
create a greater public good. With millions of serviceman returning home at the end
of World War II, the U.S. government said education must “be available to all who
are qualified, without respect to academically irrelevant criteria such as gender, race,

16
religion, and socioeconomic status” (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003). With the war
over, servicemen were returning home with little or no net worth. The GI Bill
provisioned the following for returning soldiers: grants for higher education or
vocational training; one year of unemployment payments; and low-interest, zero
down loans to buy homes and businesses. The GI Bill is an example of the
government intervening to place educated and skilled workers in jobs thereby
increasing individual and national wealth.
Today’s public education market is in a state of failure. A market failure, in
all markets, occurs when there are output imperfections resulting in an
overproduction and underproduction (e.g. low rate of Latinos attending university).
In addition, a market failure produces an unequal allocation of resources. The public
education market place is currently overproducing inefficient results as seen in the
Latino achievement gap. An output example of market failure is the ratio of Latino
high school dropouts. In 2000, the national Latino high school dropout rate was
30%. The stated dropout rate was 100% greater than the African-American dropout
rate and 200% greater than the rate for white students (NCES, 2002). This inequality
or overproduction of Latino high school dropouts is a signal of a market failure. In
addition, market failure is seen in the inequalities or underproduction of Latinos in
higher education with respect to their population statistics.
This achievement gap between white students and Latino students has
changed little between 1971 and 1999 (NCES, 2000). Test scores have increased,
however they have been proportionate to each other- the gap exists still (Hechinger,

17
2009). For example, by the end of high school, Latino reading and math skills are
virtually identical to those of 8
th
grade white students (Haycock, Jerald, & Huang,
2001).
Since 1970, the U.S. Latino population has grown over 1000% and currently
accounts for 16% of the overall U.S. population – 48 million. The Latino population
will also more than double to 103 million by 2050 representing over 24% of the total
U.S. population (Source: U.S. Census- Population Projection, July 1, 2010 to July 1,
2050). Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the U.S. and also the fastest growing.
Since 1980, the U.S. Latino population has doubled (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002).
Even though the U.S. Latino population has seen explosive growth, the
number of Latino adults (aged 25 and older) having a bachelors degree or higher has
only increased from 8% in 1980 to 13% today. Inversely, 53% of Asian-American
adults (aged 25 and older) have a bachelors degree or higher, up from 33% in 1980.
Asians make up 4.4% of the U.S. population or 13 million and, as a race or ethnicity,
have the highest college completion rates in the country.
Table 2.1.
Educational Attainment vs. Annual Median Income (2008)
Ethnicity Bachelor’s Degree High School Graduate
White $60,866 $33,159
Asian $58,524 $29,390
Black $46,527 $27,265
Latino $48,081 $27,020
(U.S. Census, 2009)

18
Inequalities are also seen in graduate education. In 2000, Latinos represented
only 5% of graduate students. In relation, white graduate students numbered 68%
(Santiago & Brown, 2004).
Educational attainment is directly related to income earnings. A person
graduating with a high school diploma will earn much less over a lifetime than a
college graduate. Latino educational attainment, and income equality, becomes
problematic when considering the U.S. has grown from a manufacturing/goods
producing economy into a service economy. From 1947 to 2010, the influence of the
service economy on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) jumped from 48% to 71%.
During the same time period, the influence of the manufacturing economy on GDP
decreased from 40% to 19% (Milano, Reed, & Weinstein, 2009).
This transformation into a service-producing economy requires a higher
skilled and educated worker. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
(2009), the fastest growing economic sectors are service-related: health care,
information technology, energy and environment. Service jobs are requiring workers
to have increasingly greater skills and education.
If Latinos are not receiving the necessary skills and education from higher
education, economic forecasts for the demographic, as well as California and the
U.S., are negative considering that the U.S. population is becoming increasingly
Latino. If Latinos are not increasing their skills and education levels, inequalities in
all facets- income, health care, etc. will continue and increase.

19
As Figure 2.1 highlights, average earnings increase at each level of education
attainment. Disparities in educational attainment are directly related to income
inequalities. Income inequalities are directly related to disparities in life expectancy.
There is a close relationship between “socioeconomic status and mortality” (Lleras-
Muney, 2005). Individuals with higher levels of education and income have lower
death rates than individuals with lower levels of education and income.

Figure 2.1.
Educational Attainment and Median Household Income in U.S. (2004)

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004)

20
Figure 2.2.
Increase in Life Expectancy, and Increase in Difference in Life Expectancy by
Economic Status
(Years)

Source: Congressional Budget Office using data from Gopal K. Singh and Mohammad Siahpush,
"Widening Socioeconomic Inequalities in U.S. Life Expectancy, 1980–2000," International Journal
of Epidemiology, vol. 35, no. 4 (2006), pp. 969–979; and National Center for Health Statistics, Health,
United States, 2007 (Hyattsville, Md., 2007), Table 27.

a. Socioeconomic groups are defined using county-level indicators of education, occupation,
unemployment, wealth, income, and housing conditions.

The gap in life expectancy as related to economic status is widening.
Between 1990 and 2000, individuals with a college degree saw a 30% increase in life
expectancy when compared with individuals having a high school diploma or less
(Meara, Richards, & Cutler, 2008). During the same time period, life expectancy
increased for the college-educated while life expectancy for the less educated
showed no increase. College educated individuals have greater income power and
greater access to health behaviors- regular doctor visits, exercise, healthy food,
increased access to positive health resources. An increasing gap in health care

21
coverage exists as well as high-wage workers having greater access to health care
than low-wage workers (Glied & Mahato, 2008).
The Latino achievement gap in K-12 schools, as seen, is manifested in
additional persisting gaps: educational attainment, income equality, access to quality
health care services, and so on.

Table 2.2.
Market Failure: Latino Preschooling Inequalities + Latino Schooling Inequalities =
Latino Education Inequalities
Latino Preschooling
Inequalities Latino Schooling Inequalities
Latino Education
Inequalities
1. Higher poverty %
2. Housing inequalities-
high crime
neighborhoods
3. Last to access education
(low % preschooled)
4. Disparities in Health and
Nutrition
5. Lack of household
educational resources
(e.g. books, toys,
computers)
6. Low English language
proficiency
a. Size of
vocabulary
b. Letter and word
recognition
!"Reading skills#
1. Attendance at urban
schools
a. Less A-G courses
b. Unequal access to
college resources
and college
exposure
c. Less prepared and
experienced
teachers
d. Less educational
resources (e.g.
books, computers)
2. College affordability gap
3. Lower levels of college
financial aid
1. High drop-out rate
2. Limited college access
3. Poor college
attendance
4. Income inequalities
5. Less Social Capital =
Unequal access to
resources.
6. Repeat of Market
Failure

22
Preschooling Inequalities of Latino Children
Before Latino children reach primary school, they are already facing a wide
range of disparities making educational attainment on par with wealthy, non-
minority students difficult. Latino children are more likely than whites to come from
low-income households. In 2006, the poverty rate for Latinos was 20.6% compared
to 8.2% for whites (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Income inequalities put households
in poor neighborhoods with less access to early child education.
A 1997 study focused on early education availability, connected
opportunities to enroll children in preschool with household income and household
location. The study found wealthy parents were 100% more likely to have preschool
access than parents in a poor neighborhood (Fuller, Coonerty, Kipnis, Choong,
1997). Because of a lack of preschool access, Latinos largely do not access formal
education until age 5 or 6. Wealthy, non-minority children at age 5 or 6 already have
one or two years of formal education.
In addition to low rates of preschool access, Latino children have a lower
probability of coming from households where one parent is a high school graduate.
A 2010 study found Latino children have only a 67% chance of having at least one
parent who graduated high school while white children have a 95% chance of having
at least one high school educated parent (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics, 2010).
Latino children also lack the level of literacy development from parents when
compared with white children. In a 2004 study conducted of Los Angeles children

23
aged 2-4, Latino parents were the least likely demographic to read to their children
(Lara-Cinisomo, Pebley, Vaiana, & Maggio, 2004). The study highlighted children
who had parents read to them at least three times a week scored higher on state
standardized reading and math tests. Such inequalities in household income, parent
education and child literacy development begin the achievement gap.
Schooling Inequalities of Latino Students
Before Latino students enter primary education, an academic achievement
gap exists. When Latino students enter primary education, the schools themselves
extend the achievement gap. Due to low household income levels, Latino students
are much more likely to attend poorly managed, inner-city schools with less fiscal
resources (Gardner, 2007). According to a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
report (1997), wealthy school districts spent approximately 24% more per pupil
funding than poor districts (GAO, 1997). Having less money for schooling, fiscally
poor schools are unable to hire highly-skilled teachers (Ilon & Normore, 2006).
With inequities in educational resources, Latino students do not have equitable
access to increase their academic achievement in high level coursework.
As the student matriculates through primary education, the student is tracked
according to academic proficiency. Because the average Latino student does not
have academic knowledge and skills on par with non-Latino students, the average
Latino student will have a greater probability of entering high school and being
placed in a low level math and science class. For the next four years the Latino
student will be “tracked.” Tracking is largely a secondary school practice that sorts

24
and categorizes students according to incoming academic abilities. Although
tracking is less of a formalized practice today than it was during the 1960’s and 70’s,
Oakes (1987) states it is a deep seated practice in education. Higher achieving
students are tracked into classes focused on meeting college admission requirements
such as honors and Advanced Placement classes, while lower achieving students are
tracked into general classes focused more on meeting high school graduation
requirements than college entrance requirements.
Tracking is thought by some to benefit students as it places them in
homogenous groups based on ability- the smarter kids with the smarter kids and so
forth. Research shows the higher track students had increased achievement rates
than similar ability students in non-tracked courses (Kulik & Kulik, 1992). For the
lower track students, the longer they are tracked the greater they fall behind their
higher track peers (Jencks & Phillips, 1998). Tracking does not increase academic
achievement for low and normal ability students as some research has shown for
high-ability students (Rogers, 1991).
Lower track classes also are largely composed of poor, minority students
versus higher track classes filled with middle and upper socioeconomic, non-
minority students (Hyland, 2006). When low-ability students enter the lower track
classes, they will find a mainly socioeconomically segregated class taught by a
lesser-qualified and experienced teacher than the higher track class (Davis, 1986).
Because of tracking, instruction and learning occurs at a faster pace in a higher level,
high-ability course than it does in a lower level course due to having a more

25
proficient teacher. Teachers in higher track classes have also been found to be more
engaging, organized and enthusiastic than teachers of lower track courses (Oakes,
1987).
Tracking students into lower level, low-ability courses can have the
unintended effect of reducing student self-esteem. Low-ability students know when
they are placed into lower track classes. This segregation by academic ability can
stigmatize students and negatively impact academic performance (Gamoran, 1992).
By being tracked into lower academic level classes and not matriculating
into, say, upper level math courses such as Pre-Calculus and Calculus, Latinos have
a greater probability of having to take remedial college mathematics courses (ACT,
2005). In his study, Guidance of Latino High School Students in Mathematics and
Career Identity Development, Edward Lopez asserts, “Latino high school students
are at risk for low achievement in mathematics, which in turn restricts their
opportunity for college and careers that require mathematical backgrounds” (189).
As a result of tracking, Latino students have a lesser chance of taking “A –
G” college-prep coursework at poor, urban high schools (Bangser, 2008). In a 2005
study, only 24% of Latino students in California completed “A – G” subject
requirements permitting matriculation to the University of California (UC),
California State University (CSU) or private colleges compared to 54% of Asian-
Americans (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2005). To clarify, a
Latino student completing the required “A – G” coursework to a UC or CSU does
not guarantee admission. Using the high school math course sequence as an

26
example, completing math through Algebra II makes a student eligible to matriculate
to a UC or CSU. However due to the competitive admissions process of California
public universities, high schools must encourage students to take higher level math
courses (e.g. Calculus) to have a competitive application with a higher degree of
acceptance. As previously noted, inequities with student access to higher level
courses in urban schools make college admission problematic for Latinos.

Table 2.3.
2007: California’s 80 Assembly Districts – Geographic Differences in Educational
Opportunity
College
Going Rate in
Assembly
Districts*
Grade 9
students
enrolled in 4-
yr. college
High Schools
w/college-prep
teacher
shortage
High Schools
w/college-prep
math teacher
shortage
High Schools
w/college-prep
course
shortage
Highest
Quintile
22% 18% 32% 27%
2
nd
Quintile 15% 13% 25% 38%
3
rd
Quintile 12% 34% 34% 61%
4
th
Quintile 10% 37% 44% 61%
Bottom
Quintile
7% 40% 48% 76%
*Assembly Districts with the highest College Going Rates have highest household income levels
Source: UCLA IDEA Study, 2007

For those Latino students who complete the required A – G courses and are
college eligible, attendance at a four-year college is still not a strong probability due

27
to college cost. From 1993-2003, public college and university tuition increased
50% as well as community colleges experiencing a 22% cost increase (Santiago &
Brown, 2004). During the same time period, the poorest 40% of U.S. households
saw income increase only 7% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Latinos are faced with
an unequal ability to pay for college when income increases have been outpaced by
college tuition costs. In order to pay for college, financial aid becomes the option.
There are four methods to pay for college: grants (free money); loans
(borrowed money); work-study (college jobs); personal money. Since Latino
students are most often from low-income households, personal money is largely
disqualified as a financial option. Even though Latinos have the highest need for
financial aid of any racial/ethnic group, they receive the lowest average financial aid
amount of any racial/ethnic group (Santiago & Brown, 2004). In addition, Latino
college students are awarded the smallest grant aid package of any ethic group
(Santiago & Brown, 2004).
Another determinant of college access for Latinos is the access to information
about college attendance while in high school. Many Latino students have little
understanding of college, financial aid, and completing necessary college entrance
exams (Rendon & Valadez, 1993). For example, many Latino families are unaware
of federal aid and do not complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA) (Gardner, 2005). Research has shown that if students apply for college,
complete the SAT and also apply for financial aid, their chances to attend college
increase dramatically (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997).

28
One reason Latino students are not versed in the college system is they have a
less likely chance of having a college-educated parent to help guide them in the
college application process (Schmidt, 2003). As previously discussed, Latino
parents often have less than a high school education and, coupled with an inability to
speak English, neither have an understanding of the college going process nor the
ability to ask questions (Chapa & Schink, 2006).
The lack of an information resource for Latino parents signals an absence of
social capital. Because Latino parents have inequalities in education and income
levels when compared with wealthy, non-minority parents, they lack a social
network to help their children achieve access to university. A 2001 study found that
parents of Chicano students had difficulty accessing and understanding the school
system due to a lack of social network connecting community and school (Portes &
Rumbaut, 2001). This inequality was directly due to low parent education and
English language proficiency. Latino parents must then rely on outside interventions
(e.g. government or schools) to help their children access college. If these outside
interventions are not available or lacking, Latino access to higher education suffers.
Social capital is a “resource based upon sustained social relationships that can
lead to information flows for people within a network and potentially to
opportunities that may not be available without it” (Coleman et al., 1982). The
theory of social capital is it allows resource sharing between members of the same
socioeconomic, racial or other demographic group. Resource sharing increases
production and resources for all group members including career and business

29
opportunities, access to improved healthcare and education. In education, social
capital resources assist parents, in finding, among others, after-school tutors for their
children, summer camps, SAT test preparation programs, and gaining admission to
college (Stanton-Salazar, 2001).
In The Forms of Capital (1986), Pierre Bourdieu stated that economic and
social capital provide “cultural capital” for the dominant wealthy, non-minority
class. This cultural capital reproduces power and privilege in the upper and middle
socioeconomic classes. Because cultural capital would transfer from parents to their
children, class status would be maintained and prove exclusionary to the low
socioeconomic largely minority class (Brewer and Landers, 2006). Cultural capital
helps determine social status and wealth based on parental socioeconomic status.
This cultural capital can be cashed in, so to speak, by middle and upper classes on
what is culturally important- education. Our country values education and the “rags
to riches story”- work hard and you will be successful. This exclusion from cultural
capital is manifested in the underproduction of Latinos accessing college.
Unequal Education Outputs of Latino Students
Latino students have the lowest education attainment level of any ethnic
group in the United States. A direct correlation is the high rate of Latinos dropping
out of high school in the U.S. - 28% in 2007 compared with only a 12.2% white
student drop-out rate (Center for Labor Market Studies, 2007). In a 2008 study,
“What Factors Predict High School Graduation in the LAUSD [Los Angeles Unified

30
School District],” researchers followed the graduation rates of all incoming first-time
Grade 9 students in 2001-2002 (Silver et al., 2008).
The study found only 45% of the first-time Latino freshman graduated on
time even though Latinos made up 67% of all first-time Grade 9 students. In
comparison, Asian-American students only represented 5% of the total sample but
saw 65% graduate on time. White students were only 10% of all first-time Grade 9
students in 2001-2002 but 57% of whites graduated on time. U.S. high school
graduation rates in 2003 by ethnicity presented the following: 89.4% of white
students; 87.6% of Asian-American students; 80% of African-American students;
and 57% of Latino students (Silver et al., 2008).
A potential marker of low Latino high school graduation percentage is
presented in a 2006 study on California State Standards Test (CST) results within the
LAUSD. The study highlighted Latinos ranked about 200 points lower per student
than white students on CSTs in the early 2000s (Hagedorn & Lester, 2006). Much
like the preschooling inequalities of Latino children, Latinos are entering college
with weaker academic preparation than other ethnic groups in the United States.
Education attainment disparities can also be tied to disparities in social and
economic capital. Many Latino students in California who are college-eligible do
not apply to four-year colleges and instead opt for their local community college.
These Latino students see community colleges as an education pipeline- a means to
complete two years of undergraduate coursework at a minimal expense while
working and saving monies for transfer to a four-year university. In addition, Latino

31
students see themselves in their local community college. The demographics of
community colleges often reflect the low-socioeconomic, first generation Latino
student (Wild & Ebbers, 2002). While community colleges do offer a local, cheaper
alternative to four year colleges, Latino matriculation rates from community colleges
to four-year colleges are low.
A study found that in 2003, Latinos made up 31% of California community
college enrollment (Orenelas & Solorzano, 2004); of the 31%, 40% aspired to
transfer to a four-year college. The study found only 9% of transfer-eligible Latino
community college students successfully transferred to a four-year college. This
“transfer gap” is a contributing factor to low education attainment levels and a
producer of income inequalities. Low college persistence rates translate to Latino
children having parents with low education and income levels. These Latino
children will find themselves cycle of underperformance and underachievement
(Haney et al., 2004).
A contributor to a lack of college persistence and completion is enrollment
intensity- if a Latino college student is enrolled full-time. In the U.S., Latinos have
the lowest demographic percentage of full-time college students. Among 18-24 year
olds, 85% of white and African-American students attend college full-time while
only 74% of Latino college students are full-time students (NCES, 2002). The effect
of enrollment intensity is 57% of full-time Latino college students earn a college
degree while only 28% of part-time Latino college students complete college
(NCES, 2002).

32
Affecting college persistence is the percentage of Latino students who require
English and math remediation courses once they enroll in college. Latino students
were found to have taken more remediation courses in college than other ethnicity
(Vernez & Mizell, 2001). In a 2008 California State University (CSU) study it was
found that of first-time CSU freshman, 73.2% of entering Latino students needed one
or more Math and English remediation classes compared to only 39.4% of white
students needing the same (CSU, 2009). Remediation is a two-fold problem:
students do not receive credits for taking remediation classes and, second, students
have to pay normal tuition costs for the classes further complicating ability to pay.
In addition, taking remediation courses increases the amount of time needed to
graduate as none of the credits count towards graduation. With increased time in
college, comes an increased probability of dropping out.
A persistent gap lies between non-minority students and Latino students on
several fronts: educational attainment, college retention rates, income, quality of life,
and so on. As mentioned earlier, improving Latino college access and completion
rates have individual and public socioeconomic benefits such as increasing tax
revenues, increased life longevity, reducing unemployment, improving access to
health care, and improved efficiency in labor markets.

33
Government and Private Intervention to Improve Public Education
The democratic community cannot tolerate a society based upon
education for the well-to-do alone. If college opportunities are
restricted to those in higher income brackets, the way is open to the
creation and perpetuation of a class society which has no place in the
American way of life.

- President Truman’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947

Government intervention to improve markets is well documented. If a
market is producing inequalities in underproduction and/or overproduction, the
government will intervene to create an equal marketplace when it involves a public
good. An example of government intervention lies in the creation of public
transportation, a public good. Before the advent of public transportation, only the
wealthy could afford to purchase cars. However this created an inequality in the
transportation market as the poor could not purchase transportation. Without
transportation, the lower class would not have the same access to jobs, medicine, and
additional social opportunities. The creation of public buses, trains, subways, and
even airlines, equalized the transportation market and provided the low
socioeconomic class with the same transport benefits as the wealthy. Recent
examples of government intervention in markets can be seen in tobacco and alcohol
to decrease public consumption as well as the push for universal health care.
Education is a market and because market inequalities exist the government
has a history of intervening to create equality. Most often the interventions or

34
market corrections are in the form of legislation. The U.S. government has led a
history of reforms via legislation to decrease the achievement gap.
During President Lyndon Johnson’s administration, there were several acts of
legislation to correct persistent gaps between disadvantaged, minority children and
advantaged, non-minority children. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 sought
to correct preschooling inequalities for poor, minority students by establishing the
Head Start program. Head Start targets preschool children of low-income families
by providing health, nutritional, social, and emotional services.
A second federal act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), was meant to reduce the schooling inequalities seen in primary and
secondary schools with largely poor children by providing funding. The ESEA was
the culmination of three presidential administrations- Truman, Eisenhower and
Kennedy-to increase equal education for all citizens (Jennings, 1995). ESEA had
five main sections or funding streams to support schools of low-income families:
Title I- established financial assistance to (e.g. instructional materials, teacher
professional development); Title II- provided additional monies to purchase library
materials and educational technology (e.g. computers); Title III- earmarked finances
for supplementary services (e.g. literacy development for Limited-English
Proficiency students); Title IV- gave monies for education research in university
(e.g. research grants); Title V- provided funding for state departments of education to
provide oversight.

35
The most important ESEA section is and continues to be Title 1. When
Congress passed the ESEA, Title I was budgeted with 80% of all apportioned monies
for ESEA (Jennings, 1995). Title I funds are designated to schools with 40% of their
children coming from low-income families.
A third federal act, Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), was passed to
increase access to higher education. HEA was created to provide financial assistance
through need-based scholarships and low-interest loans for individuals to attend
college who otherwise could not. HEA also created the TRiO-Educational Talent
Search program to increase poor, minority student matriculation from high school
into college.
An outcome of HEA has been increased college access and graduation for
Latino and non-Latino students. Porter (1991) found financial aid positively affected
college persistence to degree completion. A longitudinal study at the University of
Tennessee found those students who participated in the Talent Search program had a
94% college attendance rate versus 42% who didn’t participate (Brewer & Landers,
2006).
In addition to the stated federal acts, the U.S. developed the National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), named the Nation’s Report Card, to
track the aggregate academic progress of students (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
2000). The NAEP has consistently shown the achievement gaps have persisted and
increased (Lee, 2002).

36
As a reauthorization of the ESEA, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) of 2001. Effective at the outset of 2002, the federal act ties federal
funding to states developing assessments to measure academic progress in
elementary and secondary schools. These student testing results, from the
assessments, are disaggregated by socioeconomic status (free or reduced price lunch
program), ethnicity, students with disabilities and English language proficiency.
Each state sets their own content standards and assessments as there are no national
standards or assessment. NCLB was passed with the belief that accountability and
assessment goals improve education for all especially for minority students.
Language within NCLB states that a purpose of the law was “to close the
achievement gap between high and low performing children, especially the
achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, and between
disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers” (NCLB, 2001). While it is
debated whether there has been any narrowing of the achievement gap, NCLB has
focused attention on the growing academic disparities between poor, minority
students and wealthy, non-minority students.
Summary
Chapter 2 presented the different factors determining Latino academic and
social success. Though many of these determinants occur when a student is enrolled
in school, certain factors precede formal schooling: lack of household educational
resources; disparities in health and nutrition; access to preschool; housing
inequalities. Once Latino students are enrolled in primary and secondary education

37
the inequities continue and increase due to factors of student tracking, less prepared
and experienced teachers, and inequities in college exposure. The translation for
preschooling and schooling inequalities is low Latino academic outcomes- high
drop-out rate, low college matriculation rates, poor college persistence, and others.
While the federal government has instituted reforms through legislation to combat
and decrease the inequalities of Latinos, there has not been an increase in positive
Latino education outcomes.
In Chapter 3 the methodology to search for the discussed factors will be
presented.

38
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Despite federal legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the
achievement gap between Latino children and non-minority children still persists.
The purpose of this case study was to understand one unified school district’s
practices in reducing the achievement gap for Latino students and promoting Latino
access to higher education.
The case study is relevant as many school districts in California as well as
across the United States are seeing an increasing Latino student population and a
decreasing non-minority student population. The studied unified school district fits
the stated model of shifting student demographics. This case study is important as
school districts are investigating organizational systems and practices to improve
Latino student performance.
Therefore, the research questions guiding the study are:
1. What is the district’s strategic plan for increasing Latino student
achievement and Latino access to higher education?
2. How is the district’s plan for increasing Latino student achievement being
successfully implemented by school leadership and teachers at the site
level?
3. What success measures has the district defined for the Latino student
population?

39
The research questions allow exploration into the methods used by the school
district superintendent to initiate a reform within four comprehensive high schools.
A key understanding within the case study is the implementation of the reform at the
individual school sites.
Sample and Population
The study sample centers on one unified school district within Orange
County, California. The sample selection was based on four criteria: (a) a unified
school district with multiple comprehensive high schools of 500 or more students,
(b) history of high student performance as measured by state testing indicators, (c)
increasing Latino student body and decreasing White student population, (d)
increasing disparities or achievement gap in student performance outcomes as tied to
socioeconomic levels and race. Purposeful sampling was employed to find unified
school districts in Southern California that met the above criteria. The sample
selection was based on the thematic group focus as well as location and district
willingness to be studied.
The Coastal View Unified School District (CVUSD) consists of 21,450
students attending 22 elementary schools (both K-5 and K-8), four middle schools,
four large comprehensive high schools, two small high schools (each under 200
students), and one continuation high school. Over the past ten years, district
enrollment by ethnicity has seen a steady increase in the number of Latino students
and a downturn in white students while Asian and African-American student

40
populations have remained static. Total district enrollment has seen a slight
fluctuation but is largely fixed.

Table 3.1.
CVUSD - District Enrollment by Ethnicity (1999-2010)
School Year White Latino Asian
African-
American
Total District
Enrollment
1999-2000 56.6% 36.3% 4.3% 1.0% 21,364
2000-2001 55.4% 37.5% 4.1% 1.1% 21,658
2001-2002 54.3% 38.4% 4.3% 1.2% 21,919
2002-2003 53.7% 38.7% 4.5% 1.2% 22,275
2003-2004 53.2% 39.2% 4.6% 1.2% 22,383
2004-2005 52.3% 39.9% 4.5% 1.3% 22,487
2005-2006 52.1% 40.3% 4.4% 1.2% 22,122
2006-2007 51.8% 40.4% 4.5% 1.3% 21,421
2007-2008 51.0% 41.2% 4.5% 1.3% 21,338
2008-2009 50.2% 41.9% 4.4% 1.4% 21,507
2009-2010 50.3% 41.7% 4.5% 1.5% 21,718
(DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov)

On a district level, 25% of the students are English Language Learners with
93.6% speaking Spanish in the home. Approximately 47% of students are eligible
for free or reduced lunch (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov).
The overall district API was 820 for the 2009-2010 school year. School
variance in API ranges from high 600s to mid 900s. CVUSD did not meet AYP for
the 2009-2010 school year. The district failed to meet AYP criteria for both English

41
Language Arts and Mathematics. CVUSD met AYP in 31 out of 42 criteria in the
2009-2010 school year (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov). For the purposes of the study,
this researcher analyzed the district’s four large comprehensive high schools.
For the 2009-2010 school year, the overall API for the participating four
comprehensive high schools was 797. The variances in school API scores were in
accordance with Latino student enrollment at each school: higher white population +
lower Latino population = Higher API score. The two high schools with API scores
in the 800s are located in wealthier, less Latino population zip codes than the two
lowest performing high schools. Within CVUSD, school performance is tied to race
and socioeconomics.

Table 3.2.
Ethnicity: Enrollment and School Performance (2009-2010)
High
School White Latino Asian
African-
American
Total
Enrollment
2010
API
#1 24.3% 70.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1,385 745
#2 24.9% 59.2% 8.0% 3.0% 1,752 747
#3 64.8% 30.8% 1.9% 1.2% 2,483 813
#4 85.7% 3.9% 9.0% 0.7% 2,342 883
(DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov)

College eligibility is also stratified by racial and socioeconomic levels. At
the four comprehensive CVUSD high schools, Latino graduates have the lowest

42
percentage of “A – G” course completion and therefore the lowest college
matriculation rate among ethnicities.

Table 3.3.
12
th
Grade Graduates Completing all courses Required for UC and/or CSU
Entrance (2008-2009)
High School Asian White Latino Total Graduates
#1 100% 59.7% 32.5% 258
#2 44.4% 36.5% 12.9% 238
#3 54.5% 54.0% 30.9% 473
#4 65.5% 67.7% 33.3% 329
(DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov)

Data Collection Procedures
This inquiry is a descriptive case study including the employment of
interviews and document analysis. The research methodology is qualitative. The
data was collected into a case study seeking to describe and explain a phenomenon
(Gall et al., 2003). The phenomenon is how CVUSD through practices and
programs worked to improve Latino access to higher education in their four
comprehensive high schools. A descriptive case study details phenomenon
“information about the characteristics of a given population or area of interest”
(Merriam, 1988).

43
The use of multiple research tools allowed data triangulation to better
understand the phenomenon by identifying patterns in the research. Using multiple
research instruments also eliminates bias from using a single data tool and therefore
increases validity of conclusions. Identification afforded discovery on how the
district was improving Latino access to higher education. Triangulation “gives a
more detailed and balanced picture of the situation” (Altrichter et al., 2008).
Interviews were the main data tool and were conducted with four
comprehensive high school principals and district personnel. According to Patton
(2002), an interview allows the researcher to “enter into another person’s
perspective” (p. 341) and “learn their terminology and judgments” (p. 348). An
interview protocol was developed to facilitate data and information transfer.
Patton’s (2002) “Interview Guide Approach” was chosen as it provides
interview question consistency and allows interviewers liberty to order questions for
each interview. Interviews are also a shared process between the participant and the
researcher allowing the story to be stated in a narrative (Erlandson et al, 1993).
All interviews were individual and conducted onsite whether at the district or
school. “Face to face interviews have the distinct advantage of enabling the
researcher to establish rapport with potential participants and therefore gain their
cooperation; thus such interviews yield the highest response rate” (Leedy & Ormond,
2005). Interviews lasted between thirty and forty-five minutes and occurred in
interview participant offices. Before the interviews were given, interview consent
forms were first given to the participants and signed.

44
Before the semi-structured interviews, data collection began with document
analysis to provide district and school site overview. “Documents prove valuable not
only because of what can be learned directly from them but also as a stimulus for
path of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and
interviewing” (Patton, 2002, p. 294). In addition to district level and site level
documents, the California Department of Education (CDE) website provided
disaggregated student performance data by ethnicity, socioeconomic level, and
language ability among other analysis areas.
Data Analysis Procedures
The purpose of this study was to identify how CVUSD is working to reduce
the Latino achievement gap and promote Latino matriculation to higher education.
The research instruments were created to answer the research questions. The sources
of qualitative data – document analysis and interviews were coded and analyzed into
findings. The case study findings were analyzed using Creswell’s (2003) six step
data analysis process:
Table 3.4.
Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
Step 1: Organize and Prepare Data
Step 2: Read through Data for General Impressions
Step 3: Data Analysis- Code and Categorize
Step 4: Coding Process
Step 5: Describe themes to be within the narrative
Step 6: Interpret data

45
After the sources of qualitative data were completed, all collected research
was coded and analyzed to examine themes in the data. The interviews were taped
and transcribed. All handwritten notes whether observation notes or interview notes
were organized and typed. In addition, names of participants were coded for
confidentiality.
Ethical Considerations
This research proposal was forwarded and approved by the University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Permission was also
granted by the Coastal View Unified School District (CVUSD) Superintendent. This
researcher received written consent from participating individuals stating interviews
were voluntary. During the interview process, interviewees were notified the
interviews were recorded. All participant names were confidential and given
pseudonyms for purposes of anonymity.

46
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
The Latino student achievement gap is a persistent problem in many school
districts across the country. The fact Latinos are the fastest growing U.S. population
segment serves to augment the importance of reducing the achievement gap between
Latinos students and white students. In addition, because of the rapidly increasing
Latino population, particularly in California, the achievement gap is no longer
analogous to urban or rural school districts. Because of a decreasing white
population, wealthier, mostly white suburban communities are seeing an increase in
their Latino student populations. Research in earlier chapters shows Latino students
achieve at a lesser rate than white students and have markedly decreased access to
higher education.
This researcher analyzed one suburban school district’s plan for decreasing
the achievement gap and increasing Latino access to higher education.
The first three chapters introduced the problem of disparities in educational
outcomes for Latinos, a literature review underscoring factors determining Latino
academic and socioeconomic success, and a methodology for studying the
objectives, strategies and course of action of Coastal View Unified School District in
increasing Latino access to higher education.
This chapter provides evidence of the qualitative case study through
document reviews, district interviews, and school site administrator interviews.

47
Introductory Meeting with District Superintendent
The initial meeting at Coastal View Unified School District offices occurred
on February 24, 2010 with the district superintendent. The expansive one-story
district buildings were modern looking; high steel-beamed ceilings with floor to
ceiling windows, and recessed ceiling lighting with rooms having a lot of access to
sunlight. On the interior walls hung framed photos depicting community and school
district history. Framed student work from various grade levels was also
prominently displayed as were framed photographs of the current school board and
district staff. The district staff was inviting and friendly.
The meeting purpose was to outline the study as well as hear preliminary
thoughts on the focus of the study from the superintendent. The superintendent
began the meeting by stating he was a Trojan having received his doctorate of
education from USC and would open access to interviewing district and school site
personnel as necessary to the study. He also stated documents pertaining to the focus
of study would be accessible. After hearing a study overview from this researcher,
the superintendent said the achievement gap as it pertains to Latinos and the low
matriculation rates of Latinos to higher education was a principal concern for the
district and welcomed the study. He thought a formal presentation of findings to the
CVUSD school board would be warranted.

48
Research Questions
Three research questions guided data gathering at the district and school site
levels to better understand the district’s focus on improving Latino student
achievement and access to higher education. The questions were:
• What is the district’s strategic plan for increasing Latino student
achievement and Latino access to higher education?
• How is the district’s plan for increasing Latino student achievement being
successfully implemented by school leadership and teachers at the site
level?
• What success measures has the district defined for the Latino student
population?
Criteria
CVUSD was selected as a grounds for study as it met the following criteria:
(a) a unified school district with multiple comprehensive high schools of 500 or more
students, (b) history of high student performance as measured by state testing
indicators, (c) increasing Latino student population and decreasing white student
population, (d) substantial and continued disparities or achievement gap in student
performance outcomes between Latino and white student populations.
CVUSD has 22 elementary schools, four middle schools, and four
comprehensive high schools. Student enrollment at the four comprehensive high
schools ranged from 1,385 to 2,483 in 2010 (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov).

49
The district has a history of high student performance as measured by API
and AYP. The district’s API was 813 for the 2008-2009 school year and 820 for the
2009-2010 school year. CVUSD met AYP in 31 out of 42 criterions in the 2009-
2010 school year (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov).
CVUSD meets the third criterion as it serves an increasing Latino student
population and decreasing white student population. In the 1999-2000 school year,
57% of the district’s total student population was white while 36% was Latino, a
variance of 21%. Ten years later, in the 2009-2010 school year, the student
population was 50% white and 42% Latino, a variance of 8% (DataQuest,
www.cde.ca.gov).
In addition to an increased Latino student population, the district has a
marked achievement gap between Latino and white students within student
performance indicators. The Latino student API was 692 and the white student API
was 838 in the 2008-2009 school year within the district’s four comprehensive high
schools. In the 2009-2010 school year, the Latino student API was 711 while the
white student API was 850 in the same schools. The California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) pass rate percentages between white and Latino students also show
disparity. In the 2009-2010 school year, white students had a 95% pass rate while
Latinos had a pass rate of 75%. White students had a 94% CAHSEE pass rate in
2008-2009 and Latino students had a 72% pass rate. The district’s Latino students
have a substantial gap in college-eligibility when compared to white students. In the
2009 graduation year, 53% of 12
th
grade white student graduates were college-

50
eligible while 25% of graduating Latino students were college-eligible (DataQuest,
www.cde.ca.gov).
Methodology
Data analysis within the qualitative, descriptive case study identified several
findings regarding district and high school level plans for increasing Latino access to
higher education. The interviews were taped and transcribed by the researcher.
Using Creswell’s (2003) data analysis process, study findings were coded and
analyzed.
Important research data collected from additional sources included district
and school websites, the California Department of Education (CDE) website, the
DataQuest website, the EdSource website, School Accountability Report Cards
(SARCs), the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) website, and the
California State University (CSU) Analytic Studies website. Additional data was
culled from district and school site level interviews. After data collection was
completed, all collected research was analyzed and coded to understand how the
district was working to reduce the achievement gap and improve Latino access to
higher education.
Participants
The researcher had an initial meeting with the district superintendent at
CVUSD offices and later conducted five formal interviews with district personnel.
The interviews were individually held with the district assistant superintendent of
secondary education and the four comprehensive high school principals in December

51
2010. The assistant superintendent interview was held at CVUSD offices while the
principal interviews took place at each of the principal’s respective school sites.
Responses to Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked: What is the district’s strategic plan for increasing
Latino student achievement and Latino access to higher education?
When the superintendent was appointed five years ago, the directive to the
superintendent from the school board was take the school district to the next
level. The school board also stated there were a significant amount of
students underachieving in the school district and we needed to do a better
job of helping those students meet with success. It is clear cut on who is not
being successful. The large percentage of those are Latino students, EL
students.

- CVUSD Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education

Within CVUSD, the achievement gap between Latino and White students can
be observed in a myriad of measures: standardized test scores, grade point average;
course grades; drop-out rate; University of California “A-G” course completion; and
college enrollment, among others. The district’s strategic plan to decrease the Latino
achievement gap is singularly focused on reducing D and F grades in Math, English,
Science, and History (MESH) for Latino students. In Table 4.1, MESH scores for
the four comprehensive high schools are tracked from June 2009 to June 2010. The
district data was presented by CVUSD.
The best way to [close the achievement gap], it’s ironic, is looking at the
amount of students who are successful with a C or better and those who are
getting a D or F.

- CVUSD Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education

52
Table 4.1.
CVUSD: Four Comprehensive High Schools - % Ds and Fs by ELs and EOs
Grading Period Math English Science History
English Learners (ELs)
June 2010
(End of Spring Semester)
42% 35% 36% 33%
Feb. 2010
(End of Fall Semester)
42% 37% 45% 36%
June 2009
(End of Spring Semester)
45% 38% 43% 39%
English Only (EO)
June 2010
(End of Spring Semester)
21% 13% 15% 11%
Feb. 2010
(End of Fall Semester)
21% 15% 18% 13%
June 2009
(End of Spring Semester)
24% 14% 15% 13%

In Table 4.2, Latino and EL percentages of student population for each high
school are presented. As context, the percentage of EL students speaking Spanish
was 94% in 2010.
In an effort to reduce the achievement gap, the district’s D and F grade
reduction policy is focused on a subset of the Latino student population, the English
Learner (EL) students. The district’s D and F grade reduction policy disaggregates
the EL students from the Latino students, both at-risk groups. According to Principal
3, the D and F reduction policy is a recent endeavor. “For the district, the role of
reducing the achievement gap started strongly two years ago as the district was

53
looking at tangible outcomes with respect to improvement in [Latino achievement]
data. As a district we have been focused on the D and F list between EOs (English
Only) and ELs. That has been the primary central data piece we have been looking
at.”

Table 4.2.
CVUSD: Four Comprehensive High Schools – Latino and EL Percentage of Student
Population by School
School
Year
HS #1
Students
Latino %/EL %
HS #2
Students
Latino %/EL %
HS #3
Students
Latino %/EL %
HS #4
Students
Latino %/EL %
2009-2010 71%/31% 59%/26% 31%/11% 4%/2%
2008-2009 71%/33% 56%/26% 30%/12% 5%/2%
2007-2008 66%/31% 55%/26% 30%/12% 9%/3%
2006-2007 64%/30% 51%/25% 27%/11% 4%/2%
2005-2006 63%/29% 50%/24% 27%/10% 4%/1%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

The district is focusing on a subgroup (ELs) of a subgroup population
(Latinos). However according to CVUSD Principal 2, the reason is it is much more
observable.
I think grades, reducing Ds and Fs, is one of the most accessible and easily
observable ways that the district home office can help to push the schools in
other areas. That is what our district seems to be doing. District-wide the
most comprehensive and far reaching systemic process is middle school
principals and high school principals meeting regularly to look at grades and
grade distribution.

54
The district’s D and F grade reduction policy was evident in each of the visited four
comprehensive high schools. Posters comparing the percentage of Ds and Fs
between ELs and EOs in MESH at each grading period over the last 18 months were
displayed in the main offices.
Responses to Research Question 2
The second research question asked: How is the district’s plan for increasing
Latino student achievement being successfully implemented by school leadership
and teachers at the site level?
There is no district directive on how you are going to close the achievement
gap. The district directive is you are going to do it. If you don’t do it, you
need to know why and address the why and then you need to do it. There is
only so long you can go down that path.

- CVUSD Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education

The district’s plan for increasing Latino student achievement is reducing the
grade gap, Ds and Fs, between ELs and EOs in four discipline areas: math, English,
science and history. The D and F reduction rate is measured at the school and
district level at each semester grading period. However implementation of the plan
is not uniform as each of the four comprehensive high schools sites develop their
own plans, as well as institute and implement programs different from each other.
In speaking with the CVUSD superintendent, the superintendent stated he is
“empowering principals to be site-based” by decentralizing and giving principals
autonomy to make site-based decisions. An example of the decentralization is seen
in the implementation of the district’s D and F reduction policy.

55
I have a high level of autonomy. The superintendent has said, ‘Low
involvement, high interest.’ The superintendent and assistant superintendent
have a high interest in what is happening at the school but let me make the
decisions as to how we are going to achieve our overall goals. Our overall
goal at the secondary level is to eradicate the achievement gap between
Latino students and white students. How I get there is up to me. It varies
from site to site.

- CVUSD Principal 2

The statement of autonomy in school sites determining systems to increase Latino
student achievement is seconded by another CVUSD Principal 1.
There is no secret that one of our major goals in the district is to close the
achievement gap. In our district, that means Latino students. As principals
we do have the autonomy to do as we want. It is up to us to make our own
plan and determine the areas of concern and areas of need in order to
formulate a plan. We have the resources to craft our own plan depending on
where we are and what we need. The district is very clear that we need to
make movement but it is up to us to formulate a plan.

High school principals are provided the independence to develop and introduce site
level plans. A common thread with the four high school principals was the process
by which site level plans are created and implemented at each school with CVUSD
assistance.
The superintendent shares his goals with us and we, as principals, write our
goals back. In terms of a process it is very simple. The district does a really
good job of allowing the site administrator to determine what the appropriate
goals are for the site. There are going to be some broad goals they give us
such as closing the achievement gap but in terms of what you want to get
done on your site, it is really up to the principal.

- Principal 4

56
In conducting interviews with district personnel and school site leaders it is
clear the district plan for increasing Latino student achievement is implemented
differently at each school site. Each principal was asked in independent interviews,
“What specific programs are in place for increasing Latino student achievement at
your school site?”
Principal 1 of the high school with the highest percentage of Latino and EL
students stated:
We have two programs that are geared towards [increasing Latino student
achievement]; Puente and AVID. I met with the regional coordinator for
AVID. I told them that any kid who has two grades of below 70%, I meet
with, anywhere from 96 to 180 kids per week. We monitor their grades. Last
Friday I stayed at school with 17 kids so they could finish their Biology
project. What I did is talked to the AVID teachers and said these kids who
are struggling if we see progress in bringing up their grades can we use
AVID as the carrot. If you do well, you can get to go into AVID. We did
this at [a CVUSD middle school] and I think put AVID in a good place.
AVID is a small learning community, it is family. [The AVID school-site
coordinator] who shepherds those kids, nurtures those kids. It is 90% Latino.
The whole thing about AVID is it is a college-going culture. One of the
goals is moving Latinos into the AVID program. We have the biggest AVID
program in the district. We are the only school in the district that has the
Puente English course.

We started a program called ZAP, Zeros Aren’t Permitted, where if a kid
doesn’t do their homework, they have to stay after school that day to do their
homework. We started it with math which had the highest number of Ds and
Fs in Geometry. We started with Geometry, a pilot program. We are going
to move it into the Puente program in January. We want to start it small to be
successful. We want to make sure all of our students are passing all their
tests and doing their homework.

Principal 2 of the high school with the second highest percentage of Latino and EL
students stated:

57
I don’t think our leadership team has come to accept that we have a large
number of English Learners on our campus and those ELs are primarily
Latinos. For the purposes of this interview, when I say English Learners, I
mean Latinos. Our English Learner development program is robust. We are
putting into place for the first time an intervention program built into the
school day, a tutoring program built into the school day, as well as working
on a reading intervention program built into the school day for our struggling
English learners. We have hired a math teacher on special assignment for
four periods to work with at-risk students who are ELs who are also Latino.

Principal 3 of the high school with the third lowest percentage of Latino and EL
students said:
We have a substantial AVID program here at our school- eight sections of
AVID. The AVID sections are over and above the regular staffing allocation
from the district. We have created a Freshman Seminar class that has a
tutorial component. It is not just open to at-risk kids. It is open to all
freshman students. However we have it beefed up for our at-risk population,
which constitutes about a quarter of the freshman class. At Harbor, we have
added that in as an additional course. The larger percentage is definitely
Latino students, no doubt. I would say 60-65% are Latino.

When asked about specific programs for increasing Latino student achievement,
Principal 4 of the high school with the lowest percentage of Latino and EL students
stated:
The big focus for [us] is coming up with a curriculum pacing guide for, say,
all Algebra 1 teachers. The big thing is essential learning and out of that
comes the pacing guide and all the good discussion out of that: is this good, is
this important, etc. The small thing is finally guaranteed curriculum for each
one of the courses. The reason why proficient and advanced ends up
becoming important is because teachers assess the way they were assessed.
In English and history we need to have clearly defined rubrics on what it is
we are trying to assess.

58
Table 4.3.
2010 Latino and EL Student Population and Intervention Program by School
CVUSD
High
School
2010 Student
Population*
Latino %/EL %
Intervention Program to Increase
Latino Student Achievement
HS #1 74%/38% 1. Puente: reading intervention program focusing largely
on Latino literature.
2. AVID: college preparatory program to support high
school students in note taking, studying, and
motivation, among other skill developments.
3. ZAP: after-school program for kids to complete
missing homework and/or exams.
HS #2 57%/30% 1. Undetermined tutoring program (begins January 2011)
2. Undetermined reading intervention program (begins
January 2011)
HS #3 30%/14% 1. AVID: college preparatory program to support high
school students in note taking, studying, and
motivation, among other skill developments.
2. Freshman Seminar: academic and behavior support
class for incoming at-risk Grade 9 students.
HS #4 4%/2% None stated
*2010 Student Population Statistics retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Responses to Research Question 3
The third research question was: What success measures has the district
defined for the Latino student population?
This section will examine the district’s metrics for success in reducing the
achievement gap in their four comprehensive high schools. The collected district
and school data was disaggregated by the researcher to also evaluate the district’s
success in increasing Latino access to higher education. Information culled from

59
district and school site interviews is employed to support and augment research
findings.
Definition of Success
After completing interviews with district and school site administrators, it is
understood the district’s benchmark for success in reducing the Latino achievement
gap is tied to reducing the D and F grade gap between EL and EO student
populations. However, CVUSD has not defined a benchmark metric of success.
It [success] has never been defined. Nothing has been held out as to, ‘There
is your target.’ I think they [district] are looking for any improvement both in
the D and F reduction as well as the achievement gap improving. What you
will see sometimes is the Latino gap hasn’t changed or the gap has widened.
But nothing has been set out as a benchmark of where we [district] would
like to be.

- Principal 4

A second high school principal also stated CVUSD does not have a level of
success it wants to reach:
I don’t think there is a specific level of success that has been defined. I think
there is an expectation about trends and the trends the district would like to
see. They would like to see the achievement gap trending towards to
minimization and they would like to see the overall D and F rates of ELs and
EOs trending down. That is where the discussion has been.

In conducting interviews with district and school level administrators, a
comprehensive district plan to reduce the achievement gap and promote Latino
achievement was not referenced. When asked if there was a three or five year
district plan to reduce the achievement gap, a CVUSD High School Principal
remarked, “Not so much.” When a second CVUSD High School Principal was

60
asked where the focus would be if Ds and Fs were reduced to acceptable levels, he
answered, “That is a good question, I don’t know. We will have to look for a new
challenge somewhere.”
The research findings reveal CVUSD has not defined a benchmark of success
in reducing the achievement gap. However the CVUSD assistant superintendent
stated the district’s D and F reduction policy is meeting with success as evidenced by
an increase in proficiency in the California Standards Tests (CST): “The reality is
our CST scores are matching our growth. As the Ds and Fs go down, the CST scores
go up. That is a pretty good indicator for us.”
The district has seen a rise in API scores over the last five years within their
white and Latino populations. However, even in API scores, the achievement gap is
nearly proportional to the growth in API over the last five years. Table 4.4 shows
the API growth from 2006 to 2010 by white and Latino high school students at
CVUSD.
Another important note is the district plan for reducing the achievement gap
by introducing the D and F reduction policy was not in place until June 2009.
Therefore, as a sample size, one year of data is not very significant.

61
Table 4.4.
Subgroup API – 5 years: White and Latino Student Population by CVUSD High
School
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
High
School White Latino White Latino White Latino White Latino White Latino
HS #1 842 711 832 687 798 651 810 665 808 658
HS #2 817 703 789 695 787 661 792 672 774 648
HS #3 856 719 853 693 841 677 826 673 830 679
HS #4 884 * 877 * 866 * 864 * 871 *
Average 850 711 838 692 823 663 823 670 821 662
* Latinos are not "numerically significant" to be counted as a subgroup at HS #4

Measuring Success: Latino Access to Higher Education
CAHSEE
In deference to API scores, student access to higher education is not
predicated on API scores. Student access to tertiary education is based on several
factors: passing the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE); taking college
entrance exams (e.g. SAT); completion of University of California/California State
University ‘A-G’ course requirements; participating in high level mathematics (e.g.
Pre-Calculus) and science classes (e.g. Chemistry).
The researcher found CVUSD has a persistent achievement gap in CAHSEE
passage rates comparing white and Latino students. Table 4.5 shows CAHSEE
passage rates by white and Latino students within CVUSD over the last five years,
from the 2005-2006 school year to the 2009-2010 school year.

62
Table 4.5.
5 Year CAHSEE Pass Rate Percentages by District
Math English
School Year White Latino Variance White Latino Variance
2009-2010 95% 75% -20% 96% 73% -23%
2008-2009 94% 72% -22% 95% 73% -22%
2007-2008 94% 73% -21% 95% 67% -28%
2006-2007 93% 73% -20% 94% 71% -23%
2005-2006 92% 69% -23% 95% 71% -24%
Average -21% Average -24%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

College Entrance Exams
A rising student participation rate in taking college entrance exams such as
the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is one more measure of illustrating increasing
access to higher education. The researcher findings show SAT participation rates
within CVUSD have declined in recent years. Out of the four comprehensive high
schools SAT participation rates, two high schools have decreased, one high school is
stagnant, and one has increased. Table 4.6, below, shows the SAT Participation
Rates by High School from 2005 to 2009. Table 4.7, below, shows the 12
th
Grade
Latino Enrollment percentage over the last five years, from 2005 to 2009, by high
school. The two high schools with the lowest SAT participation rates have the
highest Latino student populations.

63
Table 4.6.
5 Year SAT Participation Rates by School
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
High
School
% Tested
(# Tested/
Gr 12 Enroll)
% Tested
(# Tested/
Gr 12 Enroll)
% Tested
(# Tested/
Gr 12 Enroll)
% Tested
(# Tested/
Gr 12 Enroll)
% Tested
(# Tested/
Gr 12 Enroll)
HS #1
42.9%
(125/297)
40.3%
(104/258)
37.3%
(82/220)
39.5%
(105/266)
35.3%
(98/278)
HS #2
35.9%
(101/281)
37.4%
(102/273)
46.9%
(128/273)
40.4%
(118/292)
33.9%
(98/289)
HS #3
54.1%
(283/523)
58.3%
(331/568)
60.4%
(309/512)
62.6%
(329/526)
60.3%
(299/496)
HS #4
89.0%
(322/362)
89.0%
(285/321)
90.0%
(333/370)
91.4%
(299/327)
89.0%
(322/362)
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.7.
12
th
Grade Latino Enrollment by School
High School 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
HS #1 66% 62% 62% 58% 62%
HS #2 45% 48% 46% 49% 41%
HS #3 27% 26% 23% 23% 23%
HS #4 3% 4% 2% 3% 3%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Course Completion for College Eligibility
The most important determinant for high school matriculation into college is
the completion of A-G courses for University of California (UC) and/or California

64
State University (CSU) entrance. Within CVUSD over the last eight years, since
2003, the percentage and number of Latino 12
th
grade students being college-eligible
has decreased as evidenced by Table 4.8. White students have also shown a marked
decrease over the same time period. In addition, the variance between white and
Latino students completing all A-G courses has shown a consistent achievement gap.

Table 4.8.
2000-2009: 12
th
Grade Graduates Completing all ‘A-G’ Courses for UC and/or CSU
Entrance by District (Graduates completing A-G/Total Graduates by Ethnicity)
Graduation Year White Latino Variance
2009 53.0% (483/912) 24.9% (108/434) -28.1%
2008 50.1% (467/932) 22.0% (92/418) -28.1%
2007 49.0% (438/893) 17.5% (58/332) -31.5%
2006 52.1% (469/901) 29.4% (98/333) -22.7%
2005 72.6% (665/916) 47.8% (163/341) -24.8%
2004 76.8% (613/798) 48.8% (145/297) -28.0%
2003 77.7% (591/761) 56.1% (152/271) -21.6%
2002 63.1% (467/740) 39.7% (104/262) -23.4%
2001 49.7% (394/793) 17.3% (52/300) -32.4%
2000 55.8% (482/864) 23.6% (64/271) -32.2%
Average -27.3%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

The findings in Table 4.9 show the achievement gap slowly increasing
between white and Latino students in A-G course completion and college eligibility
from 2005 to 2009.

65
Table 4.9.
2000-2009: 12
th
Grade Graduates Completing all A-G Courses for UC and/or CSU Entrance by School
(Graduates completing A-G/Total Graduates by Ethnicity)
HS #1 HS #2 HS #3 HS #4
Graduation
Year White Latino Variance White Latino Variance White Latino Variance White Latino Variance
2009
60%
(46/77)
33%
(55/169)
-27%
37%
(35/96)
13%
(13/101)
-24%
54%
(184/341)
31%
(34/110)
-23%
68%
(195/288)
33%
(3/9)
-35%
2008
51%
(38/75)
28%
(37/133)
-23%
26%
(24/91)
16%
(15/94)
-10%
55%
(210/379)
28%
(33/119)
-27%
65%
(172/266)
20%
(2/10)
-45%
2007
41%
(28/62)
21%
(21/99)
-20%
31%
(25/81)
16%
(16/101)
-15%
50%
(174/346)
23%
(19/83)
-27%
67%
(204/306)
13%
(1/8)
-54%
2006
46%
(42/92)
40%
(41/103)
-6%
40%
(35/87)
19%
(21/109)
-21%
55%
(200/364)
33%
(30/90)
-22%
69%
(179/261)
44%
(4/9)
-25%
2005
61%
(45/74)
45%
(55/122)
-16%
63%
(62/99)
41%
(37/90)
-22%
85%
(283/333)
71%
(60/84)
-14%
87%
(261/300)
88%
(7/8)
+1%
2004
65%
(49/76)
39%
(47/121)
-26%
67%
(54/81)
53%
(40/76)
-14%
86%
(287/335)
79%
(52/66)
-7%
89%
(205/231)
83%
(5/6)
-6%
2003
75%
(60/80)
49%
(58/118)
-26%
71%
(65/92)
51%
(40/79)
-20%
83%
(239/287)
81%
(46/57)
-2%
87%
(203/204)
88%
(7/8)
+1%
2002
54%
(26/48)
30%
(30/101)
-24%
49%
(48/99)
45%
(35/78)
-4%
73%
(208/287)
58%
(33/57)
-15%
76%
(166/218)
50%
(2/4)
-26%
2001
42%
(25/59)
12%
(16/132)
-30%
33%
(31/94)
15%
(10/66)
-18%
51%
(174/340)
27%
(20/75)
-24%
74%
(156/211)
100%
(3/3)
+26%
2000
48%
(38/80)
18%
(21/114)
-30%
44%
(48/108)
37%
(24/65)
-7%
63%
(222/353)
27%
(17/64)
-36%
76%
(161/213)
17%
(1/6)
-59%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

66
Grade 9 Student Population: Science Course Placement
The disparity in science course placement between Latino and white students
is evident in Grade 9 within CVUSD. The two comprehensive high schools with the
largest Latino student population percentages show the largest course placement
disparities.
In High School 1, Latino students made up the majority of Grade 9 students
taking earth science, a non A-G course. Biology is an A-G course. Even though
Latino students were taking a less rigorous science course as evidenced in Tables
4.10 and 4.11, their 2010 CST proficiency levels were under those of white students
taking earth science or biology.

Table 4.10.
2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
Earth Science 141/170 82.9% 12%
Biology 79/157 50.3% 58%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

67
Table 4.11.
2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
Earth Science 19/170 11.2% 33%
Biology 61/157 38.9% 80%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

HS #1
2010 Grade 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 68.5% (230 out of 336)
• White Students: 24.4% (82 out of 336)

Conclusions:
• 74.3% of all white Gr. 9 students took biology (61 out of 82) -- 80%
Proficient
• 34.3% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took biology (79 out of 230) -- 58%
Proficient
• 23.2% of all white Gr. 9 students took earth science (19 out of 82) – 33%
Proficient
• 61.3% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took earth science (141 out of 230) –
12% Proficient

68
The 2010 course placement and proficiency statistics are similar to 2009 data
as seen in Tables 4.12 and 4.13.

Table 4.12.
2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
Earth Science 146/175 83.4% 15%
Biology 98/148 66.2% 42%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.13.
2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
Earth Science 26/175 14.9% 54%
Biology 44/148 29.7% 84%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

69
HS#1
2009 Grade 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 75.6% (248 out of 328)
• White Students: 21.3% (70 out of 328)

Conclusions:
• 62.9% of all white Gr. 9 students took biology (44 out of 70) -- 84%
Proficient
• 39.5% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took biology (98 out of 248) -- 42%
Proficient
• 37.1% of all white Gr. 9 students took earth science (26 out of 70) – 54%
Proficient
• 58.9% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took earth science (146 out of 248) –
15% Proficient

70
In High School 2, the second highest Latino student percentage among the
four comprehensive high schools, disparities in science course placement and CST
proficiency levels are evident between the Latino and white student populations
beginning in Grade 9.

Table 4.14.
2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
Earth Science 134/186 72.0% 22%
Biology 19/34 55.8% 58%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.15.
2010 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
Earth Science 30/186 16.1% 50%
Biology 9/34 26.4% *%
*Proficiency is not stated due to low number of students testing
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

71
HS #2
2010 Grade 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 65.0% (186 out of 286)
• White Students: 19.9% (57 out of 286)

Conclusions:
• 15.8% of all white Gr. 9 students took biology (9 out of 57) -- *%
Proficient
• 14.1% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took biology (19 out of 186) -- 58%
Proficient
• 52.6% of all white Gr. 9 students took earth science (30 out of 57) – 50%
Proficient
• 72.0% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took earth science (134 out of 186) –
22% Proficient

72
The 2009 Grade 9 data from High School 2 show disparities as related to
Latino and white students in Tables 4.16 and 4.17.

Table 4.16.
2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
Earth Science 141/222 63.5% 24%
Biology 1/5 20% *%
*Proficiency is not stated due to low number of students testing
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.17.
2009 SCIENCE CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Science
Course
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
Earth Science 56/222 25.2% 45%
Biology 2/5 40% *%
*Proficiency is not stated due to low number of students testing
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

73
HS #2
2009 Grade 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 58.9% (172 out of 292)
• White Students: 26.3% (77 out of 292)

Conclusions:
• 2.60% of all white Gr. 9 students took biology (2 out of 77) -- *%
Proficient
• .058% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took biology (1 out of 172) -- *%
Proficient
• 64.9% of all white Gr. 9 students took earth science (56 out of 77) – 45%
Proficient
• 82.0% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took earth science (141 out of 172) –
24% Proficient

74
Grade 9 Student Population: Math Course Placement
The inequality in math course placement between Latino and white students
is evident in Grade 9 within CVUSD. For example, HS #1, the school with the
largest number and percentage of Latino students, has Latino students taking lower
level math courses than white students as evidenced in Tables 4.18 and 4.19.

Table 4.18.
2010 MATH CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Math CST
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
General Math 97/117 82.9% 14%
Algebra 1 91/126 72.2% 36%
Geometry 38/93 40.9% 39%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.19.
2010 MATH CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Math CST
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
General Math 11/117 9% 18%
Algebra 1 27/126 21.4% 15%
Geometry 42/93 45.2% 71%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

75
It should be noted students taking the General Math are lower achieving
students placed in the district’s two-year Algebra 1 course. Students in the two-year
Algebra 1 course take the General Math CST in Grade 9 and then the Algebra 1 CST
in Grade 10. Grade 10 math CST scores are not applied to the research.

HS #1
2010 Gr. 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 68.5% (230 out of 336)
• White Students: 24.4% (82 out of 336)

Conclusions:
• 51.2% of all white Gr. 9 students took geometry (42 out of 82) – 71%
Proficient
• 16.5% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took geometry (38 out of 230) – 39%
Proficient
• 32.9% of all white Gr. 9 students took Alg. 1 (27 out of 82) – 15%
Proficient
• 39.5% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took Alg. 1 (91 out of 230) – 36%
Proficient
• 13.4% of all white Gr. 9 students took General Math (11 out of 82) – 18%
Proficient
• 42.2% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took General Math (97 out of 230) –
14% Proficient

76
The 2010 math course placement statistics are similar to 2009 data as seen in
Tables 4.20 and 4.21 within HS #1. It should be noted students who are taking the
General Math CST are likely students taking the two-year Algebra 1 course.

Table 4.20.
2009 MATH CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Math CST
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
General Math 127/144 88.2% 24%
Algebra 1 83/113 73.5% 23%
Geometry 47/79 59.5% 34%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.21.
2009 MATH CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Math CST
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
General Math 13/144 9% 54%
Algebra 1 29/113 25.7% 34%
Geometry 28/79 35.4% 79%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

77
HS #1
2009 Gr. 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 75.6% (248 out of 328)
• White Students: 21.3% (70 out of 328)

Conclusions:
• 40% of all white Gr. 9 students took geometry (28 out of 70) – 79%
Proficient
• 19% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took geometry (47 out of 248) – 34%
Proficient
• 41.4% of all white Gr. 9 students took Alg. 1 (29 out of 70) – 34%
Proficient
• 33.5% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took Alg. 1 (83 out of 248) – 23%
Proficient
• 18.6% of all white Gr. 9 students took General Math (13 out of 70) – 54%
Proficient
• 51.2% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took General Math (127 out of 248) –
24% Proficient

78
The 2009 course placement is also analogous to 2008 data as seen in Tables
4.22 and 4.23.

Table 4.22.
2008 MATH CST: Grade 9 Latino Students
Grade 9 Math CST
Latino Students/
Total Students % Latino CST Proficiency
General Math 81/97 83.5% 15%
Algebra 1 98/127 77.2% 7%
Geometry 50/88 56.8% 14%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

Table 4.23.
2008 MATH CST: Grade 9 White Students
Grade 9 Math CST
White Students/
Total Students % White CST Proficiency
General Math 15/97 15.5% 27%
Algebra 1 22/127 17.3% 14%
Geometry 31/88 35.2% 39%
*Retrieved via CDE DataQuest website

79
HS #1
2008 Gr. 9 Student Population
• Latino Students: 71.5% (231 out of 323)
• White Students: 23.2% (75 out of 323)

Conclusions:
• 41.3% of all white Gr. 9 students took geometry (31 out of 75) – 39%
Proficient
• 21.6% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took geometry (50 out of 231) – 14%
Proficient
• 29.3% of all white Gr. 9 students took Alg. 1 (22 out of 75) – 14%
Proficient
• 42.4% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took Alg. 1 (98 out of 231) – 7%
Proficient
• 20% of all white Gr. 9 students took General Math (15 out of 75) – 27%
Proficient
• 35.1% of all Latino Gr. 9 students took General Math (81 out of 231) –
15% Proficient

80
Discussion
A stated objective of Coastal View Unified School District is reducing the
achievement gap between their white and Latino student populations. The goal was
echoed in interviews with the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and the four
comprehensive high school principals. Tracking the achievement gap became a
district policy in all schools beginning around June 2009. CVUSD defined the
achievement gap as the disparity in D and F course grades between the collective
lower achieving English Learner (ELs) and higher achieving English Only (EO)
students. The percentage of D and F grades for EL students was approximately
100% to 200% greater than EO students in four central subject areas: math, English,
science and history.
The district decided the best strategy to reduce the achievement gap was: (1)
Measuring the D and F grade rates between EL and EO students; (2) Issue a district
mandate to reduce the D and F rates between ELs and EOs. The methods by which
the four comprehensive high schools could reduce the D and F rates were left
entirely up to the individual school principals. The district directive was simply that
the grade gap between the EOs and ELs must be reduced.
In the district’s planning and implementation process, CVUSD did not state a
specified benchmark of success for the D and F grade reduction policy. The mandate
was to reduce the grade achievement gap but to what level was never determined.
As evidenced in district data, the percentage of Ds and Fs by ELs slightly
decreased between June 2009 and June 2010. However the percentage of Ds and Fs

81
by EOs also slightly decreased between June 2009 and June 2010. The achievement
gap as defined by CVUSD did not decrease. In addition, as seen in the research,
Latino students were taking lower level, less rigorous classes than white students.
Latino students are largely enrolled in non A-G courses preventing them from UC
and/or CSU entrance while white students are mostly taking courses making them
college-eligible.
Evidence of a persistent achievement gap lay in additional metrics of Latino
access to higher education. Within CVUSD, Latinos continue to underperform
compared to whites in SAT participation rates, California Standards Test (CST)
levels, and, most important to this study, completion of all A-G courses for UC
and/or CSU entrance.
The current ability of the district to increase Latino access to higher
education and reduce the Latino achievement gap is highly doubtful within their
current D and F grade reduction strategy. Latino student enrollment within CVUSD
has increased substantially since 2000 and will continue to increase. Growth of the
Latino student population should also compel CVUSD to assess the current
discussed disparities and allow the district to reconceptualize an objective, a course
of action, and a measure of success.

82
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Like many unified school districts in California, Coastal View Unified
School District (CVUSD) has witnessed an increasing Latino student population. As
the number and percentage of Latino students grew, CVUSD saw an increasing
disparity in educational outcomes between their Latino and white students. A
glaring gap was the access to higher education or college eligibility for Latinos
versus whites. Under the leadership of the current CVUSD superintendent, a district
plan was developed in 2009 to measure and reduce the stated disparities. The plan
focuses on reducing the grade gap in Ds and Fs between English Learner (EL) and
English Only (EO) students. Approximately 94% of ELs are Latino. The belief was,
and continues to be, if the grade gap is reduced then the larger disparities such as
seen in college access will also dissipate. In implementing the plan, the
superintendent had a ‘hands-off’ approach and directed the school site principals to
execute the directive in their own fashion. The mandate was the grade gap must be
reduced however the principals have the ability to create their own methodology in
erasing the grade gap.
Conclusions
The study findings indicate CVUSD is not increasing Latino access to higher
education as well as not closing the Latino achievement gap in the district’s four
comprehensive high schools. Within college access indicators such as A-G course

83
completion and CAHSEE passage rates CVUSD has seen an increasing Latino
achievement gap when compared with white students in the district.
CVUSD has singularly defined the achievement gap between Latino and
white students as a grade gap between English Learner (EL) and English Only (EO)
students. The district’s position being if the grade gap was reduced then Latino
students who were also EL would then see greater success in other student
performance metrics. The D and F grade reduction policy does not take into account
the fact that Latino students largely take less rigorous, non A-G courses than white
students as evidenced in study research. Even though Latinos are taking arguably
easier courses than white students they are still failing at much greater rates.
Using the district’s argument, even if the grade gap were reduced to zero, a
Latino student could theoretically have a grade of C or better in all classes but still
not be able to apply to a four-year college or university. The reason is the majority of
Latino students are not enrolled in A-G courses necessary for access to university.
The district’s view of the achievement gap does not encompass additional metrics of
Latino student performance outside of grades.
Secondly, it is easy to manipulate or ‘game’ a district D and F grade
reduction policy. District and school site administration each track and analyze D
and F grade rates at a district level, school level, and teacher level. Course grades
are tracked for each teacher. In an interview with the CVUSD assistant
superintendent of Secondary Education, there is pressure placed by the district on
principals to reduce the D and F grade rates. If pressure is put on a teacher by a

84
school principal for failing a large percentage of students, the teacher could simply
not fail as many students. The gaming method was stated in an interview with
Principal 3.
One of the teachers sarcastically made a pretty comical remark at our
[professional development] meeting saying, ‘If the D and F reduction is our
goal, we can take care of that data immediately.’ And we kind of laughed at
the comment for the moment, he was of course treading on dangerous ground
when, yes, you could just reduce the Ds and Fs by being more lax and
reducing your standards and lowering the bar.

In interviews with school site principals there are no mechanisms in place that would
prevent a teacher from gaming a district D and F grade reduction policy.
As shown in the research, there is no correlation between decreasing the D
and F grade gap between Latino and white students and reducing the achievement
gap in CVUSD.
Recommendations for CVUSD
Recommendation 1. Expand the definition of the achievement gap. A grade
gap is the current measure of achievement gap within CVUSD. Grades can be one
measure however, more importantly for educational outcomes, additional metrics
should be added. One additional metric is access to higher education. Proficiency
levels on the California Standards Test (CST) do not determine college
matriculation. College-eligibility is determined by college entrance exam
(SAT/ACT) participation and subsequent scores, CAHSEE passage, and graduates
completing all A-G courses for UC and/or CSU entrance. By CVUSD increasing

85
their definition of the achievement gap, the district will have a better measure of
educational outcomes for Latino students as well as all students.
Recommendation 2. District strategy as product and process. Any district
strategy must have an objective, a target where success is reached within a given
time frame. CVUSD currently does not have a target or objective for their Latino
and EL populations. If there is no target or the aim is ambiguous, there can be no
achievement. The question, “What is the objective the district strategy seeks to
achieve?” must be answered. The question, “The attainment of what target will
achieve the objective?” must also be answered.
Second, a district strategy allocates resources. Resources are finite. If a
strategy is effectively planned and evaluated, resources can be directed to produce
the greatest results across the four comprehensive high schools.
Third, district strategy must entail detailed planning. If the goal is to increase
the collective achievement of all Latino students, then there must be collective
planning with district and site level administration. The district strategy must be
designed by those who are also implementing the strategy.
Fourth, district strategy must include a process of implementation. Just as
there is collective planning for a district strategy for collective Latino achievement,
there must also be collective implementation. A decentralized, autonomous
implementation of a district strategy must not be undertaken. Such an
implementation would produce uneven implementation and uneven results. As the

86
strategy is implemented, there should be time made for evaluation by district and
school principals. Evaluation allows a strategy to be revised and improved.
Recommendation 3. Push-In Model of Intervention. Unified school districts
such as CVUSD have a tremendous advantage as they can track and measure
individual and combined student learning over a period of several years. Therefore
the district has several opportunities or points to intervene and increase the
probability of a Latino student being college-eligible by high school graduation. As
of 2009, less than 25% of Latino students are college-eligible as determined by A-G
course completion in CVUSD.
A push-in model of intervention could improve the course sequence of a
defined number of Latino students. If Latino students in large numbers are not
college-eligible, then they must be “pushed” into higher-level courses with the
appropriate supports. Latino students need to be taken off the track of only high
school graduation and placed on the track of college graduation.
Recommendation 4. In designing a district strategy to increase Latino
achievement, research successful strategies from other school districts. There are a
number of traditional school districts and public charter school districts that have
shown success in reducing the achievement gap and increasing Latino college-
eligibility.
Recommendations for Future Research Questions
The study attempted to identify one suburban school district’s
implementation of a strategy to improve Latino access to higher education. As

87
researched, the district has been unable to show growth in increasing Latino access
to higher education to date. A further examination could be accomplished to assist in
the development of a district strategy with the research questions below as a guide:
• Are there district-level examples where a D and F grade reduction policy
has solely increased university access for a student population?
• How is the district aligning itself to current research on increasing Latino
student achievement and college matriculation?
• How is CVUSD increasing college awareness knowledge in district
middle schools especially among poor, Latino students?
• How is the district developing the skills of current school principals to
work with and support an increasingly Latino student population?
• How is the district superintendent increasing the capacity of district
personnel to support schools?
• How is qualitative data used to understand parent and student experiences
at district schools?
• How does the district identify the most effective teaching practices for
Latinos and ELs?
Implications
This section will focus on implications of this study for practice. The
recommendations are centered on school district leaders and school site leaders. The
recommendations below are based on study findings regarding Latino access to
higher education and increasing Latino achievement in schools.

88
1. School District Leaders
a. Mandate matriculation between district middle schools and high schools.
When asked if CVUSD builds time for matriculation discussions between
the feeder middle schools and high schools, Principal 3 stated, “Not
formally. It’s really up to the schools to do.” Additional CVUSD high
school principals echoed the answer by Principal 3. Communication
between middle schools and high schools can improve curriculum
alignment, share strategies for at-risk students, and stream successful
instructional programs from middle school to high school.
b. Make district and school information easily accessible in Spanish. In
order for parents to get involved in schools and support their child’s
education, districts should provide readily available information in
Spanish. Case in point: The CVUSD website is entirely in English. At
the bottom of the website in the lower right hand corner, in small print, is
the word ‘Translation’ in English.
c. Mandate programs across all high schools focusing on increasing Latino
student achievement. Case in point: The Puente Project is a reading and
college information program targeting Latino students in use at CVUSD
High School #1, the highest percentage of Latino students. Districts
should standardize such programs across all schools.
d. Research practices of other unified school districts. Latino student
populations are increasing statewide and across the United States. Put

89
time into researching how other districts are working to increase Latino
achievement and Latino college-eligibility.
e. Increase strategy sharing. As a part of developing school site principals,
districts should create the opportunity for campus visits. Having a built-
in time for visitation could increase intra-district communication on
successful instructional and programmatic practices.
2. School Site Leaders
Increase Latino parent participation. Schools can draw more parents to the
campus if the school provides parent resources. Having health and social agencies
provide information and services at school parent meetings will increase parent
participation. In addition, the school can then become a resource in itself to parents.
Also having a Spanish-speaking parent liaison officer at each school will help to
coordinate parent activities and resources.
a. Increase college information to parents. Schools should begin providing
college information to parents in middle school. The earlier the parents
receive the information, the earlier the conversation can begin on how to
make sure Latino students are on track to complete the necessary A-G
courses for college entrance.
b. Define college-readiness and provide teacher training. Teachers need
guidance on how they can better understand how to equip students with
college-necessary skills.

90
REFERENCES
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate
their work; An introduction to action research across the professions.
Routledge. p. 147. (2nd edition).

American College Testing, ACT. (2005). State of College Readiness for Latino
Students. Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/CollegeReadinessLatino.pdf

Bangser, M. (2008, August). Preparing high school students for successful
transitions to postsecondary education and employment (Issue Brief).
Washington, D.C.: National High School Center.

Belfield, C. and Levin, H. (2007). The Economic Losses from High School Dropouts
in California. California Dropout Research Project, UC Santa Barbara:
August.

Bilton, Tony et al (1996). Introducing Sociology, 3
rd
Edition. London: Macmillan:
655.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, 241-258.

Brewer, E.W., & Landers, J.M. (2005). A Longitudinal Study of the Talent Search
Program. Journal of Career Development, 31.3, 195-208.

Brodinsky, B. (1976). 12 Major Events That Shaped America’s Schools. The Phi
Delta Kappan, Vol. 58, No. 1 (September), 68-77.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

California Postsecondary Education Commission (2005, March). University
Preparedness of Public High School Graduates. Commission Report 05-05.
California Postsecondary Education Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2005reports/05-05.pdf

California State University Division of Analytic Studies (2009). Fall 2008 First-time
Freshman Remediation Systemwide. California State University. Long
Beach, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/proficiency.shtml

91
Center for Labor Market Studies. (2007). An Assessment of the Labor Market,
Income, Health, Social and Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out.
Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Retrieved from
http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/An_Assessment_of_the_Co
nsequences_of_Dropping_Out_of_High_School_in_Illinois.pdf

Chapa, J., & Schink, W. (2006). California community colleges: Help or hindrance
to Latinos in the higher education pipeline?. New Directions for Community
Colleges, (133), 41-50.

Cisneros, Henry (2009). Latino Population Challenges US Future. Newsweek,
January 26.

Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982) Cognitive outcomes in public and
private schools. Sociology of Education. 55(2/3), 65-76

Creswell, J.W. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Davis, D.G. (1986). A pilot study to assess equality in selected curricular offerings
across three diverse schools in a large urban school district: A search for
methodology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2009). Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008. Available from
http://www.census.gov./prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

Dika, S. and Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature:
A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60

Duderstadt, J.J. & Womack, F.W. (2003). The Future of the Public University.
Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 7.

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Naturalistic Inquiry: A
Guide to Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2010). America’s
Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2010. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

92
Fuller, B., Coonerty, C., Kipnis, F., & Choong, Y. (1997). An Unfair Head Start:
California Families Face Gaps in Preschool and Child Care Availability. A
Report for the Growing Up in Poverty Project. November. Berkeley-Stanford
PACE Center, Yale University, and the California Child Care Resource and
Referral Network.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An
introduction. (7
th
ed.). Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Gamoran, A. (1992). Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Educational Leadership, 50, 2.

Gandara, Patricia (2009). The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed
Social Policies. Harvard University Press: 432.

Gardner, D. (2007, March 1). Confronting the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan,
542-546.

Glied, S., & Mahato, B. (2008, May). The Widening Health Care Gap Between
High- and Low-Wage Workers, The Commonwealth Fund.

Golin, Ilana (2009). Race Still Matters: Making the Case for a Racial Lens in
Measuring Poverty and Inequality. The Greenlining Institute: 8.

Hagedorn, L.S., & Lester, J. (2006). Hispanic Community College Students and the
Transfer Game: Strikes, Misses, and Grand Slam Experiences. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 827-853.

Haney, W., Madaus, G., Adams, L., Wheelock, A., Miao, J., and Gruia, I. (2004,
January). The Education Pipeline in the United States: 1970-2000. Chestnut
Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.

Haycock, K., Jerald, C., & Huang, S. (2001). Closing the gap: Done in a decade.
Thinking K-16, 5(2), 3-22.

Hechinger, J. (2009). SAT Scores Fall as Gap Widens; Asians Gain. Wall Street
Journal, August 26. Retrieved October 12, 2010 from
http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB125121641858657345.html.

Hobbs, F. & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic trends in the 20
th
century: Census 2000
special reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Hyland, N. (2006). Detracking in the Social Studies: A Path to a More Democratic
Education? Theory into Practice 45(1): 64-71.

93
Ilon, L., & Normore, A.H. (2006, Winter). Relative cost-effectiveness of school
resources in improving achievement. Journal of Education Finance, 31(3),
238-254.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The black-white test score gap.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Jennings, J.F. (1995). National Issues in Education: Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International.

Kochhar, Rakesh (2004). The Wealth of Hispanic Households: 1996 to 2002. The
Pew Hispanic Center, Washington D.C. October: 44.

Krugman, Paul (1992). The Rich, The Right and The Facts. The American Prospect,
11, 19-31.

Kulik, J.A, & Kulik, C.C. (1992). Meta-Analytic findings on grouping programs.
Gifted Children Quarterly, 36 (2), 73-77.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt:
Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. American Educational
Research Association, Vol. 35, No. 7, 3-12.

Lara-Cinisomo, S., Pebley, A. R., Vaiana, M. E., & Maggio, E. (2004). Are L.A.’s
children ready for school? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress
towards equity? Educational Researcher 31: 3-12.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormond, J. E. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Merril Prentice Hall.

Lin, A.C., & Harris, D.R. (2009). The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic
Disparities Persist. National Poverty Center Series on Poverty and Public
Policy, The Russell Sage Foundation, 16, January,
http://www.russellsage.org/publications/books/080117.709458.

Lleras-Muney, A. (2005). The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality
in the U.S. Review of Economic Studies, vol. 72, no. 1, 189-221.

94
Lopez, E.M. (2001, May). Guidance of Latino High School Students in Mathematics
and Career Identity Development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
23(2), 189-207. Retrieved from
http://hjb.sagepub.com/content/23/2/189.abstract

McKinsey & Company (2009). The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in
America's Schools. Social Sector Office: 9.

Meara, E., Richards, S., & Cutler, D.M. (2008). The Gap Gets Bigger: Changes in
Mortality and Life Expectancy, By Education, 1981-2000. Health Affairs,
27(2): 350-360.

Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Milano, J., Reed, B., & Weinstein, P. (2009, September). A Matter of Degrees:
Tomorrow’s Fastest-Growing Jobs and Why Community College Graduates
Will Get Them. The New Democratic Leadership Council. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www. dlc.org/documents/DLC_HotJobs.pdf

Mondale, S. (2001). School: The Story of American Public Education. New York:
Beacon.

Montgomery, S.L. (1993). Science, Education, and Republican Values: Trends of
Faith in America: 1750-1830. Journal of Science, Education and Technology.
Vol. 2, No. 4 (December), 521-540.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (1997).
Students Whose Parents Did Not Go To College. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (2002).
Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002114.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (2000).
NAEP 1999: Trends in Academic Progress, Three Decades of Student
Performance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main1999/2000469.pdf

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6319 (2001).

95
Oakes, J. (1987). Tracking in Secondary Schools: A Contextual Perspective. Santa
Monica, CA. Rand Corp.

Ornelas, A., & Solorzano, D.G. (2004). Transfer Conditions of Latina/o Community
College Students: A Single Institution Case Study. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice 28: 233-248.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA. Sage Publications, Inc; 3
rd
Edition.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (Eds.). (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant
Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Porter, O.F. (1991). Where do we go from here: Looking beyond student aid and
access to persistence. In J.P. Merisotis (ed.), The Changing Dimensions of
Student Aid. New Directions for Higher Education (75-90), No. 74. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

President’s Commission on Higher Education. (1947). Higher Education for
American Democracy: A Report of the President’s Commission on Higher
Education. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Putnam, Robert (1995). Bowling Alone: American’s Declining Social Capital.
Journal of Democracy 6:1, 65-78.

Rendon, L.I. & Valadez, J.R. (1993). Qualitative Indicators of Hispanic Student
Transfer. Community College Review, 20(4), 27-37.

Research Project. UCLA/IDEA. UCLA Institute for Democracy Education and
Access (IDEA). Retrieved from
http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/WhatFactorsPredict.pdf

Rogers et al. (2009). Educational Opportunities in Hard Times: The Impact of the
Economic Crisis on Public Schools and Working Families. 2010 Educational
Opportunity Report. UCLA IDEA: 28.

Rogers, K.B. (1991). The Relationship of Grouping Practices to the Education of the
Gifted and Talented Learner. The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented.

Santiago, D.A., & Brown, S.E., (2004). Federal Policy and Latinos in Higher
Education: A Guide for Policymakers and Grantmakers. PEW Hispanic
Center Study. Washington, DC.

96
Schmidt, P. (2003, September 12). Prepaid-Tuition Plans Feel the Pinch. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 19.

Shepard, J.F., & Walton, G.M. (1972). Shipping, Maritime Trade, and the Economic
Development of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
MA, 160-161.

Silver, D., Saunders, M., & Zarate, E. (2008, June). What Factors Predict High
School Graduation in the Los Angeles Unified School District. California
Dropout Research Project Report #14. California Dropout U.S.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing Hope and Despair: The School and Kin
Support Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth. New York: Teachers College
Press.

The U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1975). Historical Statistics of the United States,
Colonial Times to 1970. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington D.C.
Part 2, 1176-1177.

U.S. General Accounting Office (1997, February). School Finance: State Efforts to
Reduce Funding Between Poor and Wealthy Districts. GAO, Health,
Education, and Human Services Division, Washington DC.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2000). (Office of the General Counsel).
Retrieved from http://www.usccr.gov/

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2009). Hispanics in the United
States. Available from http://www.census.gov.
/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/files/Internet_Hispanic_in_US_2006.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2004). Educational Attainment in
the United States: 2003. Available from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2008). Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Employment
Projections: 2008-2018 Summary. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of
Labor. Retrieved from http://www. bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm

97
Vernez, G., & Mizell, L. (2001). Goal: To Double the Rate of Hispanics Earning a
Bachelor’s Degree. RAND Education Center for Research on Immigration
Policy.

Wild, L., & Ebbers, L. (2002). Rethinking student retention in community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(6), 503-519.

Williams, D.R., & Collins, C. (2001). Racial Residential Segregation: A
Fundamental Cause of Racial Disparities in Health. Public Health Reports,
Sept-Oct; 116(5), 404-416.

Yellen, J.L. (2006). Speech to the Center for the Study of Democracy at the
University of California, Irvine. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

98
APPENDIX A
COVER LETTER AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEW
PARTICIPANTS
Erik Elward
7500 El Manor Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90045
323.877.7721
elward@usc.edu

District-level Administrator/School-site Administrator
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
2985 Bear Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(Date)
Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms.:
The focus of my dissertation is observing replicable programs and practices leading
to improved Latino access to higher education within Newport-Mesa Unified School
District. The study will examine the district’s strategic plan for increasing Latino
student achievement and how the plan is being implemented at the school-site level.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance by participating in the completion of a
semi-structured interview that is intended to occupy 30 minutes of your time. The
interview will be tape recorded and later transcribed in the form of a transcript. The
interview will be conducted at your work site.

The results of the interview will be used only in this study and your name will not be
included. Your personal contact information will be kept in strict confidence and
locked in a file cabinet. A transcript of the interview will be provided to you to
ensure the accuracy of your responses. At the conclusion of the study, this
information will be destroyed—anticipated date: March 1, 2011. Should you accept
the invitation to participate in the interview, please sign the consent form attached.

I look forward to receiving your responses within the next week (by date). Please
mail the completed informed consent form using the enclosed stamped envelope.
Again, thank you for your kind assistance and support.

Sincerely,

99
Erik Elward
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
elward@usc.edu

(enclosure)

100
Interview Consent Form
Project Title: Increasing Latino Access to Higher Education: A Suburban
District’s Design and Implementation
I authorize Erik Elward, a doctoral student under the supervision of Dr. Pedro Garcia
in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California to
include me in the dissertation titled: Increasing Latino Access to Higher Education:
A Suburban District’s Design and Implementation.

I understand my participation in this study is strictly voluntary and will require me to
take part in an interview that is designed to occupy approximately 30 minutes of my
time.

I have been asked to participate in this study because I am a district-level or school-
site level administrator and have information that is useful to this study.

I will be asked to participate in an interview regarding the district and school-site
practices and programs to improve Latino access to higher education.

I understand that I will be audio taped if I decide to participate in this study. The
tapes will be used for research purposes only. The tapes will be stored in a locked
file cabinet and will be destroyed after a period of 5 years.

I understand that there are no obvious risks of participating in this study. I also
understand that there is no direct benefit from my participation, but there may be
benefits to districts and school sites working to improve Latino student achievement
in the United States.

I understand that I have the right to refuse participation. Moreover, if I become
uncomfortable at any time during the interview, I can discontinue my participation
and the results will not be used in the study. I also have the right to refuse to answer
any question.

I understand that none of the information gathered from participation will be released
to others without my permission, or as required by California and Federal law.

I understand that I will not be compensated, financial or otherwise, for participating
in this study.

I understand that if I have any questions regarding the study procedures, I can
contact Erik Elward, via telephone (323.877.7721) or via email (elward@usc.edu)

101
for answers. If I have further questions, I may contact Dr. Pedro Garcia at the
University of Southern California. If I have further questions about my rights as a
research participant, I may contact Dr. Kevin Collins, Institutional Review Board
Advisor, via email (kevin.collins@usc.edu) or via telephone (213.740.4267).
I understand to my satisfaction the information in the consent from regarding my
participation in the research project. All of my questions have been answered to my
satisfaction. I have received a copy of this informed consent form which I have read
and understand. I hereby consent to participate in the research as described herein.

___________________________________
Participant’s Signature

___________________________________
Date

I have explained and defined in detail the research procedure in which the subject
has consented to participate. Having explained this and answered any questions, I am
cosigning this form and accepting this person’s consent.

___________________________________
Researcher’s Signature

___________________________________
Date

102
APPENDIX B
EMAIL TO SUBJECTS REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY
Hello (Name),
I hope all is well.
I am a student in the Doctor of Education program at the University of Southern
California. I am working with Newport-Mesa Unified School District and
Superintendent Dr. Jeffrey Hubbard in conducting a study in partial fulfillment of my
doctoral degree requirements. A focus of my dissertation is examining the district’s
approach to closing the Latino achievement gap in their four comprehensive high
schools. Being a comprehensive high school principal makes you eligible for this
study. Your participation in this study is voluntary.

I am writing to ask you to participate as a subject for my dissertation. One
component to this study is to interview the four comprehensive high school
principals in order to determine school-site level plans for increasing Latino student
achievement and Latino access to higher education.

I am hoping you may be willing to participate in a 30 minute interview regarding
your school-site practices.

Please respond to this email and inform me if you would like to participate. If you
agree, I will send you a cover letter and consent forms via regular U.S. mail. Thank
you for your time and I hope to speak with you soon.

Sincerely,
Erik Elward
elward@usc.edu
eelward@laalliance.org

103
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Biographical Information
1. Name
2. Position
3. How many years have you been an educational administrator?
4. How many years have you been an educational administrator within
Newport-Mesa Unified School District?

Interview Questions for District-Level Administrators
Research Question #1: What is the district’s strategic plan for increasing Latino
student achievement and Latino access to higher education?

1. What is the district’s strategic plan for increasing Latino student achievement
and Latino access to higher education?
2. What data determined that this plan happens?
3. Who determined that this plan happens?
4. When was this plan put into effect?
5. What evidence is available that the efforts have been successful?
6. What feedback have you received from school-level administrators, parents,
and community leaders about your efforts in this area?
7. How are individual schools held accountable for implementing district
mission and vision?

Research Question #3: What success predictors has the district defined for the
Latino student population?

1. What success predictors has the district defined for the Latino student
population?
2. When discussing closing the Latino achievement gap, what type of data is
aggregated?
3. In implementing programs and practices targeting Latinos, how is
effectiveness measured?
4. How do you sustain success?
5. How is data used by the district to support student learning?

104
6. How often is data analyzed at the district level?
7. Who is responsible for data disaggregation, dissemination, and review of
data?
8. How is this information shared with the comprehensive school sites?

Interview Questions for School-Level Administrators
Research Question #2: How is the district’s plan for increasing Latino student
achievement being successfully implemented by school leadership and teachers at
the site level?

1. How is the district’s plan for increasing Latino student achievement being
successfully implemented by school leadership and teachers at the site level?
2. What programs, practices, and cultural norms does the school have in place
to ensure that Latino students achieve?
3. What programs have improved content learning for all students but
specifically for Latino students?
4. What programs have improved Latino student achievement in literacy skills?
5. What programs have improved Latino student achievement in mathematics?
6. Do the practices at this school differ from the district policies? If so, please
share how.
7. What is the school’s mission and vision for increasing Latino student
achievement?
8. What student performance data is analyzed at your school site?
9. How often is student performance data analyzed at the school site? By
whom?
10. How is student performance data shared with the comprehensive school
sites?
11. How is student performance data disseminated to students and their families?
12. How do you know that teachers are implementing the programs and
practices?
13. What advice would you give to other schools that want to emulate programs,
practices and cultural norms to close the achievement gap?
14. What professional development opportunities are available to teachers in said
programs and practices?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine how Coastal View Unified School District, a high-performing suburban district, planned and implemented a strategy for closing the achievement gap between its White student population and its increasing Latino student population. This dissertation focused on the gap in college eligibility and how the district was increasing Latino access to higher education within their four comprehensive high schools. Improving Latino college matriculation is becoming increasingly important as the Latino population grows nationwide. This dissertation was meant to identify district practices and programs leading to improved Latino access to higher education. The research highlighted CVUSD does not have a comprehensive district strategy. The data also showed CVUSD has not increased Latino college matriculation rates and, in fact, the achievement gap between Latino and White students has further increased.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

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

PDF

21st century skills as equity pedagogy to teach academic content standards: a socioeconomically diverse district's implementation

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

Asset Metadata

Creator Elward, Erik (author)

Core Title Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/09/2011

Defense Date 02/28/2011

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

Tag access,achievement gap,college,High School,Higher education,Latino,matriculation,OAI-PMH Harvest,suburban,University

Place Name California (states), Costa Mesa (city or populated place), school districts: Newport-Mesa Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy M. (committee member), Pack, Emilio (committee member)

Creator Email eelward@laalliance.org,elward@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3726

Unique identifier UC1143922

Identifier etd-Elward-4396 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-443176 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3726 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Elward-4396.pdf

Dmrecord 443176

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Elward, Erik

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu